Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Ouroboros]

Well, maybe some one else can find such a verse because I cannot. Jesus came from Mary, concerning her body, but from God, or the Holy Spirit, concerning true origin. Through the body, but from the Holy Spirit, there fore being without the sin of the curse, but being fully human. Legally, Jesus had the right to the throne of David.

Legally? Legally because Joseph was the bloodline? In the old days it would be considered a bastard son, holy or not.

 

The whole genealogy is written as if the right follow the male bloodline. It doesn't say Joan begot Anna, who begot Sophie, who begot Mary, it's a line of males. And suddenly we're to assume that Mary, a female, would carry the bloodline of David? Why didn't it up to that point?

 

Everything in the Old Testament was about the blood. How the blood contains the soul and stuff. And suddenly, blood is not important for hereditary rights? Everything just suddenly switches from a patriarchal and male-centered religion to a female centered bloodline and rights?

 

Besides, how the heck is sin inherited through the male bloodline only? Jesus was pure and not a sinner because he didn't have a human dad? But he had a human mom! Blood is blood. Isn't it? So we're to assume that the Y-Chromosome carries the sin-gene. Does this mean that women are without sin? They have only X chromosomes and no Y, so they must be totally sin free.

[centauri]

The question then, is why was it recorded? Here is why: In 2 Samuel 7 God makes a covenant with David which means a promise. And he says, “David, your son is going to reign forever on the throne of Israel” (see 2 Sam 7:13-16). Solomon was a foreshadow of Israel. It was like when you throw a rock to make it skip over a lake. The promise bounced on Solomon but skips down to Jesus. Solomon was a foreshadow, a prefigure, of Jesus who was to come. For that prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 to be true, Jesus had to be the legal heir of that promise. He did not have to come from the bloodline, but legally, he had to be in the line. Legality was huge in Jewish culture. Jesus had to be through that line for that promise to be fulfilled, and that promise is fulfilled when Jesus returns and reigns on the earth for 1,000 years and then reigns forever into all eternity.

 

http://2makehimfamous.com/node/453

 

Now I have to check further into this in a bit, but does the scripture say Jesus had to be from the blood line and not just be a legal child from that line? I will be back in a bit.

The blood link is part of the promise to David.

The king messiah must be the physical offspring of David. David is considered the starting point from which a king messiah must originate. God promised to David:

 

2 Sam 7:12-16

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

 

The biological link is also expressed here:

Psa 89:34-37

My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.

 

Solomon would be punished when he did wrong, but as 2 Sam 7:12-16 indicates, Solomon would never have God's favor taken from him. Solomon was the son who would carry on the physical line of his father David which would be established forever as shown in the following:

 

1 Chron 28:5-7

And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

 

Solomon's kingdom was carried on through his descendant Asa who followed the Lord's heart as King David had done.

 

Adoption breaks the paternal blood link.

[Antlerman]

(Antlerhead)

I really like you guy. I'm opening the fountains of the deep, ever so slightly cause I'd like to take you there. Enjoy the swim.. no monsters, just ocean.

 

I really do appreciate that my friend, but I guess i have always had a fear of drowning (chuckle). I hated beaches even as a baby. Living 30 minutes from Lake Michigan is close enough. However, as soon is time permits, I do plan to go to the link you provided. I have already checked it out and spent a little time there, but have not really dug deep into it yet.

 

Antlerhead, I just read some of your replies again. You are always such a delight! I really want to engage more on this when the time permits. As stated before my friend, you are an interesting guy.

 

 

Hopefully, time will cut me a little more slack in the near future

Bump, Bump, Bump.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Cits

Stranger, that's the same old nonsense I've heard before, claiming that Luke was presenting Mary's genealogy. However, Luke specifically traces the lineage to Joseph, NOT Mary. Read it again for yourself and be honest with the text rather than just regurgitating the bs that apologists cram down your throat. Matthew and Luke present two contradictory genealogies of Joseph, plain and simple.

 

 

Amplified Bible (AMP)

Luke 3:23

 

23Jesus Himself, when He began [His ministry], was about thirty years of age, being the Son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

 

.........

 

In context, I do agree with you.

 

So you're retracting the apologetics claim you asserted previously that Luke was tracing Mary's genealogy?

 

I believe, just like in both of these list, and as it as clearly seen, it does not often follow a direct one after another list but instead often skips many names, so as to just lay the short list down, so to speak, there fore leaving Heli is not the direct father of Joseph, but a more distant relationship. On this we do agree.

 

No, we do not agree on this. Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli, not descendent.

 

Besides, if you want to throw in "many names" that Luke supposedly skipped, then you have an even bigger problem in reconciling Luke's genealogy with Matthew's. Keep in mind this following quote from a post of mine in the other thread we were discussing this in:

 

Matthew has 41 generations from Abraham to Jesus (if you count the names, though

Matt 1:17 claims there are 42 generations

), while Luke has 56 generations from Abraham to Jesus. That's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

 

Since Matthew specifies a number of generations, your assertion that Luke is skipping a bunch of generations makes the two genealogies even more out of whack than they already are!

 

For that prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 to be true, Jesus had to be the legal heir of that promise. He did not have to come from the bloodline, but legally, he had to be in the line. Legality was huge in Jewish culture....

 

Now I have to check further into this in a bit, but does the scripture say Jesus had to be from the blood line and not just be a legal child from that line? I will be back in a bit.

 

In addition to the good response centauri gave to this, let me point out what writings attributed to Paul say about it:

 

Romans 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the

seed of David according to the flesh;

 

2 Timothy 2:8

Remember that Jesus Christ of the

seed of David

was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

 

So you see, Stranger, even other New Testament passages specify that Jesus was supposedly a physical descendant of David. Yet the genealogies in Matthew and Luke that trace Jesus back through David do so through Joseph, who supposedly was not a physical father of Jesus! So, what's the point of the genealogies then?

 

So, you admit that we don't need your religion to have a conscience and an understanding of right and wrong?

 

Cits, what is inside us all is the truth of right and wrong that comes from God, and the truth that there is in fact a God.

 

You assert such, but can you prove such?

 

Cits, I would like you (and others) to do the same thing that I have done on this site. That is, to read the testimonies of other Christians. Now you say, I do not need to, because I was already there, heard them, been there, done that. Many here say they believed in Jesus because of how they were raised. Many testimonies else where often indicate a belief in Jesus, not so much through other Christians, but from god Himself.

 

Stranger, you have to keep things in context. When you read an exchristian testimony, you're going to get the perspective of one who is no longer a believer. When you read a current Christian's testimony, you're going to get the perspective of one who is a believer.

 

What you've failed to understand here is that when we exchristians were Christians, many of us (including myself) used the exact same frame of reference ("from God Himself," as you put it) as current Christians currently do. I did believe that it came from God when I was a believer, so I expressed it in that manner. Now that I do not believe that it came from God, wouldn't it be a bit illogical for me to continue to express it as though it did?

 

You see, Stranger, as the old adage goes, you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

With out His revelation, the bible is just words of men and God is just a big dream in the sky.

 

You're partly right and partly wrong.

 

Without revelation from God, then of course the Bible is just the words of men. That much you have right, and that's exactly what we have with the Bible.

 

However, your insistence that there cannot be a God without "His revelation" is a logical fallacy. If there is a God, then why would it be necessary for him to have a revelation? Why couldn't there be a God who simply doesn't care and doesn't interact? You see, you're approaching this as though the God of the Bible is the only possible God, but such is not the case.

 

Of course, I'm not advocating any particular God myself, I'm just saying that if there is a God, then there's nothing that automatically necessitates that it's the God of the Bible. (In fact, there are so many problems with the Bible that I find it inconceivable that the God of the Bible is even remotely possible.)

 

One does not have the ability to believe without the intervention of God Himself.

 

This is another logical fallacy. Different people believe different things, and it's entirely possible for people to believe in your religion without the intervention of God Himself. In fact, I'm convinced that 100% of believers fall into that category, because it's all just make-believe.

 

I do not question your "old" Christianity. Here is what I do question. If no one can come to God by themselves, and you confess that you came to God, in what way did God show Himself to be true to you so that you dedicated your life to Him.

 

I realize after wards knowledge changed your believe in Him, but what knowledge of God brought you to Him in the first place? If it were not for God Himself drawing me to Himself, I would not have the ability to believe. It is not a human thing, but a God thing, and really has little to do with religion but all to do with Jesus Christ.

 

You're just building on the logical fallacy that I exposed previously.

 

The "knowledge of God" that "brought" me to belief "in the first place" was indoctrination. When one is told over and over and over again from the cradle on up that something is true, then it can be extremely difficult to see through it. Before I was able to rationally evaluate claims, I was indoctrinated into belief in Jesus. I basically had no choice but to believe.

[★ Citsonga ★]

So, you're saying that we don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

 

I believe Jesus reveals Himself to all, but in different ways, shapes and forms. If a child dies without ever knowing the "Christian way" the child is only judged on what he did with what he knew. If this child accepts the truth, than this child will also accept Jesus. I believe the same to be in all ages.

 

So, at any age, if one has never heard of Jesus, that person can still be saved?

 

And what about those such as myself that have seen such overwhelming evidence against your religion that we honestly find it impossible to believe it?

 

You do believe humans are not perfect, right?

 

Nobody's perfect, that's true. But that's a far cry from the claim that everyone is a wretched sinner deserving to be tortured for eternity.

 

I already had what I needed to believe. I did believe for years and years. Over time, though, I simply learned too much to continue believing something unsupported and undermined by evidence.

 

Yes, my friend. This is what I am after. Why did you believe from the beginning? What drew you in to believe in the beginning?

 

I pretty much answered this in my previous post, but I'll reiterate here that it was a matter of indoctrination, just as it is with the vast majority of believers.

 

I've already found out how wrong I was. Been there, done that. Now it's your turn.

 

(Note: Of course, I'm not suggesting that my understanding won't continue to change some. However, I've learned too much to ever go back to believing in an inerrant Bible. That doctrine is an absolute lie. Period.)

 

I think the future will be interesting indeed, to see if we all, even me, continue to believe the same as before, whether or not the core directions will tend to change. I believe because of Gods faithfulness to me in the past and present,

 

You believe it's a matter of "God's faithfulness," but I believe it's all imaginary.

 

In fact, in that religion poll that was in the news last fall, atheists and agnostics scored the highest in religious knowledge overall. Isn't it a bit striking that those who know the most about religion are the least likely to believe it?

 

I believe this poll. Sometimes I think us Christians get to comfortable on our own knowing and do not do the research that we should. Many Christians just believe, and are not driven to try to find fault with the bible.

 

When I was a Christian, I wasn't "driven to try to find fault with the Bible" either. I studied the Bible in order to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and to "always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." In the process, the enormous faults in the Bible just happened to finally be exposed to me.

[centauri]

I believe Jesus reveals Himself to all, but in different ways, shapes and forms. If a child dies without ever knowing the "Christian way" the child is only judged on what he did with what he knew. If this child accepts the truth, than this child will also accept Jesus. I believe the same to be in all ages.

You're speculating that whatever the child knew will somehow result in accepting Jesus.

If the child was Jewish but hadn't yet been exposed to the Christian way, why do you assume they would recant the faith of their parents and accept Christianity?

 

We can not save ourselves, but I know you already know this. If one could save themselves from their own sin, why would we need Jesus?

Ironically, you've just hit on one of the reasons Jews reject Jesus.

According to the Old Testament you can save yourself.

Ezek 18:20-27 clearly states that the key to salvation is to repent and follow the law of God.

Each person dies for their own sin and can redeem themselves through their own actions.

There is no need for a vicarious human sacrifice and there's no need for Jesus.

[Mister Pappy]

Please feel free to come and go as you please, my friend.

I am fully aware that I am free to come and go.

 

I will be the first to admit there is much more I have not yet learned than what there is that I have learned.

To put it plainly Stranger ... you have quite a bit of "unlearning" to do before the "learning" can begin.

 

... what is truth? Your truth? My truth? Or THE TRUTH?

The truth of which I speak, refers to "being true to yourself" - honest with yourself - brutally so. The search for truth should never end, and that endless search is only possible if one is willing to give up what they believed to be true, yesterday, for something newly discovered, today. The truth is quite simply that we all have much to learn. If we will allow ourselves the freedom to learn and change because of the knowledge we progressively obtain, we can legitimately refer to ourselves as "searching for truth".

 

I have observed in you a fear of truth. You are not alone. Many Christians have this same fear. Until you rid yourself of it - could be many years or decades - maybe never, you will be unable to move forward. I have noted this and choose not to "cast my pearls before the swine". You seem like a good guy. I do wish you luck. You are likely going to need some.

 

Pappy

[the stranger]

I confess, I am a bit awe struck with many of the replies. I always liked to think I had the answers right on the top of my head, but guess what, I don't. Some really valid questions and "scripture" was given. I so much appreciate it. I will not at this time respond to each individual reply (though I may take a sneak peek in Antlerheads world of thoughts thread. It kind of sounds like a scary place) because I really want to do a true good heart to heart study on this, and ask myself and God these tough questions. I really am impressed. When I come back I hopefully will have something real to respond with. If I do not, I will plead the fifth and aknowledge that there are things that i just cannot answer. Mister Pappy said perhaps I was afraid to venture in my thoughts past God being real. He is right. I suppose this is one big difference on the way we look at scripture.

 

Thanks again guys. I might be a little while, so that when I come back, I can admit I have not the answers, or I have some real insight on the subject. You guys seem pretty smart. That is the face I hope I don't return with (ha)

 

Have a good one guys and I will return in a little while.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, I applaud your honesty. Take all the time you need. Most of us had to take a bit of time to get through this stuff, because it's very difficult to deprogram years and years of indoctrination. If you do start to see what we've been trying to tell you, then be assured that we're here for you and will try to help. If you do go through deconversion, it can be a very difficult process, and I wish that I had the support of a community like this when I went through it. Good luck, and enjoy the journey ahead of you....

[Mister Pappy]

Mister Pappy said perhaps I was afraid to venture in my thoughts past God being real. He is right.

Stranger,

 

I second Citsonga's applause for your honesty - way to go! That one is on me, but when you come back, you can buy the next one. Good luck to you and know that most all of us here have gone through what you are going through right now. It isn't easy and won't seem like much fun for a while, but the rewards are overwhelming in the end. Let us know if we can help you in any way. Until then - happy hunting.

 

Your Friend,

Pappy

 

 

 

[the stranger]

First, and foremost, I want to say thank you, and tell you how much I appreciate the fact you guys (Cits and Pappy) would be there to support me if I needed it. I really don't believe I will ever see the same angle as you guys see, based on what I believe the Lord has brought me through. I did deny Him for many many years. My actions, my words, and my life showed that decision making in my life. I will only speak for myself, but I cannot live a moral life apart from Christ. It is always that inward call that beckons me back to Himself.

 

I have many desires I would love to fulfill in the flesh, but in the end, I know it only leads to heart break and pain, and a messed up life. I admit, with out Christ in my life and with out me trying to follow in His foot steps, I find my self getting in deep trouble very quickly. I guess for me, there are few limits to my lust fullness.

 

I guess every one has to make the decisions for themselves, but for me, I cannot live apart from God. I just cannot. Now many can say God is not real, and every one has the right to their thoughts, but I see my life going backward quickly every time I do not put Him first. I only feel at peace when the decisions I make are for Him.

 

I truly only wish the best to you all, and I am not planning on going too far, but if I for whatever reason did not have the opportunity to come back here, I always want to to remember my appreciation for your honesty and tough questions. I hope the very best for the both of you as well, and really do appreciate the offer of support.

 

I now am going to try to tackle some of the questions asked earlier. I still do not know near as much as I want to or need to know, but I will share some of the thoughts in which I have learned.

 

The truth of which I speak, refers to "being true to yourself" - honest with yourself - brutally so. The search for truth should never end, and that endless search is only possible if one is willing to give up what they believed to be true, yesterday, for something newly discovered, today. The truth is quite simply that we all have much to learn. If we will allow ourselves the freedom to learn and change because of the knowledge we progressively obtain, we can legitimately refer to ourselves as "searching for truth".

 

I have observed in you a fear of truth. You are not alone. Many Christians have this same fear. Until you rid yourself of it - could be many years or decades - maybe never, you will be unable to move forward. I have noted this and choose not to "cast my pearls before the swine". You seem like a good guy. I do wish you luck. You are likely going to need some.

 

For myself, my friend, I can only be true to myself with Christ. Without Him, I am only true with what I want, and or regret for unwanted obligations. Being true to myself cannot be found apart from my creator.

 

When you say, move forward, can you explain to me the meaning of this. In my own life, I am moving closer to Christ or farther away from Him. For me, I cannot move forward, but only backward with out Jesus.

 

To be honest my friend, I have trouble separating knowledge from God. In my life, He is what holds my life together.

 

 

View Postthe stranger, on 29 January 2011 - 07:37 PM, said:

I believe Jesus reveals Himself to all, but in different ways, shapes and forms. If a child dies without ever knowing the "Christian way" the child is only judged on what he did with what he knew. If this child accepts the truth, than this child will also accept Jesus. I believe the same to be in all ages.

 

You're speculating that whatever the child knew will somehow result in accepting Jesus.

If the child was Jewish but hadn't yet been exposed to the Christian way, why do you assume they would recant the faith of their parents and accept Christianity?

 

 

I really do not believe it is so much about the religion a child learns that is the key, but what the child does with what he knows to be wrong and right. Jesus only judges us on our knowledge. I believe if one is after truth, and let us say, that person or child died, without ever knowing (or learning) the words of the bible and or Jesus. However, when his body goes, Jesus reveals Himself to him as truth and light, a child that is after the something other than truth and light will even at this point not accept it, or Him, for which He is.

 

Do you believe, no matter who it is, and I am not picking on you, that if someone is not after the truth in this life, they will want it in the next? I know you are after truth to the best of your insight. What if Jesus proofed Himself and His love to be true to you? Would you than accept Him?

 

Ironically, you've just hit on one of the reasons Jews reject Jesus.

According to the Old Testament you can save yourself.

Ezek 18:20-27 clearly states that the key to salvation is to repent and follow the law of God.

Each person dies for their own sin and can redeem themselves through their own actions.

There is no need for a vicarious human sacrifice and there's no need for Jesus.

 

I forgot about this one. I will get to this later on. I like that.

 

So, at any age, if one has never heard of Jesus, that person can still be saved?

 

And what about those such as myself that have seen such overwhelming evidence against your religion that we honestly find it impossible to believe it?

 

Cits, I believe the first question was answered earlier. The second one, however, is even harder. I cannot go where you are thought wise, as I have not been through and have not seen what you have seen. From everything you have told me, you was always looking for what you learned to support your belief in Jesus. That, of course, is exactly how I look at things. I myself, cannot relate, as I have not seen over whelming evidence that God does not exist. I happened to find the opposite. Again, however, I am not in your shoes. I believe this to be true, God knows why we believe and why we make every decision that we make. I believe despite the knowledge that you have, right or wrong, if your heart is in the search for truth, in time, the truth in Jesus will be seen again. I was saved as a child, gave up on God in my early teens, and did not come back until my mid twenties. Why am I saying that? We may believe something to be true now, but it does not always mean we will always believe that same thing to be true. For me, unanswered prayers were enough for me to believe there was no God or He did not care. Later I learned that everything in life happens for a reason, and for a season, as we learn and grow, and sometimes, coming back to our first belief with different understanding. I just hope, Cits, that the knowledge that you now have, can carry you on, well after this life is over. As always, my very best regards to you friend and bro.

 

You do believe humans are not perfect, right?

 

 

Nobody's perfect, that's true. But that's a far cry from the claim that everyone is a wretched sinner deserving to be tortured for eternity.

 

This is a question that I too struggled with for a long time. I did not cause my self to be born in sin. Why am I deserving of hell if I am here by no choice of my own?

 

It is true that we had no say as to our being here. It is also true that many of our situations in life are likewise. Often, we can only make the best decisions we know how at the time. We often cannot control our situation, but only our responses to the situation.

 

If God did create us for a reason, like to be with Him, and to be admired by Him, and to always be in a peaceful relationship with Him, and to get to know Him better all the time, as we always live our lives in appreciation for all He gives, than where does hell fall into place at.

 

Although you already know the story, you know Satan was at the very least among the best in every angle among the angles. He already had more than most, but that was not enough. He wanted complete control, even over the very one who created him. Thus hell was created.

 

Humans were not made with sin, but did this on their own at the deception of Satan. Just like every one is effected by the decisions of others, this was no exception. The entire earth fell under curse.

 

We look at what we deserve from our own eyes, but what if we looked at it from Gods. If God is holy and with out sin, how can He have direct fellowship with humans? If we could not be in heaven with God because of our inherited sin, than what other place is there?

 

Ofcourse, before Christ died for our sins the righteous went to Abraham's bosem. (Next to hell, or better put, part of hell) and after He died He gathered all from the earth to Himself.

 

Bottom line, just as it is written in Proverbs, each of us are just in our own eyes, no one believes they should have to burn in hell. Even the child molesters and killers have "justified" reasoning for what they do. But if none of our own standards can comply with one another, than what other morals or laws can we have.

 

 

 

 

 

There is soo soo much more I want to say right now, but time is just always always slapping me in the face. I got what I believe to be some good answers to some of the earlier questions regarding Mary and the blood line and ect. but I guess I will have to get to that a bit later.

 

One of these days I am just going to sit down here and type all day long. LOL

 

Well, until than my friends, as always, I love and appreciate you all. You all have taught me much.

[★ Citsonga ★]

First, and foremost, I want to say thank you, and tell you how much I appreciate the fact you guys (Cits and Pappy) would be there to support me if I needed it. I really don't believe I will ever see the same angle as you guys see, based on what I believe the Lord has brought me through. I did deny Him for many many years.

 

In what way do you mean that you denied him? Were you one who deep down believed Christianity was true (to some extent or other) but simply lived in rebellion to it?

 

My actions, my words, and my life showed that decision making in my life. I will only speak for myself, but I cannot live a moral life apart from Christ. It is always that inward call that beckons me back to Himself.

 

I have many desires I would love to fulfill in the flesh, but in the end, I know it only leads to heart break and pain, and a messed up life. I admit, with out Christ in my life and with out me trying to follow in His foot steps, I find my self getting in deep trouble very quickly. I guess for me, there are few limits to my lust fullness.

 

I guess every one has to make the decisions for themselves, but for me, I cannot live apart from God. I just cannot. Now many can say God is not real, and every one has the right to their thoughts, but I see my life going backward quickly every time I do not put Him first. I only feel at peace when the decisions I make are for Him.

 

Like I've said before, there probably are some who need to have a faith in something to keep them in line. It doesn't matter whether or not that thing is true, it only matters that the individual believes it to be true.

 

From my perspective, that seems to be indicative of a couple different things. The individual has not developed a strong personal sense of morality and/or the individual is being too hard on him/herself for things that really aren't morally bad.

 

I do find something incredibly ironic, though, in your assertion that you need your faith in order to be moral. According to the Bible, the very God that you claim to trust in has condoned and/or commanded genocide, slavery, abuse, subjugation, punishment of the innocent, and infinite torture for finite crimes. I honestly believe, with near 100% certainty (even though I don't know you personally), that you are probably much more morally upright than the very depiction of the God whom you claim you need to keep you morally in line.

 

I really do not believe it is so much about the religion a child learns that is the key, but what the child does with what he knows to be wrong and right. Jesus only judges us on our knowledge.

 

What if what one knows is that Christianity is flat-out wrong?

 

I cannot go where you are thought wise, as I have not been through and have not seen what you have seen. From everything you have told me, you was always looking for what you learned to support your belief in Jesus. That, of course, is exactly how I look at things.

 

Indeed, for many years that was the case. Even after contradictions got me started doubting and I realized that the Bible is not inerrant, I still tried to boost my faith in the basics of Christianity by looking closer at the alleged prophetic fulfillments in the Bible. After seeing over and over and over again, though, that NT authors took OT texts completely out of context and that the alleged prophetic fulfillments were clearly and unmistakably fabricated, my faith completely collapsed.

 

After that, of course, my approach to the Bible was no longer an effort to boost my faith. It became a much more objective look.

 

I myself, cannot relate, as I have not seen over whelming evidence that God does not exist.

 

I haven't said that there isn't any god. Though I have gotten to the point where I strongly doubt any supernatural claims and I am 100% certain that the Bible's God is make-believe, I cannot say for sure that no deity exists. In fact, my user name Citsonga is nothing more than "agnostic" spelled backwards.

 

If you're looking for solid evidence that no god exists, then you've got the wrong approach. You would not be able to find solid evidence that any of the thousands of other gods you don't believe in don't exist, yet you have no trouble disbelieving them. In fact, with regard to the gods that have been conceived of over the years, you yourself are atheistic toward 99.9999% of them.

 

Basically, what it boils down to is that trying to find evidence for the nonexistence of a god is pointless. What really matters is how much evidence for a god exists, and I don't see much there. Either god isn't concerned enough with me to reveal himself to me or god doesn't exist.

 

I believe despite the knowledge that you have, right or wrong, if your heart is in the search for truth, in time, the truth in Jesus will be seen again.

 

Can't and won't happen. Once one realizes Santa doesn't exist, he/she doesn't go back to believing in the jolly ol' feller. In the same way, once one really realizes that Christianity is mythology, he/she doesn't go back to believing it.

 

I was saved as a child, gave up on God in my early teens, and did not come back until my mid twenties. Why am I saying that? We may believe something to be true now, but it does not always mean we will always believe that same thing to be true. For me, unanswered prayers were enough for me to believe there was no God or He did not care. Later I learned that everything in life happens for a reason, and for a season, as we learn and grow, and sometimes, coming back to our first belief with different understanding. I just hope, Cits, that the knowledge that you now have, can carry you on, well after this life is over. As always, my very best regards to you friend and bro.

 

What you describe there is quite different from where I'm at. There's no way I can go back to believing the stuff in the Bible now that I've learned too much about it. I didn't just get upset over some unanswered prayers like you did, my disbelief in the Bible came from studying and learning about the Bible.

 

For an analogy, let's say you had unknowingly gotten a hold of some counterfeit money. Later, as you were looking closely at it and feeling it, you came to the realization that the money was fake. Once you learned that it was fake, could you ever go back to believing that it was genuine?

 

This is a question that I too struggled with for a long time. I did not cause my self to be born in sin. Why am I deserving of hell if I am here by no choice of my own?

 

Indeed, why would you be deserving of eternal torture simply for being born, which you had no choice in?

 

Although you already know the story, you know Satan was at the very least among the best in every angle among the angles. He already had more than most, but that was not enough. He wanted complete control, even over the very one who created him. Thus hell was created.

 

You mean that passage in Isaiah that's about the king of Babylon but Christians take completely out of context and claim it's about Satan? Yeah, I'm familiar with that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Humans were not made with sin, but did this on their own at the deception of Satan.

 

How are newborn babies "made with sin" and did it "on their own"? How do they have any choice?

 

Just like every one is effected by the decisions of others, this was no exception. The entire earth fell under curse.

 

So you still can't distinguish between curses and natural consequences, huh? The so-called "curse" was supposedly an act of God in the garden, not a natural consequence. I do not see how something so simple can be so incredibly difficult for you to grasp.

 

We look at what we deserve from our own eyes, but what if we looked at it from Gods.

 

You're not God, so what makes you think you can look at things through God's eyes? All you can do is assume that the religion you believe is true, despite overwhelming evidence against it, and then look at what this religion's texts say.

 

If God is holy and with out sin, how can He have direct fellowship with humans?

 

So your God is not all-powerful? He has limitations on what he "can" do with his own creation?

 

Even the child molesters and killers have "justified" reasoning for what they do.

 

Even the God of the Bible has "justified" genocide, slavery, abuse, subjugation and punishing the innocent. Beyond that, the God of the Bible has even "justified" the eternal torture of people for temporal errors, which is far worse than what even the child molesters and killers among us have done.

 

By the way, Stranger, did you see my posts about the plethora of contradictions in the resurrection accounts and the contradiction regarding the time of the crucifixion?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Here's a good video explaining some of the stuff we've discussed:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OCYhDFc42I

[Mister Pappy]

First, and foremost, I want to say thank you, and tell you how much I appreciate the fact you guys (Cits and Pappy) would be there to support me if I needed it. I really don't believe I will ever see the same angle as you guys see, based on what I believe the Lord has brought me through.

You are welcome Stranger, but you are probably right. That time will most likely never come. It is very difficult to break free from the chains of indoctrination and brainwashing - very difficult indeed. Few accomplish it, and it is very painful.

 

... I cannot live a moral life apart from Christ.

I hope, for your own good, that someday you will develop moral character of your own simply because it is the right thing to do.

 

I have many desires I would love to fulfill in the flesh, but in the end, I know it only leads to heart break and pain, and a messed up life.

This is a poor reason to search for truth. It certainly isn't why I began my own search, and I have found that I am a far better person, in all aspects, now than I ever was as a Christian.

 

I admit, with out Christ in my life and with out me trying to follow in His foot steps, I find my self getting in deep trouble very quickly.

What kind of terrible things is it that you so desperately wish to do Stranger? Are you a rapist, a serial killer, a drug fiend, a pedophile, an abuser of women? What kind of person are you really that you need an invisible patriarch in the sky threatening to burn you for all eternity to keep your nature contained and the rest of us safe?

 

I guess for me, there are few limits to my lust fullness.

You are beginning to scare me Stranger. If I didn't understand where this horrible self-image, you have, comes from, I would be terrified of a person who is scared of what they might do if God didn't have them by the nap of the neck. However, I understand that you have been made to believe how horrible you are, so that you will always need the magic cure. This is the horrific aspect of your religion - the kind of monster it causes people to believe they are.

 

When you say, move forward, can you explain to me the meaning of this. In my own life, I am moving closer to Christ or farther away from Him. For me, I cannot move forward, but only backward with out Jesus.

 

To be honest my friend, I have trouble separating knowledge from God. In my life, He is what holds my life together.

This is because you cannot see beyond the walls of the cell you are confined to. There is no way to grow or move forward UNLESS one is willing to give up what they believe today for newly acquired knowledge tomorrow. From what I gather, you are not willing to do this. You do not WISH to encounter any knowledge which takes you away from what you currently "believe to be true". This is why you will NOT acquire further knowledge, unless your outlook should change. You will sit in the same place until death, believing that becoming more convinced of what you have always believed, is actually growth. It is sad.

 

Your Friend,

Pappy

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger ... it has been my experience that Christians are not actually searching for truth at all. I recently stumbled across this video which sums up that "fact" quite nicely. I think you will understand.

 

Pappy

 

 

[rayskidude]

Like I've said before, there probably are some who need to have a faith in something to keep them in line. It doesn't matter whether or not that thing is true, it only matters that the individual believes it to be true.

Plz allow me to jump in at this point - I don't think it's a question of us looking for a philosophy or religion to keep us in line. It is a recognition that we are sinners by nature, and apart from Divine intervention, we would be unable to make lasting and substantive changes. We realize that, being sinners by nature, our ability to change is limited to being motivated by self-preservation. Now, this is a strong motivation, but cannot lead to truly selfless love, like that God has portrayed in sending His Son for our salvation, and that Christ portrayed in dying in our place for our sin.

 

Jeremiah 13:23 (ESV)

23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin

or the leopard his spots?

Then also you can do good

who are accustomed to do evil.

 

Jeremiah 17:9–10 (ESV)

9 The heart is deceitful above all things,

and desperately sick;

who can understand it?

10 “I the LORD search the heart

and test the mind,

to give every man according to his ways,

according to the fruit of his deeds.”

 

1 John 4:7–11 (ESV) God Is Love

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

 

From my perspective, that seems to be indicative of a couple different things. The individual has not developed a strong personal sense of morality and/or the individual is being too hard on him/herself for things that really aren't morally bad.

The question here is who is making the determination that something I've done/said/thought is really not that bad. Am I making that call? If so, can I really be capable of an unbiased opinion on what I do? Certainly, the answer is 'no.' No one should ever be their own standard of measure of morality. So who outside of me should make that call? My wife? My family? My friends? The government?

 

Yet all these entities are comprised of humans just as flawed as me. The only righteous standard of morality must be placed before us by God - who alone in holy, righteous and just. Therefore, only God can devise righteous standards and have the authority to administer proper justice. And as I commit to repent of my sin and place my faith in Jesus Christ; God promises the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who in turn motivates and enables believers to live in a manner worthy of our calling.

 

Romans 3:19–20 (ESV)

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

 

I do find something incredibly ironic, though, in your assertion that you need your faith in order to be moral. According to the Bible, the very God that you claim to trust in has condoned and/or commanded genocide, slavery, abuse, subjugation, punishment of the innocent, and infinite torture for finite crimes. I honestly believe, with near 100% certainty (even though I don't know you personally), that you are probably much more morally upright than the very depiction of the God whom you claim you need to keep you morally in line.

These are all unsubstantiated assertions. Where do you find God commanding any of the things you have listed?

 

What if what one knows is that Christianity is flat-out wrong?

You simply cannot know that Christianity is flat-out wrong. Knowledge re: religion does not lend itself to such assertions. You can disagree with Christianity, you can judge other religions or philosophies as superior to Christianity, etc - but no one can know that any religion is flat-out wrong.

 

Basically, what it boils down to is that trying to find evidence for the nonexistence of a god is pointless. What really matters is how much evidence for a god exists, and I don't see much there. Either god isn't concerned enough with me to reveal himself to me or god doesn't exist.

 

Allow me to ask whether you have thoroughly investigated such phenomena as (1) Creation itself - the sheer existence and direction of this universe, (2) the intricacy, the wonder, the balance, the majesty of this universe - but especially the phenomenon of life - and even more specifically human life; (3) the wonder of human life - personality, morality, love, music, literature, art, engineering, etc; and (4) the ubiquitous nature of religion, anywhere you go on planet Earth, people are drawn to believe in some Deity. All these lead to the conclusion of a powerful, creative, loving, and righteous God.

 

The thought that all these phenomena are simply the products of an accidental quantum fluctuation which resulted in a Big Bang within a primordial mass of unknown origin, which has since been driven by directionless forces such as gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces, electrostatic attractions/repulsions which in turn somehow lead to a process of evolution, etc, etc etc.

 

WOW - the faith required to believe such a remotely improbable scenario is monumental.

 

Indeed, why would you be deserving of eternal torture simply for being born, which you had no choice in?

Where did you get this idea?

[rayskidude]

Good points, Mr Pappy (and Centauri).

 

One thing I would add in response to bobareebop is that the Gospels were not written until after several of Paul's epistles were written. Now, from the Christian perspective that the Gospels are relating truth and that Jesus the Messiah came and taught prior to Paul, it would make sense to claim that the Gospel claims represent pre-Pauline teachings. However, there is not one single shred of evidence that the Gospels are true (in fact, they repeatedly contradict each other, thus undermining their authority), and considering that the Gospels are quite plausibly (I'd say probably) only recounting made-up stories that developed over time, then the Gospels should be looked at in the context of when they were written, not when the events they describe are alleged to have taken place. Thus, Paul's epistles predate the Gospels' Jesus.

 

Whoa, boyz. The fact that one thing pre-dates another is not proof nor even indicates high probability that the earlier had any influence on the latter. Whether Paul wrote some epistles prior to the Gospels does not at all require any influence on the Gospel writers. The Gospel writers were either eyewitness Apostles (Matthew, John), or close associates of Apostles (Mark's relation to Peter), or the result of research with eyewitnesses (Luke).

 

And to imagine that 1st century people were so gullible as to simply accept a new religion which was based on the fact that God Incarnate suffered and died by crucifixion (degrading mode of death mainly reserved for low socio-economic folk) in order to pay the penalty for the sin of recalcitrant rebellious people; and then to say this God-Man rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven????

 

Well, this is simply is not well thought out position - and is elitist. "Why, those country bumpkins were just incapable of logical linear thought, and without the proper tools to judge the veracity of such wild claims!"

 

Let's look at the facts. All the NT was written in the geographical area where the events of Jesus and His Apostles occurred. Christianity was opposed & persecuted by the powerful Roman gov't which touted pagan worship of their emperors and mythological gods, and oppressed by the Jewish hierarchy which championed legalistic adherences to the OT Law - and who had the authority to put people out of the synagogue - see John chap 9.

 

Yet, as many people assessed the facts portrayed in the preaching and writing of the Apostles et. al. - and saw the power of God demonstrated in miracles and in transforming human hearts; well, they simply weighed the evidence they witnessed they saw, examined the depravity of their own hearts - and responded like the tax collector.

 

Luke 18:9–14 (ESV)

 

The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

[centauri]

 

The only righteous standard of morality must be placed before us by God - who alone in holy, righteous and just.

Therefore, only God can devise righteous standards and have the authority to administer proper justice.

And your version of God is an unproved commodity.

It exists in your skull, loosely based on the Bible, which itself has never been proven to be the word of any such divine being.

 

And as I commit to repent of my sin and place my faith in Jesus Christ; God promises the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who in turn motivates and enables believers to live in a manner worthy of our calling.

Just as placing faith in Allah will motivate and enable believers to live worthy lives.

 

Romans 3:19–20 (ESV)

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

This is a lie from Paul, the Jewish apostate.

According to God’s alleged holy word, doing the works of the law does justify humans and makes them righteous.

 

Deut 6, Ezek 18, Psa 103, Psa 111, Psa 119 and Luke 1:5-6.

 

Luke 1:5-6(ESV)

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

 

I do find something incredibly ironic, though, in your assertion that you need your faith in order to be moral. According to the Bible, the very God that you claim to trust in has condoned and/or commanded genocide, slavery, abuse, subjugation, punishment of the innocent, and infinite torture for finite crimes. I honestly believe, with near 100% certainty (even though I don't know you personally), that you are probably much more morally upright than the very depiction of the God whom you claim you need to keep you morally in line.

 

rayskidude:

These are all unsubstantiated assertions. Where do you find God commanding any of the things you have listed?

Stop pretending.

They are not all unsubstantiated.

They’ve been documented many times in these forums, but you conveniently ignore them and then claim they’ve never been addressed.

Slavery is commanded by God in Deut 20, and this has been shown to you previously.

 

The Gospel writers were either eyewitness Apostles (Matthew, John), or close associates of Apostles (Mark's relation to Peter), or the result of research with eyewitnesses (Luke).

This is an argument by assertion.

You haven’t established that any of the Gospels were written by the names assigned to them or that any of them were in fact eyewitnesses.

 

Let's look at the facts. All the NT was written in the geographical area where the events of Jesus and His Apostles occurred. Christianity was opposed & persecuted by the powerful Roman gov't which touted pagan worship of their emperors and mythological gods, and oppressed by the Jewish hierarchy which championed legalistic adherences to the OT Law - and who had the authority to put people out of the synagogue - see John chap 9.

Yet, as many people assessed the facts portrayed in the preaching and writing of the Apostles et. al. - and saw the power of God demonstrated in miracles and in transforming human hearts; well, they simply weighed the evidence they witnessed they saw, examined the depravity of their own hearts - and responded like the tax collector.

You haven’t established the facts, you’ve simply assumed that the NT stories contain them.

These so-called “facts” aren’t confirmed by any contemporary writer outside of the cult.

The internal facts aren’t even consistent regarding the birth narrative for Jesus, the genealogy of Jesus, the events leading up to the crucifixion, or the events surrounding the resurrection.

[AlphaToOmega]

Allow me to ask whether you have thoroughly investigated such phenomena as (1) Creation itself - the sheer existence and direction of this universe, (2) the intricacy, the wonder, the balance, the majesty of this universe - but especially the phenomenon of life - and even more specifically human life; (3) the wonder of human life - personality, morality, love, music, literature, art, engineering, etc; and (4) the ubiquitous nature of religion, anywhere you go on planet Earth, people are drawn to believe in some Deity. All these lead to the conclusion of a powerful, creative, loving, and righteous God.

 

The thought that all these phenomena are simply the products of an accidental quantum fluctuation which resulted in a Big Bang within a primordial mass of unknown origin, which has since been driven by directionless forces such as gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces, electrostatic attractions/repulsions which in turn somehow lead to a process of evolution, etc, etc etc.

 

WOW - the faith required to believe such a remotely improbable scenario is monumental.

 

The stupid is strong with this one.

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

And to imagine that 1st century people were so gullible as to simply accept a new religion which was based on the fact that God Incarnate suffered and died by crucifixion (degrading mode of death mainly reserved for low socio-economic folk) in order to pay the penalty for the sin of recalcitrant rebellious people; and then to say this God-Man rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven????

 

You mean like, Scientologist's believe that Raelians came to Earth in intergalactic DC10's or some such shit.

That happened only in the last few decades.

I will add though, like them, your crappy religion has no outside verification of these events.

The God of creation arrives and does all this freaky stuff and not one person outside deluded cult members wrote a thing about it.

How exactly does EVERYONE except the cult members miss these events?

Note, they don't even write about it at the time.

It was written decades after the fact.

Because if they did, someone would write back what a crock of shit it is!

 

Well, this is simply is not well thought out position - and is elitist. "Why, those country bumpkins were just incapable of logical linear thought, and without the proper tools to judge the veracity of such wild claims!"

 

See above for a real life very recent depiction how the word of bullshit is started.

2000years however does not legitimise it.

 

 

Let's look at the facts.

 

Oh the irony

 

All the NT was written in the geographical area where the events of Jesus and His Apostles occurred. Christianity was opposed & persecuted by the powerful Roman gov't which touted pagan worship of their emperors and mythological gods, and oppressed by the Jewish hierarchy which championed legalistic adherences to the OT Law - and who had the authority to put people out of the synagogue - see John chap 9.

 

bla bla bla.

 

See the birth of the cult of Scientology. Its very well documented.

If you can't even be bothered to do a little research you have little to say about facts. Just unfounded bullshit.

 

Yet, as many people assessed the facts portrayed in the preaching and writing of the Apostles et. al. - and saw the power of God demonstrated in miracles and in transforming human hearts; well, they simply weighed the evidence they witnessed they saw, examined the depravity of their own hearts - and responded like the tax collector.

 

This word "facts"

You use it a lot but I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

 

 

 

 

[rayskidude]

Romans 3:19–20 (ESV)

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

 

This is a lie from Paul, the Jewish apostate. According to God’s alleged holy word, doing the works of the law does justify humans and makes them righteous.

Deut 6, Ezek 18, Psa 103, Psa 111, Psa 119 and Luke 1:5-6.

 

Luke 1:5-6(ESV)

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

 

I appreciate what you say here - but you take it too far. Have you forgotten that when the angel Gabriel revealed the birth of Zechariah's son, John the Baptist, that Zechariah did not believe, and was rendered speechless until after the birth? And don't forget that Job was spoken of as blameless - and yet his sin was revealed, and that Paul stated he was blameless according to the Law - but admitted in Romans 7 that 'covetousness' was in his heart.

 

SO 'blameless' had a connotation of outward adherence to a standard that did not include all the attitudes within the heart; and some who were blameless were tested and found wanting. Hmmmmmm... maybe because they were sinners by nature? Salvation can only be by faith in the Triune God, who graciously counts our faith as righteousness.

 

Genesis 15:6 (ESV)

6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

 

Luke 1:18–20 (ESV)

18 And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” 19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. 20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”

 

Jeremiah 13:22–23 (ESV)

22 And if you say in your heart,

‘Why have these things come upon me?’

it is for the greatness of your iniquity

that your skirts are lifted up

and you suffer violence.

23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin

or the leopard his spots?

Then also you can do good

who are accustomed to do evil.

 

Isaiah 64:5–6 (ESV)

5 You meet him who joyfully works righteousness,

those who remember you in your ways.

Behold, you were angry, and we sinned;

in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved?

6 We have all become like one who is unclean,

and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.

We all fade like a leaf,

and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

 

Slavery is commanded by God in Deut 20, and this has been shown to you previously.

 

Read Deut 20 again, there is no command to enslave.

 

Let's look at the facts. All the NT was written in the geographical area where the events of Jesus and His Apostles occurred. Christianity was opposed & persecuted by the powerful Roman gov't which touted pagan worship of their emperors and mythological gods, and oppressed by the Jewish hierarchy which championed legalistic adherences to the OT Law - and who had the authority to put people out of the synagogue - see John chap 9.

Yet, as many people assessed the facts portrayed in the preaching and writing of the Apostles et. al. - and saw the power of God demonstrated in miracles and in transforming human hearts; well, they simply weighed the evidence they witnessed they saw, examined the depravity of their own hearts - and responded like the tax collector.

 

You haven’t established the facts, you’ve simply assumed that the NT stories contain them.

 

Wait - are you saying Christianity was not oppressed & persecuted by the Jews and Romans? Where do you get your history lessons from?

 

The internal facts aren’t even consistent regarding the birth narrative for Jesus, the genealogy of Jesus, the events leading up to the crucifixion, or the events surrounding the resurrection.

 

This is simply claptrap from liberal 'scholars' who seek to be avant garde to make a name for themselves as iconoclastic pioneers. Conservative scholars have addressed these issues more than adequately on many occasions.

[rayskidude]

You mean like, Scientologist's believe that Raelians came to Earth in intergalactic DC10's or some such shit. That happened only in the last few decades. I will add though, like them, your crappy religion has no outside verification of these events.

The God of creation arrives and does all this freaky stuff and not one person outside deluded cult members wrote a thing about it.

 

First - there simply is no connection between the blathering of a science fiction writer like L. Ron Hubbard and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. And the fact that some people are able to gather a following has always been acknowledged - even in Scripture.

 

Acts 5:29–39 (ESV)

29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice,

 

Now see, here you just display your ignorance, because several accounts exist re: Jesus Christ and the subsequent growth of Christianity.

 

Note, they don't even write about it at the time. It was written decades after the fact.

 

Here, I can only assume you're referring to the NT writers. I quote from Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction "Allow me to retort."

 

So what?!! Timing is not the issue - truth is the issue. Are we to disavow history books written today covering ancient cultures & events - and the historical analysis of those phenomena - simply because the books were written centuries after the facts? Would PhD historians agree with you on this? Are men incapable of researching and recording accurate accounts and analysis of history? Really? Have you discussed this theory of yours with noted historians?

 

But by your measure - then Islam is THE religion, as Muhammad's revelations were written down very soon after he received them from allah.

 

Here's the facts;

 

1 Corinthians 15:3–11 (ESV)

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

[centauri]

Romans 3:19–20 (ESV)

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

 

This is a lie from Paul, the Jewish apostate. According to God’s alleged holy word, doing the works of the law does justify humans and makes them righteous.

Deut 6, Ezek 18, Psa 103, Psa 111, Psa 119 and Luke 1:5-6.

 

Luke 1:5-6(ESV)

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

 

I appreciate what you say here - but you take it too far. Have you forgotten that when the angel Gabriel revealed the birth of Zechariah's son, John the Baptist, that Zechariah did not believe, and was rendered speechless until after the birth? And don't forget that Job was spoken of as blameless - and yet his sin was revealed, and that Paul stated he was blameless according to the Law - but admitted in Romans 7 that 'covetousness' was in his heart.

Zechariah was deemed righteous because he kept the law.

You’re trying to deny the word, which states that keeping the law brings righteousness and blessings.

If you want Zechariah to be classified as a sinner who lost righteousness and justification with God, then cite the law he broke and disprove Psa 119 and Ezek 18, which also show that obedience to the law imputes righteousness.

His wife was also defined as righteous because she kept the law.

How are you going to disqualify her from the righteousness she obtained by keeping the law?

Righteous doesn’t mean sinless, it means being in right standing.

Humans are indeed justified by keeping the law as this and many other verses put forth.

 

SO 'blameless' had a connotation of outward adherence to a standard that did not include all the attitudes within the heart; and some who were blameless were tested and found wanting. Hmmmmmm... maybe because they were sinners by nature? Salvation can only be by faith in the Triune God, who graciously counts our faith as righteousness.

This is the “it doesn’t mean what it says” rationalization.

SO…righteous and blameless doesn’t really mean righteous and blameless because that would conflict with Paul’s heresy, which you pump and promote as “truth”, along with your mystical Triune God.

Paul couldn't have anything good coming from the law because the law was his competition.

If keeping the law imputed righteousness, which the Bible clearly says it does, then there is no need for Jesus.

Each person can save themselves by their own actions just as Ezek 18 says.

Being a sinner by nature doesn't disqualify one from being righteous.

The law itself accomodates unintentional sin and provides atonement for it, and it has nothing to do with faith in Jesus.

If you keep the law, any unintentional sins are dealt with by that very law.

There is no outside agent required to die for your sins.

 

And you also contradict scripture with your claim that salvation can only be from faith in your three headed God.

Cite the verses in the Hebrew scriptures that state salvation can only be found by faith in a three person God.

Until then, you’ve got nothing but a load of revisionist theology.

 

Genesis 15:6 (ESV)

6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Abraham was deemed righteous because he believed and kept the law.

Gen 26:4-5

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

 

Slavery is commanded by God in Deut 20, and this has been shown to you previously.

 

Read Deut 20 again, there is no command to enslave.

You’re in a tragic state of denial.

The lucky populations would be given a choice to be killed or become slaves.

Forced labor is enslavement, per the decree by God.

Deut 20:10-14(NLT)

As you approach a town to attack it, you must first offer its people terms for peace.

If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.

But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.

When the Lord your God hands the town over to you, use your swords to kill every man in the town.

But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the Lord your God has given you.

God’s Temple was built with slave labor that was established under this law.

 

Other cities would be exterminated without any mercy as Deut 20:15-17 shows.

 

Let's look at the facts. All the NT was written in the geographical area where the events of Jesus and His Apostles occurred. Christianity was opposed & persecuted by the powerful Roman gov't which touted pagan worship of their emperors and mythological gods, and oppressed by the Jewish hierarchy which championed legalistic adherences to the OT Law - and who had the authority to put people out of the synagogue - see John chap 9.

Yet, as many people assessed the facts portrayed in the preaching and writing of the Apostles et. al. - and saw the power of God demonstrated in miracles and in transforming human hearts; well, they simply weighed the evidence they witnessed they saw, examined the depravity of their own hearts - and responded like the tax collector.

 

You haven’t established the facts, you’ve simply assumed that the NT stories contain them.

 

Wait - are you saying Christianity was not oppressed & persecuted by the Jews and Romans? Where do you get your history lessons from?

Wait, are you claiming that the NT contains proven facts about Jesus?

You wrote that the Apostles preached facts.

No wonder you snipped away the rest of the response.

By the way, being persecuted doesn’t equate to having facts.

If it did then Mormons have the facts.

 

The internal facts aren’t even consistent regarding the birth narrative for Jesus, the genealogy of Jesus, the events leading up to the crucifixion, or the events surrounding the resurrection.

 

This is simply claptrap from liberal 'scholars' who seek to be avant garde to make a name for themselves as iconoclastic pioneers. Conservative scholars have addressed these issues more than adequately on many occasions.

Speaking of claptrap, you’re doing one of your famous hand waving exercises where you dismiss anything that pricks your fantasy bubble world.

You make a deft appeal to “conservative scholars” that have tried to rationalize the problems away and assume their excuses are more than adequate.

This isn't a sheep forum for believers where that sort of elitist crap works Ray.

You haven’t done a thing to dull the point of the horn that’s sticking so painfully into your buttocks.

All you’ve done is closed your eyes and pretended that there are no problems.

[centauri]

Here's the facts;

 

1 Corinthians 15:3–11 (ESV)

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Your so-called facts come from a man that never met Jesus in the flesh while he was on earth.

Paul's information came from visions and trances because as he boasted, he received his gospel from no man.

Visions and trances are not "facts" because you want them to be.

And if he was reciting a borrowed creed, it concerned events he was never an eyewitness to.

His figure of over 500 believers is not consistent with the size of the church at that time and is not confirmed by any other writer.

His claim about Jesus being buried and raised in accordance with the "scriptures" is also dubious due to the lack of any such scripture cited.

The door is left wide open for embellishment of whatever "facts" that may have actually existed.