In case I'm not able to get on tomorrow.....

subscribing

Yo Dunce and DJ

I''ve been having a somewhat civil exchange with Kris Komarnitsky (author of Doubting Jesus' Resurrection) though it was hard to keep a straight face....more than anything else, he reminded me of someone here....Johnny Skeptic.

Example: When I told him Paul does not mention details about the empty tomb, because he was in a high context society, he answered:

[With] everything else Paul mentions about Jesus' resurrection, it is inconceivable to me that he did not mention the discovered empty tomb, even in a high-context society.

Well, I tried....

I second the nomination of yo

I win!

Oh, wait. Wrong thread.

Along with everything that Jimbo and yo lunch post, everything that Gatsby posts as well: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/se...archid=2348226

For example:

Originally posted by Gatsby

you do know that the Beatles are a spiritual group, or were I should say.

Originally posted by Gatsby

Satan IS the 5 sense of humankind, that is what Satan means. It doens't mean some evil person.

...and in that same post...

To believe that you or I or anyone is seperate from God is of Satan, known as the liar because Satan only allows us to perceive things outside ourselves when we reside within the material body. Satan is not a power on its own but it has been made that by Christain orthodoxy.

Also, everything that jesusreligion says in the "purpose of hell" thread in the apologetics forum. He thinks that Jesus' parables are just fable stories with no point or lesson to them in order to defend his view that there is no hell.

Also, his website: http://www.jesusreligion.com/.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJTQL...eature=related

More Hitchenistas trying to prop up the idea that Craig lost.

Obama is the antichrist?

(check out some of the books advertised, too)

Originally posted by Knowing Thomas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJTQL...eature=related

More Hitchenistas trying to prop up the idea that Craig lost.

Heheheheh, Hitchenistas, bahahahhahaah.

You really made laugh with this one. XD

Can I nominate a church I don't know the name of?

If so, this church mentioned on Parchment and Pen: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...music-allowed/

Originally posted by PnP

This is taken from a church’s statement of faith concerning music:

“When Christians come together to worship God they are commanded to sing (Eph.5:19;Col. 3:16).We are opposed to mechanical instruments of music in Worship to God. The reason for this is because they are not authorized. No where within the pages of the New Testament will one find where the early Christians used the mechanical instrument of music in their worship to God. In every reference that is made in regards to the kind of music which God desires of His people it is always vocal music (singing), (Matt.26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom.15 :9;1 Cor.14:15; Eph.5:19; Col.3:16; Jam.5:13). Paul said, “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom.10:17). He also stated, “…for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom.14:23b). God has not given us the evidence (revealed it in His word) for the use of the instrument, therefore, to use such instruments is without authority and sinful.

The church of our Lord must not add to nor take away from that which God has revealed (Rev.22:18-19).Thus we will not use mechanical instruments of music in our worship to God.”

What are your thoughts?

A Churches of Christ argument, for sure.

Only WND could attack Zeitgeist and still find a way to be screwy while doing it...

You Sick Freaks!


Whoops, Wrong thread...

ETA: ... or is it?

Whiny comment on Amazon:

Holding either has nothing to lose or he is pretending he has nothing to lose because he can't handle admitting that his own immaturity is alienating him from his fellow Christians.

And Komarnitsky is getting even more like Johnny every time:

Actually, I see that we are already speaking from different pages on the high-context issue too. I never denied that high-context could be used in the ancient world, nor that Paul could be using that frame of reference when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15. What I said was that given the doubts that some of the Corinthians had in Jesus' bodily resurrected (which we disagree on), I find it surprising that Paul does not mention the discovered empty tomb even if he was writing with high context in mind.

And this was his response to my provision of my reading list on the social world of the Bible....pleading that he had little time for such things, he said:

If you could revise your suggested reading list to one that addresses not whether or not high-context was used in the ancient world, but why Paul would not mention a discovered empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 if the Corinthians doubted Jesus' resurrection, I would appreciate it (and, as I said before, if all such reading material depends on the conclusion that none of the Corinthians doubted Jesus' resurrection, then I would probably not find such reading material very useful).... I am more than willing to follow up on substantive leads at my own pace, but I feel like you do not understand my position on the high-context issue and we simply disagree on whether or not the Corinthians doubted Jesus' resurrection, and so your reading list right now does not seem very relevant or promising.

x 100

Ouch. STUPID.