16 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYour ignorance of your own religion's history is simply astounding. Please cite a single reputable thelogian who claims the Gospel of Q didn't exist. And the Gnosticsa considered themselves Christians; I'm not interested in who you consider a Christian since you refuse to even say followers of the Catholic Church are Christians. You're a piece of dirt to call me a liar when I've cited a source backing my argument to the hilt and you've provided nothing but your usual vitriol.
The Gnostics were never Christians, so you're still a liar. I apologize for calling you filthy, since you probably have excellent hygiene, but you still spread lies like candy.
There is not one shred of proof that the 'Gospel of Q' existed. It is merely a secular theory to explain the Gospels and explain away Jesus' divinity as a concoction.
16 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957I agree. I know some of her works, but I believe I would have to read the majority of them to appreciate much of what she says.
I think her works would be excellent for Darfius as she has spent more time studyiing this topic than myself, #1, and Darfius combined.
16 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusLook. Darfius reads a book and suddenly he knows more about the Bible than all the scholars in Christendom. Must be that decoder ring.
Why's that? What does this author have to say that I don't know, kirk? Please, enlighten me.
Edit: Makes you wonder what he has left to learn in the other 3 years of college 🙂
16 Apr 05
Your ignorance of your own religion's history is simply astounding.
Yes, whenever someone disagrees with you, they are ignorant. We all know, O omniscient no1.
Please cite a single reputable thelogian who claims the Gospel of Q didn't exist.
Craig Blomberg
And the Gnosticsa considered themselves Christians; I'm not interested in who you consider a Christian since you refuse to even say followers of the Catholic Church are Christians.
OK. I consider myself a lawyer. I guess it doesn't matter if I know law, since by your logic, we can simply "call" ourselves things.
You're a piece of dirt to call me a liar when I've cited a source backing my argument to the hilt and you've provided nothing but your usual vitriol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIf you're ever in Dallas have a chat with Daniel Wallace or you could simply read this excellent article:
[b] Your ignorance of your own religion's history is simply astounding.
Yes, whenever someone disagrees with you, they are ignorant. We all know, O omniscient no1.
Please cite a single reputable thelogian who claims the Gospel of Q didn't exist.
Craig Blomberg
And the Gnosticsa considered themselves Christians; I'm n ...[text shortened]... you've provided nothing but your usual vitriol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism[/b]
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=669.
The evidence for the existence of Q is overwhelming.
Are Catholics Christians, Darfius? Not according to you. There's a bar association that has the authority to say who's a lawyer, but you, PreacherBoy, have not been given the authority to decide who was and is a Christian. The Gnostics were Christians.
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOn the contrary, my authority is the Word of God, and Paul says we should judge those who call themselves believers.
If you're ever in Dallas have a chat with Daniel Wallace or you could simply read this excellent article:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=669.
The evidence for the existence of Q is overwhelming.
Are Catholics Christians, Darfius? Not according to you. There's a bar association that has the authority to say who's ...[text shortened]... not been given the authority to decide who was and is a Christian. The Gnostics were Christians.
Guess what, the Gnostics fail the test of the Word of God.
Learn before you speak.
I guess this is where I'll take the atheist's stance and say I simply have a "lack of belief in the Gospel of Q" because I can't see it.