How Was The Bible Put Together? (Hank Hanegraaff)

The speaker makes bokd assertions with no backing evidence and is clearly trying to undermine the Catholic Church's role in establishing the canon. I am not convinced at all.

This guy is a joke. There were several different gospels that were rejected as non cannonical for no other reason than that the proto-orthordox christians did not agree with the theology of them. There were no "rules" that went into selecting the cannonical gospels. So this guy is a liar. The four gospels were accepted by the majority of christians based not on divine intervention, but on force of will of the orthodox christians.

So you presume that God did not guide these Church Fathers in recognizing Truth? You presume that the Apostles never handed down tradition on testing scripture? Do you believe that these guys were just a bunch of arrogated yokels conniving a colossal lie? Is God so feeble and useless as to pay the price for Sin and then be foiled in presented an accurate picture of that History to the world?

You show me one scintilla of evidence of divine guidence in the compilation of the connonical gospels. I can show you roughly 5700 early texts of the scriptures that were changed and/or forged from which all the current forms of the New Testament were based.

No, what you are implying is that Christianity is just another manmade religion without supernatural source. So when you say "this guy is a joke" you present a colossal irony.

So by your logic then intelligence is the ability to not have an opinion, and talk about it for hours with complex but yet pointless philosophies. That reminds me of a scripture,lol. Beware of vain babbling and endless philosophies.

The fear here is in you my brother, you fear any honest debate,for the fear of being WRONG! So you hide behind a flimsy skirt of verbal psychobabble, thinking I won't see straight through it. You can't think for yourself nor answer a simple question. Adios amigo.

Now, the interesting thing there is that I did answer it - by saying that we only have free will as far as we are aware of our possible choices and motivations - but because I didn't give one of the answers you offered, you don't accept it. That attempt to control all possible answers, and the questions, comes from your fear - it's the same fear that causes you to flee the moment anyone refuses to be bound by your self created, self serving rules.

After all, why should anyone have to choose between answers that you provide, if it isn't just because you fear to let people have other views? It's the same fear that makes you run away now - if I don't let you control the debate, you won't take part. Actually, you running away is an admittance that you're afraid. Any opinion whch doesn't confirm you as prophet, or feed your ego via conflict, terrifies you. And you equate disagreeing with you with not thinking. Self, self, self - not God. Self

Actually, recognising that most questions aren't black and white, and require deeper context and explanation is wisdom, not pyschobabble. Intelligence, on the other hand, is recognising that you create and 'manage' conflicts by trying to force people to play in to your fantasy, either as rare followers, or as idiots and drones who, by definition of not recognisng your prophethood, are stupid and unabe to think for themselves. What a silly, ego-centred man you are, for all your toughs and bluffs!

Reading your comments on other threads, it's clear that you think 'freewill' would imply freedom to do anything - such as grow horns. I rather think you have a lot of self educating to do. You've defined freewill fallaciously, because that way you got to use it as a resource, by presenting people with two options, and calling one silly and one confirmation of your egotistic theology. The real silliness was actually in your own misunderstanding of the basic meaning of 'freewill'.