As i said to Richard:
>>I am quoting biblical references (mainly from John) as David referenced the book of John....... out of context.......
and I absolutely agree with you here:
>>While the New Testament may contain much, it must always be remembered 1.
that those writings which appear in it were selected (in a rather strange
and suspicious manner at the council of Nicea) above many others; and 2.
That the early church fathers - Origen, Iraeneus, Tertullian and others -
constantly tampered with them, deleting or interpolating verses to prosecute
their own agendas or hide the essentially pagan roots of Catholic rituals.
Even in this century, the New Testament has been recast in "more
appropriate" language so many times that its possible the original sense is
which is why I find taking bits and pieces out to support a particular theory even more silly......
>>Therefore, rather than rattle off a dozen quotes, it might be more
enlightening to explain what each one means, and why you are sure it means
what you say.
One obscure verse might not be conclusive, but a dozen which all say the same thing certainly are more concrete, especially when taken in context.
If i say to you "Oh you kill me", whilst laughing at a joke, and someone quotes me saying "Oh you kill me" without explaining the context of my words, then it could be construed to mean that you literally kill me. In context, my words simply mean you make me laugh. A big difference that!
The best way to get at the root of things is to read the manuscripts themselves as far as possible in their original language .... this is what I do.