Go back
Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Spirituality

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is your claim that the Bible was written for political purposes, is it not?
My claim about the Bible's purpose is on page 18 of this thread and repeated verbatim on page 21.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
My claim about the Bible's purpose is on page 18 of this thread and repeated verbatim on page 21.
Is it or is it not your claim that the Bible was written for political purposes?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is it or is it not your claim that the Bible was written for political purposes?
You can see exactly what my claim is on pages 18 and 21. You assert that you have refuted it. Where? In which post did you refute it?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
You can see exactly what my claim is on pages 18 and 21. You assert that you have refuted it. Where? In which post did you refute it?
So we shall never know, fine, if you refuse to answer the simple question I see no point in engaging you until you do. Suffice to say that the historical evidence is at odds with the idea that the Bible was written for political purposes as is evidenced by the first century Christians who did not and would not hold public office and were as one historian described them - non-political.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So we shall never know, fine
People only have to look at pages 18 or 21 to know what my claim about the Bible's purpose is.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
People only have to look at pages 18 or 21 to know what my claim about the Bible's purpose is.
Sure whatever you say it must be true.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Suffice to say that the historical evidence is at odds with the idea that the Bible was written for political purposes as is evidenced by the first century Christians who did not and would not hold public office and were as one historian described them - non-political.
The Bible, OT and NT, set rules for the Hebrew people - the nation of Israel - and then for Christendom. I believe this was in order to establish a specific social and moral order and that this was recorded and defined by the Bible. If you don't think the purpose of the Bible was to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs, then you should just come out and say so.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
The Bible, OT and NT, set rules for the Hebrew people - the nation of Israel - and then for Christendom. I believe this was in order to establish a specific social and moral order and that this was recorded and defined by the Bible. If you don't think the purpose of the Bible was to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs, then you should just come out and say so.
Was the bible written for political purposes FMF?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Was the bible written for political purposes FMF?
As I explained on page 18, my claim is that the Bible was written to lay out rules to underpin a social and moral order for a particular group and to record its history. That was the purpose it was written for. If you feel you can refute this, be my guest.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
As I explained on page 18, my claim is that the Bible was written to lay out rules to underpin a social and moral order for a particular group and to record its history. That was the purpose it was written for. If you feel you can refute this, be my guest.
Yes I know and understand this, there is no need to repeat it ad nauseum. I will not accuse you of sophistry although its borderline in my opinion, but we are trying to establish whether or not the Bible was written for political purposes and if so how are we meant to reconcile certain historical facts that would seem to refute the idea that the Bible was written for political purposes that being that the early Christians were non-political. If you know anything about this then please let it be known, if not, then ok, lets move along.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes I know and understand this, there is no need to repeat it ad nauseum. I will not accuse you of sophistry although its borderline in my opinion, but we are trying to establish whether or not the Bible was written for political purposes and if so how are we meant to reconcile certain historical facts that would seem to refute the idea that the Bib ...[text shortened]... If you know anything about this then please let it be known, if not, then ok, lets move along.
But where is your refutation of what I claimed about the purpose of the Bible? You mentioned repeatedly that you had refuted what I said on page 18. Where?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

FMF: the Bible was written to lay out rules to underpin a social and moral order for a particular group and to record its history.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes I know and understand this, there is no need to repeat it ad nauseum.
You understand it? OK. Good. So, do you agree with it?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
But where is your refutation of what I claimed about the purpose of the Bible? You mentioned repeatedly that you had refuted what I said on page 18. Where?
I have refuted your claim with regard to the idea that John 17 was a specific dogma of Jehovah's Witnesses not what you are saying with regard to the Bible being written as some kind of blueprint for a social order. Your idea that John 17 is specific to Jehovahs witnesses stands refuted by history, its not specific aspect of Jehovas witness dogma, its was the case from the inception of Christianity.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
You understand it? OK. Good. So, do you agree with it?
Gee I dunno, I would need to think deeply about that, probably meditate on it.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have refuted your claim with regard to the idea that John 17 was a specific dogma of Jehovah's Witnesses not what you are saying with regard to the Bible being written as some kind of blueprint for a social order. Your idea that John 17 is specific to Jehovahs witnesses stands refuted by history, its not specific aspect of Jehovas witness dogma, its was the case from the inception of Christianity.
But what about my claim on page 18?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.