metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Wikipedia is not a "Christian source".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?
- Thread starter ppp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fall naked bodz! soteriology
ppp
Well-Known Member
Filled? That is quite a statement. How do you determine what is and what is not a metaphor? Just by the tradition of your particular church tradition?
InChrist
Free4ever
I think it’s the same. I’m not saying there aren’t any grammatical errors or typos by human writers, but no spiritual, doctrinal errors that impact the information God has revealed to humanity.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The Bible cannot be the same as if God had written it. Even it it was inspired by God it was written by fallible humans and as such it cannot be inerrant.
I am not talking about grammatical errors or typos, I am talking about the information.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nor is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Ironically, his source was Christian. My third source was Christian, but that is what happens when one takes the first three sources on a religious topic.
Oh, and his source said that they were early Jewish Christians as well. In other words even his chosen source said that Ebionites were a Christian sect. I think that a reading comprehension problem may be involved. Some people cannot see the parts of their own sources that refute them. They do not appear to be lying, their strong beliefs force them to skip over that part. Just as he could not see that I warned him ahead of time that he had to be polite to ask for sources. He even quoted that one or two sentence post and still claimed that I was lying about saying that. It is about the most severe case of this sort of blindness that I have ever seen.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Would a ten year difference in supposed time of Jesus's birth count as a significant error? To me that is quite significant.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
True, it's a cognitive infiltration operation. However it goes to Britannica as it's primary source and Britannica goes to the church fathers.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, the "church fathers" are not a primary source. If there were any Ebionites today they could be sited as such. But even your "primary source" stated that they were early Jewish Christians. They also used a false and loaded term against them claiming that they were heretical. That only means that they did not toe the official Catholic dogma.
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The first century Church consisted of two main groups: Jews and Gentiles as you well know, and the rules for each were different since Jews were bound by halacha [Jewish Law] but not the Gentiles. Paul's "solution" was to allow Jews to continue under the Law but the Gentiles definitely must not.
Also, as you well know, Judaism has had a long history of splintering into different groups, so it should be of no surprise that this would also eventually happen with "the Way", such as with the Ebionites and some other groups, each claiming that they were of the right faith. Familiar, eh?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No it's true. Back in the day Wikipedia and Wikileaks had internet domain names that went back to the same crowd.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh yes, I am well familiar with that. The Ebionites definitely did not follow Paul. Or even the modern Gospels. But they were still a Christian group, I never claimed or implied that they were a modern group. They were a group of Christians that either died out naturally or by force. We cannot say which. They did not believe the miraculous version of Jesus, but they still followed his teachings. Groups like the Ebionites are to me evidence that those espousing a purely mythicist version of Jesus, that is that Jesus never existed, are wrong.The first century Church consisted of two main groups: Jews and Gentiles as you well know, and the rules for each were different since Jews were bound by halacha [Jewish Law] but not the Gentiles. Paul's "solution" was to allow Jews to continue under the Law but the Gentiles definitely must not.
Also, as you well know, Judaism has had a long history of splintering into different groups, so it should be of no surprise that this would also eventually happen with "the Way", such as with the Ebionites and some other groups, each claiming that they were of the right faith. Familiar, eh?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Not all of them. In the argument with SZ he inferred that Wyatt had claimed that the chariot wheel was solid gold, but in fact Wyatt's claim was that it was gold over wood.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That could be. That does not mean that the Catholic church is the only source. Wikipedia articles improve over time as they add more and more and more sources. That an early version relied heavily on one source does not mean that source has not been replaced in more recent edits.
And you seem to ignore that all of the sources called the Ebionites Christian Jews. Like it or not that means that they were Christians.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, so what? The wheel in the picture was solid metal. Or did you miss that?
ppp
Well-Known Member
I didn't ask what can be verified through the historical record. You claimed that the Bible is filled with metaphor. I asked, how you distinguish between a statement that is metaphorical and one that is literal. If you don't have an answer, that's fine.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And yet he still doesn't have any credibility to speak of.
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
ppp
Well-Known Member
It is amusing that you think that is the point where Wyatt lacks credibility.