Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: The Warrior on July 27, 2009, 03:09:46 PM
-
I was just wondering what books of the Bible you guys like.... I like Revlations,John & Genesis.
-
Job is my favorite.
-
I was just wondering what books of the Bible you guys like.... I like Revlations,John & Genesis.
Just to nitpick a little..it's actually "Revelation" (singular). The entire book is a revelation given to John by God.
And actually, Revelation is one of my favorite books. It's definitely the one that fascinates me the most. I also like the books of John, Acts, and Hebrews. Out of the Old Testament books, my favorites are Psalms, Proverbs, and Genesis.
-
I really like Acts, Romans and Genesis. Wait... that's like tim Mierz' winning deck... :o
-
Proverbs, Judges, James
-
Ecclesiastes, Hebrews (I plan to do a dissertation on Hebrews, in fact), Job, Genesis, and Romans.
-
Psalms, Proverbs and Revelations.
-
Harry Potter 6! oh wait that other big book....
-
Tobit.
-
the book of luke since it's the only book with the "good tidings" announcment by angels which is the most epic thing in the bible in close contest to the second coming of christ.
and also genesis, revelation, ephesians, galatians, phillipians and psalms
-
Tobit.
Tobit is pretty cool.
-
Biblically, I'd have to say Acts
As for the Apocrypha, I'd say All of the chronicles of the Maccabees.
-
Philippians. It was the first book I explored after becoming a Christian, and I believe that was for a purpose since at that point in my life I had to learn what joy was...
~Marti
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
-
Romans and Ephesians
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
that's not a real gospel
let's just stay off the non biblical books and just stick to on topic which is biblical books.
post your favorite biblical books ONLY
and the gospel of judas isn't included
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
that's not a real gospel
Yeah it is. It's just not a canonical gospel.
-
that's not a real gospel
Don't let him drag you in. Just ignore it.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
that's not a real gospel
Yeah it is. It's just not a canonical gospel.
Please........ We have had this discussion before.
-
that's not a real gospel
Don't let him drag you in. Just ignore it.
shows what you know ymt
if it isn't in the christian bible, it isn't a real book in the bible
-
What I know is that Colin will drag you into any rabbit hole that you're willing to follow him into. I was merely suggesting that you not follow.
It is your choice, however. Just be warned that it will not end well.
-
that's not a real gospel
Don't let him drag you in. Just ignore it.
shows what you know ymt
if it isn't in the christian bible, it isn't a real book in the bible
Redundant much?
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
-
Genesis & Revelation. God stomping satan the jerkface is just awesome. And genesis is cool because of the creation account. revelation is also cool because of it tlaking about Heaven.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
Yeah.
Did you know that some scholars believe that Pricillia could have written Hebrews?
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
Yeah.
Did you know that some scholars believe that Pricillia could have written Hebrews?
yeah that is a lot of quoting. oh and colin :offtopic:
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
Yeah.
Did you know that some scholars believe that Pricillia could have written Hebrews?
yeah that is a lot of quoting. oh and colin :offtopic:
It's about the Bible.
-
It's hard to name a favorite. I think Romans and Ephesians have the most highlighted verses in my Bible. I also love Acts and Revelation. As for the Old Testament, Psalms, Proverbs, and Esther are probably my favorites.
~Britta
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
Yeah.
Did you know that some scholars believe that Pricillia could have written Hebrews?
yeah that is a lot of quoting. oh and colin :offtopic:
It's about the Bible.
To add to the quoting... This is about ur favorite Bible book.
-
The gospel of Judas is somewhat interesting.
Yes, in the same sense that watching a snake shed it's skin is interesting. They are both all twisted up and leave you with something hollow, lifeless, and useless :)
My thoughts the gospel of Judas (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16671.msg260986#msg260986)
That doesn't mean it isn't a gospel, it just means it isn't a Biblical gospel.
How about if you let those of us who actually believe that the Bible is God's Word decide what is a Gospel :)
It's a gospel because it's a historical text narrating the life of Jesus.
It's not a historical text. First, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas (making it pseudonymous -- and to be clear, even though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it does not make a false claim as to its authorship) -- which right away disqualifies it from being the inspired Word of God, and second it was written in the 2nd century, after Judas died (meaning that, again, it wasn't written by Judas and, unlike the four canonical gospels, it is not an eyewitness account of the life and ministry of Jesus).
However, it still is a "gospel" (whether it is a true or false gospel) and, like the other gospels, it provides a perspective on how Jesus was viewed in the second century. It is a historical text, it just cannot all be verified to be true.
I also stand by the archeological method (a.k.a. the genealogical method) as the best hermeneutic for scripture (or an other topic).
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
Yeah.
Did you know that some scholars believe that Pricillia could have written Hebrews?
yeah that is a lot of quoting. oh and colin :offtopic:
It's about the Bible.
To add to the quoting... This is about ur favorite Bible book.
Wall of text crits you for over 9000 dammage, Daniel is my favorite book ;D
-
Exodus or Revelation. I really like Revelation because there are so many things in there that will be signs of Christs second return. Exodus, because God is always there for, well, His people. No matter how many people need help, He is always there for them.
-
Stop all the huge quoting or will lock this topic : its spam
Stop Picking Fights Colin
Naw.
This is way too much quoting.
[/quote]
Yeah.
[/quote]
yeah that is a lot of quoting. oh and colin :offtopic:
[/quote] It's about the Bible.
[/quote]
it About ur fave book in the bible. (bold) plus stop quote spamming
-
[
I can't really pick a favorite book, but I'm reading II Timothy right now.
-
:P i like reading O.T. more than N.T...... except the gospels they rock! ;D
-
colin the gnostic books are false and my favrite book is judges.
-
colin the gnostic books are false and my favrite book is judges.
that argument is over
-
colin the gnostic books are false
Prove it.
-
colin the gnostic books are false
Prove it.
Prove They aren't ::)
-
colin the gnostic books are false
Prove it.
Prove They aren't ::)
Not how it works.
-
Not how it works.
Why not?
-
Colin is right, logically. The burden of proof is on you to prove something is. You can't really prove a negative.
In this case, however, asking for proof is just silly as well. I can't PROVE to you that George Washington really lived or that Herman Melville really wrote Moby dork. I wasn't there. Even if I was, perhaps my senses deceived me.
Christianity is a matter of faith. It requires certain presuppositions. While there are no contradictions between faith and reality, neither can reality PROVE faith beyond any doubt.
-
Actually Colin is not right in the broader sense. The burden of proof could be on Korunks to prove that the Gospel of Judas was not authentically a gospel. Or the burden of proof could be on Colin to prove that it is authentic. Considering that the vast majority of scholars and Christians have decided that it is not authentic, then Colin would be trying to buck the status quo and therefore would have the greater burden of proof.
However, considering that Colin has already admitted that the Gospel of Judas has been proven false, I don't think he'll be trying to prove otherwise :)
Although it can be historically proven false...
-
And the winner is...
Mark Underwood.
Thanks for playing, everyone!
-
that argument is over
-
this thread was over before it started
-
this thread was over before it started
I could add a clause about a certain member of his family to beginning of this, but I won't stoop to that level. I'm just going to point out that it would be funny to do so.
-
colin the gnostic books are false and my favrite book is judges.
that argument is over
Colin is right, logically. The burden of proof is on you to prove something is. You can't really prove a negative.
In this case, however, asking for proof is just silly as well. I can't PROVE to you that George Washington really lived or that Herman Melville really wrote Moby dork. I wasn't there. Even if I was, perhaps my senses deceived me.
Christianity is a matter of faith. It requires certain presuppositions. While there are no contradictions between faith and reality, neither can reality PROVE faith beyond any doubt.
Actually Colin is not right in the broader sense. The burden of proof could be on Korunks to prove that the Gospel of Judas was not authentically a gospel. Or the burden of proof could be on Colin to prove that it is authentic. Considering that the vast majority of scholars and Christians have decided that it is not authentic, then Colin would be trying to buck the status quo and therefore would have the greater burden of proof.
However, considering that Colin has already admitted that the Gospel of Judas has been proven false, I don't think he'll be trying to prove otherwise :)
Although it can be historically proven false...
And the winner is...
Mark Underwood.
Thanks for playing, everyone!
:giveup: