curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.

---

No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.

---

When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?

---

Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.

---

My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.

---

The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.

---

If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.

---

I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)

---

So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?

---

We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.

---

How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.

---

Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.

I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.

I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

---

When did Democrats bomb children?

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

---

When did Democrats bomb children?

---

The Obama administration authorized a number of drone strikes in the Middle East that, no doubt, killed children. But that had basically been US foreign policy until a recent (and fortunate IMO) turn toward anti-interventionism.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

---

When did Democrats bomb children?

---

Exactly.

bear2be2 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

---

When did Democrats bomb children?

---

The Obama administration authorized a number of drone strikes in the Middle East that, no doubt, killed children. But that had basically been US foreign policy until a recent (and fortunate IMO) turn toward anti-interventionism.

---

I'm not sure which ones you believe killed children, but in every combat theater we operate the have been and there is risk children will die. It's not a R or D issue. The U. S. military supplied Israelies just finished using U. S. supplied weapons which inadvertently killed children. Cheney's foreign policy position and use of military force is not unlike every other R House member. When has she voted for the use of military force out of step with the other R House members?

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

---

When did Democrats bomb children?

---

Exactly.

---

See my previous post to bear2be2.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.

---

No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.

---

When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?

---

Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.

---

My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.

---

The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.

---

If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.

---

I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)

---

So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?

---

We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.

---

How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.

---

Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.

I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.

I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.

---

The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.

Cheney isn't going anywhere if this guy is the best they can muster to challenge her.

Republican House candidate Anthony Bouchard, who will challenge Liz Cheney in Wyoming, admits he had a relationship with and impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 18.https://t.co/gntILmvO6D

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) May 21, 2021

HuMcK said:

---

Cheney isn't going anywhere if this guy is the best they can muster to challenge her.

Republican House candidate Anthony Bouchard, who will challenge Liz Cheney in Wyoming, admits he had a relationship with and impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 18.https://t.co/gntILmvO6D

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) May 21, 2021

---

It's Wyoming.

Not a herd to pull from.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.

---

No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.

---

When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?

---

Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.

---

My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.

---

The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.

---

If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.

---

I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)

---

So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?

---

We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.

---

How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.

---

Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.

I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.

I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.

---

The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.

---

That's why disillusioned early Christians latched onto anything they could try to rationalize into an explanation for what happened.

whiterock said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.

At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.

I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.

---

The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.

---

It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.

At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.

I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.

---

The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.

---

It was close to an insurrection. If the mob would have disrupted the counting and declared the vote invalid and, If Trump would have accepted this as a mandate from the people that this election was invalid and canceled the transition of power from the election then the USA would have been in a quandary.

---

If

TexasScientist said:

---

How many instances are you aware of where a transgender person assaulted a male or female in a restroom?

---

You think men should be allowed in the little girls room?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Politicians gonna politic.

There is virtually no straight up national level politician.

They are self enriching scum besides a few exceptions.

---

Liz Cheney is one of the few exceptions apparently. There is no way she is doing this to enhance her power or enrich herself. This is purely a stand on principal.

Yet many who say "we just want politicians to be straight with us" and "they are all out for themselves" vilify this politician for being straight with us and taking a stand against her personal interest.

The lesson, as always, is we get the government we deserve.

---

I see you're a man of words, not actions.

She will support forever wars and selling out to the highest bidder despite telling you she won't.

---

And you base this. Conclusion on what?

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

Let's see. Stefanik came out against Trump's pull out of Syria.

---

So did Cheney, both are war supporters.

GOP sucks and nobody cares when Democrats bomb children.

---

When did Democrats bomb children?

---

Drone kills under Obama. For one.

Rawhide said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

How many instances are you aware of where a transgender person assaulted a male or female in a restroom?

---

You think men should be allowed in the little girls room?

---

I saw Rick Carlisle take his daughter into the women's restroom. Nobody freaked.

Now about those transgender assault numbers...

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

How many instances are you aware of where a transgender person assaulted a male or female in a restroom?

---

You think men should be allowed in the little girls room?

---

I saw Rick Carlisle take his daughter into the women's restroom. Nobody freaked.

Now about those transgender assault numbers...

---

I don't recall asking you the question.

I also don't recall saying anything about transgender or assault. My questions was simple and not directed at you.

You're like a little gnat

Florda_mike said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

---

Based on your many postings I'm going to speculate if you were old enough at the time that you fully supported the invasion. It was just the loss you don't like. There is no doubt this was Bush's Nixon moment.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.

---

No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.

---

When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?

---

Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.

---

My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.

---

The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.

---

If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.

---

I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)

---

So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?

---

We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.

---

How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.

---

Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.

I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.

I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.

---

The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.

---

That's why disillusioned early Christians latched onto anything they could try to rationalize into an explanation for what happened.

---

How can you know what early Christians "latched onto"?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

She's batting .1000 at supporting war, just like her lying daddy.

---

---

Based on your many postings I'm going to speculate if you were old enough at the time that you fully supported the invasion. It was just the loss you don't like. There is no doubt this was Bush's Nixon moment.

---

I am old enough indeed and yes you're correct I did support Bush/Chaney but I had no clue of what I now know in that BOTH ARE DEEP DEEP STATE IN THE WORST WAY!

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.

At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.

I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.

---

The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.

---

It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.

---

That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.

The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.

---

You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.

---

Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.

---

No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.

---

When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?

---

Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.

---

My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.

---

The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.

---

If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.

---

I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)

---

So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?

---

We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.

---

How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.

---

Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.

I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.

I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.

---

The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.

---

That's why disillusioned early Christians latched onto anything they could try to rationalize into an explanation for what happened.

---

How can you know what early Christians "latched onto"?

---

Critical scholars and historians tell us what they did. It's evidenced in their early writings, including the gospels.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.

I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.

---

No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.

---

When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?

---

Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.

---

My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.

That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.

---

The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.

---

If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.

---

I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)

---

So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?

---

We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.

---

How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.

---

Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.

I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.

I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.

---

The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.

---

That's why disillusioned early Christians latched onto anything they could try to rationalize into an explanation for what happened.

---

How can you know what early Christians "latched onto"?

---

Critical scholars and historians tell us what they did. It's evidenced in their early writings, including the gospels.

---

Critical scholars and historians tell us what they believe they did. Still amounts to using something viewed as flawed or in error in some way to evaluate that same presumed flawed or in error information. What could possibly go wrong?

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.

At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.

I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.

---

The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.

---

It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.

---

That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.

The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.

---

You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.

---

Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.

---

It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.

---

You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.

Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.

---

times 10