Some Notes About Me

[duderonomy]

(snippage)...

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

It's not that complicated Ironhorse, the Bible says what it says, like it or not. If you don't understand a passage, that's ok. Like Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand.

 

I'm suggesting that reading the Bible for what it actually says might open your eyes. You speak of preachers and pastors, and that's all good, but can you read your Bible without hearing their voices in your head guiding you? Be honest!

Have you ever really tried to read the thing just by yourself? It's possible. I did it, and I'm no more intelligent than you. Like I said, it was an eye opener.

[ironhorse]

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

 

 

Instead of asking more questions, Ironhorse...

 

...how about dealing with the validity of John 3 : 16 by dealing with the issue of God creating evil?

 

Here's the link again.   http://www.ex-christ...-2#.V0Imk_krJD8

 

Please address the identity of evil's creator.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

 

 

Instead of asking more questions, Ironhorse...

 

...how about dealing with the validity of John 3 : 16 by dealing with the issue of God creating evil?

 

Here's the link again.   http://www.ex-christ...-2#.V0Imk_krJD8

 

Please address the identity of evil's creator.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

 

 

 

I choose not to address this further with you for two reasons.  First, I have written many questions to you which you have ignored.  Dozens.  Second, you should research by doing the hard work yourself and not rely on others to do it for you.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

 

 

 

I choose not to address this further with you for two reasons.  First, I have written many questions to you which you have ignored.  Dozens.  Second, you should research by doing the hard work yourself and not rely on others to do it for you.

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

Please confirm that sdelsolray is telling the truth and that you have ignored dozens of his questions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

...

Ironhorse,

 

Please confirm that sdelsolray is telling the truth and that you have ignored dozens of his questions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

For the sake of accuracy and clarity, "dozens" was an estimate...I have not kept count of everytime Ironhorse failed to respond to a question I asked him or point I made to him.  Having thought about it a bit more, I would refine my quantitative estimate to between 12 and 30.

[bornagainathiest]

 

...

Ironhorse,

 

Please confirm that sdelsolray is telling the truth and that you have ignored dozens of his questions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

For the sake of accuracy and clarity, "dozens" was an estimate...I have not kept count of everytime Ironhorse failed to respond to a question I asked him or point I made to him.  Having thought about it a bit more, I would refine my quantitative estimate to between 12 and 30.

 

 

Thanks for that clarification, sdelsolray.

 

When it comes to keeping a count of every time Ironhorse has failed to respond to your questions - they are all there in the records of this forum and can be accessed with a little effort.

 

However, before anyone decides to compile such a list and post it for all to see, there remains the possibility that Ironhorse himself may confirm the truth of what you say.

 

I suppose it comes down to which is more important to him.

 

Honoring Jesus Christ by loving and living in the truth?

 

Or not caring how often he ignores our questions?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"Dozens" may be an over-estimate in relation to any particular individual among us; but I think, overall, we can agree that, collectively, we have asked "dozens", and possibly "hundreds" of questions, which Ironhorse has ignored.  The key factor here, I think, isn't precision or exactness in record-keeping; but rather that there is a habitual, repeated, consistent, and almost expected, pattern on the part of Ironhorse.

 

Remember, he is here to demonstrate that his gospel diverges from the normal, out-of-context, misquoted, and abused gospel of the majority of christendom.  He is NOT here to defend his version of the gospel; merely to present it.  As the presenter, he is under no obligation to submit to any Q & A, although that is a normal and routine procedure both in the marketplace and in a public forum such as this.

 

Oddly enough, he asks us questions; so there is an element of quid pro quo in his mind.  Translating that to reality, though... maybe that's where his gospel diverges from the norm?

 

Care to comment, Ironhorse?

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

 

 

Instead of asking more questions, Ironhorse...

 

...how about dealing with the validity of John 3 : 16 by dealing with the issue of God creating evil?

 

Here's the link again.   http://www.ex-christ...-2#.V0Imk_krJD8

 

Please address the identity of evil's creator.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

My reply is post #55 on the thread you linked. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.

 

 

 

I understand the time issue here. I have also had to make a quick comment and then go offline.

 

When you do have more time, can you please explain  what you mean by my lack of knowledge?

 

What did I miss? Where was I wrong? Where's my spin? 

 

 

Instead of asking more questions, Ironhorse...

 

...how about dealing with the validity of John 3 : 16 by dealing with the issue of God creating evil?

 

Here's the link again.   http://www.ex-christ...-2#.V0Imk_krJD8

 

Please address the identity of evil's creator.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

My reply is post #55 on the thread you linked. 

 

 

And I show where your reply is at odds with scripture, here...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72646-how-to-make-a-christian-absolutely-livid/page-4#entry1108261...in post # 64.

[ironhorse]

"Dozens" may be an over-estimate in relation to any particular individual among us; but I think, overall, we can agree that, collectively, we have asked "dozens", and possibly "hundreds" of questions, which Ironhorse has ignored.  The key factor here, I think, isn't precision or exactness in record-keeping; but rather that there is a habitual, repeated, consistent, and almost expected, pattern on the part of Ironhorse.

 

Remember, he is here to demonstrate that his gospel diverges from the normal, out-of-context, misquoted, and abused gospel of the majority of christendom.  He is NOT here to defend his version of the gospel; merely to present it.  As the presenter, he is under no obligation to submit to any Q & A, although that is a normal and routine procedure both in the marketplace and in a public forum such as this.

 

Oddly enough, he asks us questions; so there is an element of quid pro quo in his mind.  Translating that to reality, though... maybe that's where his gospel diverges from the norm?

 

Care to comment, Ironhorse?

 

 

Whether I have ignored and not answered hundreds of questions seem like a bit of hyperbole but if that is what you or some others think of my participation in the Lion’s Den. Why should I even try to defend myself against the accusations.

 

As I have said before, I don’t present “my Gospel” or purposely misquote. It is not “my Gospel” but it is the Gospel and what the scriptures teach that I try my best to represent. And yes, this does “diverges” what some others teach.

Some teach all the gifts of the spirit given the apostles are still in use today, I disagree. That is not what the scriptures teach.  

The apostle Peter raised a dead woman back to life in Acts 9:36-43.

Can Benny Hinn or some other so-called faith healer do that today?

 

And yes, I ask questions.

It’s one way I have used to try to learn something new or to check something out. For example, after several years of hearing that “97% of scientist agrees that the earth is warming” I decided to find out where they got that number. I did. The statement is not true.

 

Sometimes I ask rhetorical questions. I do this to either make a point or to try to help us to think.

[bornagainathiest]

 

"Dozens" may be an over-estimate in relation to any particular individual among us; but I think, overall, we can agree that, collectively, we have asked "dozens", and possibly "hundreds" of questions, which Ironhorse has ignored.  The key factor here, I think, isn't precision or exactness in record-keeping; but rather that there is a habitual, repeated, consistent, and almost expected, pattern on the part of Ironhorse.

 

Remember, he is here to demonstrate that his gospel diverges from the normal, out-of-context, misquoted, and abused gospel of the majority of christendom.  He is NOT here to defend his version of the gospel; merely to present it.  As the presenter, he is under no obligation to submit to any Q & A, although that is a normal and routine procedure both in the marketplace and in a public forum such as this.

 

Oddly enough, he asks us questions; so there is an element of quid pro quo in his mind.  Translating that to reality, though... maybe that's where his gospel diverges from the norm?

 

Care to comment, Ironhorse?

 

 

Whether I have ignored and not answered hundreds of questions seem like a bit of hyperbole but if that is what you or some others think of my participation in the Lion’s Den. 

 

Why should I even try to defend myself against the accusations.

 

To honor Jesus Christ by loving and living in the truth, Ironhorse.   That's why.   But if doing that is too much effort for you....   

 

As I have said before, I don’t present “my Gospel” or purposely misquote. It is not “my Gospel” but it is the Gospel and what the scriptures teach that I try my best to represent. And yes, this does “diverges” what some others teach.

Some teach all the gifts of the spirit given the apostles are still in use today, I disagree. That is not what the scriptures teach.  

The apostle Peter raised a dead woman back to life in Acts 9:36-43.

Can Benny Hinn or some other so-called faith healer do that today?

 

And yes, I ask questions.

It’s one way I have used to try to learn something new or to check something out. For example, after several years of hearing that “97% of scientist agrees that the earth is warming” I decided to find out where they got that number. I did. The statement is not true.

 

Sometimes I ask rhetorical questions. I do this to either make a point or to try to help us to think.

 

[pratt]

 

"Dozens" may be an over-estimate in relation to any particular individual among us; but I think, overall, we can agree that, collectively, we have asked "dozens", and possibly "hundreds" of questions, which Ironhorse has ignored.  The key factor here, I think, isn't precision or exactness in record-keeping; but rather that there is a habitual, repeated, consistent, and almost expected, pattern on the part of Ironhorse.

 

Remember, he is here to demonstrate that his gospel diverges from the normal, out-of-context, misquoted, and abused gospel of the majority of christendom.  He is NOT here to defend his version of the gospel; merely to present it.  As the presenter, he is under no obligation to submit to any Q & A, although that is a normal and routine procedure both in the marketplace and in a public forum such as this.

 

Oddly enough, he asks us questions; so there is an element of quid pro quo in his mind.  Translating that to reality, though... maybe that's where his gospel diverges from the norm?

 

Care to comment, Ironhorse?

 

 

 

Whether I have ignored and not answered hundreds of questions seem like a bit of hyperbole but if that is what you or some others think of my participation in the Lion’s Den. Why should I even try to defend myself against the accusations.

 

As I have said before, I don’t present “my Gospel” or purposely misquote. It is not “my Gospel” but it is the Gospel and what the scriptures teach that I try my best to represent. And yes, this does “diverges” what some others teach.

 

Some teach all the gifts of the spirit given the apostles are still in use today, I disagree. That is not what the scriptures teach.  

 

The apostle Peter raised a dead woman back to life in Acts 9:36-43.

Can Benny Hinn or some other so-called faith healer do that today?

 

And yes, I ask questions.

 

It’s one way I have used to try to learn something new or to check something out. For example, after several years of hearing that “97% of scientist agrees that the earth is warming” I decided to find out where they got that number. I did. The statement is not true.

 

Sometimes I ask rhetorical questions. I do this to either make a point or to try to help us to think.

when asked about his rejection on evolution,he could not differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis, and his best reply is

 

 

"I know and accept that I am woefully inadequate in a lot of things."

 

so that speaks alot about someone who is here to learn or be critical or as he claims

[ironhorse]

 

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores. In the interest of good faith though, I'll address your question about gross adulteration of Jewish scripture.

 

Obviously I could quote almost any messianic prophecy or other reference to the Old Testament, and find deep flaws, but two examples I find particularly idiotic are the misuses of Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 82:6. Isaiah 7:14 is the well known "behold, the virgin shall conceive..." prophecy. As early as the second century, a debate between St. Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew is recorded in which Trypho correctly observes that the Hebrew refers to a young woman, not a virgin. The author of the gospel of Matthew obviously read only the Greek Septuagint, and didn't bother to know the Hebrew text. Since this debate is almost as old as Christianity, I doubt you and I will come to a consensus. But much like other evangelical obstacles such as evolution, climate change, etc., the "debate" is a result of Christian obstinacy rather than a sound argumentative basis. Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy meant for the encouragement of King Ahaz, and is fulfilled in his own lifetime. Christians must a.) invent the notion of dual fulfillment of prophecy, and b.) misunderstand the literal words that comprise the prophecy.

 

As for Psalm 82:6, this is not used as a prophecy by Jesus, but is an equally good illustration of Christian illogical reasoning, from the lips of your god no less! The context, as you recall, is that the Jews object to Jesus' reference to himself as the son of God, and his use of Psalm 82:6 is at best an argument by legal loophole. His argument is that if the phrase "I said, you are gods" is written in the Psalms, then Jesus' claim to be the son of God, which is a less powerful claim to divinity, is not blasphemy. The author here clearly doesn't understand that "gods" in the Old Testament can be a references to judges. And even ignoring this, the author implicitly denies that Jesus is actually claiming to be God.

 

I find these two examples typical of the New Testament's utter lack of Jewishness, which is a problem since it takes up the mantle of Israel's prophetic voice. I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around.

 

 

 

"So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores.

I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around."

 

~Bhim

 

 

 

It is interesting to me that you think my views are unorthodox.

 

Could you post a name of an orthodox Christian that you would prefer having a discussion? By name, I mean a person on television or a known author.

 

Thanks

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores. In the interest of good faith though, I'll address your question about gross adulteration of Jewish scripture.

 

Obviously I could quote almost any messianic prophecy or other reference to the Old Testament, and find deep flaws, but two examples I find particularly idiotic are the misuses of Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 82:6. Isaiah 7:14 is the well known "behold, the virgin shall conceive..." prophecy. As early as the second century, a debate between St. Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew is recorded in which Trypho correctly observes that the Hebrew refers to a young woman, not a virgin. The author of the gospel of Matthew obviously read only the Greek Septuagint, and didn't bother to know the Hebrew text. Since this debate is almost as old as Christianity, I doubt you and I will come to a consensus. But much like other evangelical obstacles such as evolution, climate change, etc., the "debate" is a result of Christian obstinacy rather than a sound argumentative basis. Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy meant for the encouragement of King Ahaz, and is fulfilled in his own lifetime. Christians must a.) invent the notion of dual fulfillment of prophecy, and b.) misunderstand the literal words that comprise the prophecy.

 

As for Psalm 82:6, this is not used as a prophecy by Jesus, but is an equally good illustration of Christian illogical reasoning, from the lips of your god no less! The context, as you recall, is that the Jews object to Jesus' reference to himself as the son of God, and his use of Psalm 82:6 is at best an argument by legal loophole. His argument is that if the phrase "I said, you are gods" is written in the Psalms, then Jesus' claim to be the son of God, which is a less powerful claim to divinity, is not blasphemy. The author here clearly doesn't understand that "gods" in the Old Testament can be a references to judges. And even ignoring this, the author implicitly denies that Jesus is actually claiming to be God.

 

I find these two examples typical of the New Testament's utter lack of Jewishness, which is a problem since it takes up the mantle of Israel's prophetic voice. I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around.

 

 

 

"So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores.

I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around."

 

~Bhim

 

 

 

It is interesting to me that you think my views are unorthodox.

 

Could you post a name of an orthodox Christian that you would prefer having a discussion? By name, I mean a person on television or a known author.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Also concerning the two passages of scripture mentioned:   

 

Since I seem to be constantly accused of stubborn adherence to my opinions and never showing any sound arguments, before we continue I offer this link from a Judaism site that supports the view that the passage in Isaiah does not refer to Christ.

http://outreachjudaism.org/dual-prophecy-virgin-birth/

I think it does and will give reasons why later.

 

I will offer a reply concerning Psalm 82:6 later. 

 

I agree these two passages are indeed hotly debated and well worth a good discussion. 

 

 

Thanks

[ironhorse]

 

 

Ironhorse, do you really identify with this?  "2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there."

 

That's just wishful thinking, isn't it?

 

Yes I do but, to me the scale is so close on 1 and 2 there is not much difference.

 

The scale:

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

 

I only went with number 2 because if I stated I was number 1 here.... "I KNOW he exists."

I would be bombed out of The Lion's Den with constant demands to prove or show evidence of God. I just wasn't up to fighting that battle that day. Also, like most people I have experienced sad and tragic events that causes a grief and anger that can have you either angry at God or doubting whether God is even there. 

 

But for the most part...

I do not question the existence of God. I believe in God. 

I'm settled in my mind and at peace. I no longer question whether God is real or a fairy tale.

 

 

Fair enough, and thanks for your answer.  

 

I remember being at that place where I was absolutely positive that the god of the Bible was real and he was 'there'.

 

What changed things for me was when I stopped reading books about the Bible and listening to preachers telling me what the Bible says, or what it "really means", and started reading the Bible itself. I bought a paperback large print Bible without footnotes, no commentaries, no cross-references. No maps, even. Just the text. It was quite an eye opener. 

Have you ever tried that?

 

 

Yes, I have and still take the scripture first. Whatever a teacher or pastor says must be in line with the scriptures before I can accept what they are saying.

I use a KJV, NIV and the Message for church and reading. I also like using https://www.biblegateway.com/because of all the other translations you can read online. One of the best, I think, is J.B. Philipp’s translation of the N.T.

[Bhim]

"So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores.

I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around."

 

~Bhim

 

 

 

It is interesting to me that you think my views are unorthodox.

 

Could you post a name of an orthodox Christian that you would prefer having a discussion? By name, I mean a person on television or a known author.

 

Thanks

I'd be happy to. Obviously I will likely not meet any of the following people, but I would love to debate the disciples of any of the following from the Reformed Evangelical camp of Christianity:

 

John Piper

R.C. Sproul

Mark Driscoll

Wayne Grudem

John MacArthur

C.J. Mahaney

 

Obviously this list is biased by my own experience in Christianity. But these are individuals who are serious about Christianity (i.e. they won't quote idiotic Bob Dylan lyrics at me or make jokes...no offense), they seem sincere about their beliefs, and their views represent a fairly substantial fraction of American evangelicals. People who follow these individuals and subscribe to their beliefs are generally people I would deem worth talking to.

 

If you're wondering what criteria I use to determine whether someone is worth talking to, please note that there is one factor I just alluded to which I find even more important than being representative of a large number of Christians. Specifically: people who inject humor, comedy, and pop culture into their posts are people I find generally not worth my time. Christianity is, in my opinion, a serious and evil religion. We are talking about a faith that condemns most people to eternal conscious torment in an invented hell. Adherents of Christianity have no business telling jokes or quoting song lyrics. If you are going to tell people that they will go to an eternal hell unless they have faith in an obscure Judean of Western European descent, you should be a completely serious person, all the time. Quoting Bob Dylan tells me that you are not serious about your own religion, and may even be here to simply parody evangelicals. Why would I waste my time with this?

 

Also concerning the two passages of scripture mentioned:   

 

Since I seem to be constantly accused of stubborn adherence to my opinions and never showing any sound arguments, before we continue I offer this link from a Judaism site that supports the view that the passage in Isaiah does not refer to Christ.

http://outreachjudaism.org/dual-prophecy-virgin-birth/

I think it does and will give reasons why later.

 

I will offer a reply concerning Psalm 82:6 later. 

 

I agree these two passages are indeed hotly debated and well worth a good discussion. 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Just to be clear: are you asking me to defend an orthodox Jewish position on Jewish scripture against a heterodox evangelical position on Jewish scripture?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

"Dozens" may be an over-estimate in relation to any particular individual among us; but I think, overall, we can agree that, collectively, we have asked "dozens", and possibly "hundreds" of questions, which Ironhorse has ignored.  The key factor here, I think, isn't precision or exactness in record-keeping; but rather that there is a habitual, repeated, consistent, and almost expected, pattern on the part of Ironhorse.

 

Remember, he is here to demonstrate that his gospel diverges from the normal, out-of-context, misquoted, and abused gospel of the majority of christendom.  He is NOT here to defend his version of the gospel; merely to present it.  As the presenter, he is under no obligation to submit to any Q & A, although that is a normal and routine procedure both in the marketplace and in a public forum such as this.

 

Oddly enough, he asks us questions; so there is an element of quid pro quo in his mind.  Translating that to reality, though... maybe that's where his gospel diverges from the norm?

 

Care to comment, Ironhorse?

 

 

Whether I have ignored and not answered hundreds of questions seem like a bit of hyperbole but if that is what you or some others think of my participation in the Lion’s Den. Why should I even try to defend myself against the accusations.

 

As I have said before, I don’t present “my Gospel” or purposely misquote. It is not “my Gospel” but it is the Gospel and what the scriptures teach that I try my best to represent. And yes, this does “diverges” what some others teach.

 

Some teach all the gifts of the spirit given the apostles are still in use today, I disagree. That is not what the scriptures teach.  

 

The apostle Peter raised a dead woman back to life in Acts 9:36-43.

Can Benny Hinn or some other so-called faith healer do that today?

 

And yes, I ask questions.

 

It’s one way I have used to try to learn something new or to check something out. For example, after several years of hearing that “97% of scientist agrees that the earth is warming” I decided to find out where they got that number. I did. The statement is not true.

 

Sometimes I ask rhetorical questions. I do this to either make a point or to try to help us to think.

when asked about his rejection on evolution,he could not differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis, and his best reply is

 

 

"I know and accept that I am woefully inadequate in a lot of things."

 

so that speaks alot about someone who is here to learn or be critical or as he claims

 

 

 

 

Nah.  His best reply regarding evolution was (paraphrasing), "I read Darwin's Origin of the Species twice and if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"

[ironhorse]

 

"So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores.

I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around."

 

~Bhim

 

 

 

It is interesting to me that you think my views are unorthodox.

 

Could you post a name of an orthodox Christian that you would prefer having a discussion? By name, I mean a person on television or a known author.

 

Thanks

I'd be happy to. Obviously I will likely not meet any of the following people, but I would love to debate the disciples of any of the following from the Reformed Evangelical camp of Christianity:

 

John Piper

R.C. Sproul

Mark Driscoll

Wayne Grudem

John MacArthur

C.J. Mahaney

 

Obviously this list is biased by my own experience in Christianity. But these are individuals who are serious about Christianity (i.e. they won't quote idiotic Bob Dylan lyrics at me or make jokes...no offense), they seem sincere about their beliefs, and their views represent a fairly substantial fraction of American evangelicals. People who follow these individuals and subscribe to their beliefs are generally people I would deem worth talking to.

 

If you're wondering what criteria I use to determine whether someone is worth talking to, please note that there is one factor I just alluded to which I find even more important than being representative of a large number of Christians. Specifically: people who inject humor, comedy, and pop culture into their posts are people I find generally not worth my time. Christianity is, in my opinion, a serious and evil religion. We are talking about a faith that condemns most people to eternal conscious torment in an invented hell. Adherents of Christianity have no business telling jokes or quoting song lyrics. If you are going to tell people that they will go to an eternal hell unless they have faith in an obscure Judean of Western European descent, you should be a completely serious person, all the time. Quoting Bob Dylan tells me that you are not serious about your own religion, and may even be here to simply parody evangelicals. Why would I waste my time with this?

 

Also concerning the two passages of scripture mentioned:   

 

Since I seem to be constantly accused of stubborn adherence to my opinions and never showing any sound arguments, before we continue I offer this link from a Judaism site that supports the view that the passage in Isaiah does not refer to Christ.

http://outreachjudaism.org/dual-prophecy-virgin-birth/

I think it does and will give reasons why later.

 

I will offer a reply concerning Psalm 82:6 later. 

 

I agree these two passages are indeed hotly debated and well worth a good discussion. 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Just to be clear: are you asking me to defend an orthodox Jewish position on Jewish scripture against a heterodox evangelical position on Jewish scripture?

 

 

No, I posted the Jewish link to help understand Judaism's commentary on this passage be fore we continued this discussion.

[ironhorse]

On Isaiah 7:14:

 

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 "almah," means "young woman." "Almah" can also be taken as "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins but the word does not necessarily imply virginity.

I have read that a group Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis centuries ago when translating the text to Greek, did use the word “virgin” in their translation. 

[duderonomy]

 

"...where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched..."

Would recommend reading the context in Isaiah, the case for Conditionalism/Annihilationism is better than most think.

 

I don't think the authors are unified on the doctrine, but I don't think the assumed meaning is necessarily the correct meaning of the "hell" passages.

 

 

I threw out a line from the N.T. but the context is in Isaiah?  I'm not sure what you mean by that.   

[duderonomy]

^ Ok. I see what you were saying now. Thanks.^

[ironhorse]

 

On Isaiah 7:14:

 

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 "almah," means "young woman." "Almah" can also be taken as "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins but the word does not necessarily imply virginity.

I have read that a group Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis centuries ago when translating the text to Greek, did use the word “virgin” in their translation.

If you were a Jew who read Hebrew, would you semantically interpret this to read that a child was born to a virgin, or would that be a semantically nonsensical interpretation?

 

The NT authors wrote in the Koine Greek, and therefore based their understanding on the LXX, which caused their misinterpretation of that text. Christians can build a very implausible explanation that this was the author's intent in Isaiah, but it seems to refer to a totally separate event and matter.

 

If one used the standard of the "best explanation," I would have to say that the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is the worst available.

 

 

 

TrueScotsman, thanks for your comments. I do not read Hebrew or Greek. I do know there are two ways of reading 7:14 and I guess what one views as the best explanation is what fits one’s view of the OT scriptures as having no references about Christ or having references to Christ.

 

I do think it is a good explanation to interpret this to refer to Jesus' birth. 

 

 

In Isaiah 7:13, the prophet Isaiah turns to King Ahaz, who is a member of the house of David, and addresses the house of David. His address is to the House of David, not King Ahaz. This is a good reason, I think, to conclude its meaning is to the descendants of King David, and that the sign is directed at the house of David.

 

I understand the NT writers were writing in common Greek. Even using older Greek copies of OT scripture we don’t know how what they were told or been taught concerning these passages.

 

Note both translations the reference to see notes:

 

Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us) [see extensive commentary in The Translator To The Reader, page vii].

Yeshayah 7:14 (Orthodox Jewish Bible)

 

 

Therefore Adonai himself

will give you people a sign:

the young woman* will become pregnant,

bear a son and name him ‘Immanu El [God is with us].

~ Isaiah 7:14 (Complete Jewish Bible)

 

 

I believe this teaches the virgin birth of Christ but it is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. I have known Christians who held the opposite view. One of my favorite NT commentators, William Barclay, did not think the scriptures taught the virgin birth. I still enjoy and learn from his books.

 

I do believe all the scriptures were inspired by God and what is there is there for a reason. Sometimes a passage might be challenging or difficult but to me it is part of the journey. I'm not perfect. Barclay was not perfect. We might be wrong or differ on some parts of scripture like this one but not on the main message and themes. 

[pratt]

love the word ironhorse use

 

"believe"