Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Auracle]

Why is LNC throwing a hissy fit over a post made three months ago? He's one to talk about ignoring what people say. He's been posting in this thread for three months now and he's still repeating the same arguments and not listening to anybody. At this rate, he'll probably throw a hissy fit over my post a year from now if I'm lucky.

 

Come to think of it, I think he's gone backwards. Wasn't he up to responding to August posts?

[Auracle]

 

To some degree, LNC is right that Jesus didn't repeal the old law but simply revised as Jesus said in Matthew 5 that the old law applies until the end of time. But this doesn't mean Jesus made the old law more restrictive nor does this mean Jesus is God which by the way he never says he is in the bible and the Trinity was just made up by the Catholics. What it means is Jesus is a cherry picker who follows the laws when it's convenient for him and discards them when they're not just like all Christians do today.

 

You need to reread the Sermon on the Mount. Every time it says, "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you" it was a further refinement of the law making it more restrictive than the people were interpreting it. It really wasn't a change in the law or even a refinement of the law, it was more of a clarification of the way the law was originally to be interpreted.

 

 

So what you are saying is, when someone says "Do not eat 'x', because it is unclean," the proper way to interpret that is "Really, it's not what you eat that makes you unclean, it's what you think and say" or if someone says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," the proper way to interpret that is actually "turn the other cheek"?

 

 

Where DO you come up with this? What good is studying Hebrew and Greek and arguing it, if you can't even properly use the English language?

 

[LNC]

But in the case of salvation, Christian style, this is not a "free gift" to the recipient. There are strings attached - see Hans' post #526 for said requirements. Therefore it is NOT free. A gift certainly does not imply that the recipient will receive it. They can reject it. You are not making sense.

 

I have already shown that Hans doesn't have a Biblical understanding of Christianity and that his claims don't hold up. If a person does not receive a gift, then it is hardly a gift for them. Yes, most people do reject the offer of the free gift, but that does not mean that the gift is not freely offered. I hope that makes more sense to you. Let me know if there is still confusion.

 

No, you are right, I can't presume to understand or comprehend a deity/human life form, much less the peculiar suffering that life form might have undergone, so from that standpoint I suppose maybe Jesus didn't have it easy. Ya know, LNC, honestly, I am to the point where I can't even wrap my brain around this atonement nonsense to know where to begin on this - the notion of the atonement is so absurd as a whole.

 

Maybe you can let me know what you consider to be absurd about it. I find it quite coherent and meaningful.

[LNC]

According to Catholic doctrine, salvation is also contingent on recognizing the authority of the Church.

If you've departed from that authority, your version of truth and your very salvation is far from assured.

 

That may be so, but I left Roman Catholicism many years ago because I found that their doctrines didn't match up with what was in the Bible, which I consider to be the ultimate authority for doctrine, life and practice. Regarding my salvation, I don't consider the Roman Catholic church to hold the keys to that nor do I find any reference to the Roman Catholic referred to as such in the Bible, so I don't think that my salvation is in jeopardy from the Roman Catholic church.

[Abiyoyo]

But in the case of salvation, Christian style, this is not a "free gift" to the recipient. There are strings attached - see Hans' post #526 for said requirements. Therefore it is NOT free. A gift certainly does not imply that the recipient will receive it. They can reject it. You are not making sense.

 

 

 

Hey LNC! You still in July man, it's October But, whatever floats you boat

[LNC]

And those verses are undermined by the failed prayer of Jesus in John 17 that his followers were to display complete unity, not schisms and divisions.

 

Can you give me your hermeneutic that indicates that you have interpreted this verse correctly? Also, could you tell me how you know that this means that there cannot be different denominations (which is what I assume you mean by schisms and divisions) among true believers (I don't consider what false believers do to be a concern)?

[Abiyoyo]

According to Catholic doctrine, salvation is also contingent on recognizing the authority of the Church.

If you've departed from that authority, your version of truth and your very salvation is far from assured.

 

That may be so, but I left Roman Catholicism many years ago because I found that their doctrines didn't match up with what was in the Bible, which I consider to be the ultimate authority for doctrine, life and practice. Regarding my salvation, I don't consider the Roman Catholic church to hold the keys to that nor do I find any reference to the Roman Catholic referred to as such in the Bible, so I don't think that my salvation is in jeopardy from the Roman Catholic church.

 

 

Which Bible? The Received Text, the Critical Text, The KJV, the NIV? Maccabees? Sarah?

 

No Biblical reference, to the Roman Catholic Church, that claims their first Pope to be Peter, the Rock, which Jesus spoke of?

 

Wouldn't just the simple fact that before Luther, and the Protestant Reformation, the RCC was the main church of Christ be a testimony of themselves, even not looking at the Bible?

 

You do know that the KJV is derived from the RCC's fathers passing down the Received Text, right?

 

....even though i know I won't get a response to this for three months

[RationalOkie]

July? Really? Clap....clap....clap....

"I don't consider what false believers do to be a concern" -LNC

 

Ah...this may be a first, we have a True® follower among us. Enlightening us all as to our misunderstandings, missinterpretations, miscomunications, and misused college educations. How fortunate for us.

[LNC]

So, according to you transubstantiation is a myth.

 

I don't consider myth to be the proper characterization. I would consider it a faulty teaching that finds no support in the Scriptures. If you disagree, maybe you could tell me how you would justify this teaching.

 

But it's your game LNC.

It shows how subjective your theology is.

Jesus claimed that his blood was real drink, not simply wine pretending to be blood.

Paul asserted that failure to discern the Lord’s body in the ritual brought condemnation.

You want to establish your opinions as binding on others.

You then proceed to selectively choose which miracles can be classified as valid and which ones cannot.

Nice try at tossing out "truth" though.

 

Can you show me where Jesus tapped his veins and filled the cup? Can you tell me where the Apostles believed that they were drinking real blood? You simply don't understand covenant language and how Jesus was speaking at the Passover meal. Do you understand the meaning of the cups used in the Passover? There are four cups used in the Passover celebration: the cup of sanctification, the cup of judgment, the cup of redemption, and the cup of restoration and praise. It was after the first cup that the family ate the Passover meal consisting of the lamb that takes away sins and then drinks the second cup, the cup of judgment. Then Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper and took up the bread saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” After that, he took up the cup of redemption saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." So, he wasn't saying that the bread was literally his body or the wine literally his blood, but that both represented the sacrifice that he would soon make on the cross for their sins.

 

If you believe that your reading is correct, it is incumbent upon you to make the case for it rather than just reading the select passages that you did and reading them out of context. So, I will look forward to the defense of your interpretation. However, I will say that no scholar throughout history that I know of takes your position.

[Deva]

I have already shown that Hans doesn't have a Biblical understanding of Christianity and that his claims don't hold up. If a person does not receive a gift, then it is hardly a gift for them. Yes, most people do reject the offer of the free gift, but that does not mean that the gift is not freely offered. I hope that makes more sense to you. Let me know if there is still confusion.

 

Why do I bother? It will take 2 months to get around to it. Let's start with the definition of "gift". What does that mean to you, LNC? A person gives me a present. There is nothing I need to do except take it. It could be a material object, or the gift might be a service, but I can accept it or reject it. The procedure for doing so is very simple.

 

Not so with the "free" gift you are talking about. Why it is not only not a gift, much less free, is so transparently obvious that I really don't want to go into it. Do I really have to explain this again?

 

We have to believe all the stuff about Jesus, God, the atonement, without a shred of proof. We have to believe we are contaminated by sin and unable to do any good without this supposed gift. Not only that, we have the prospect of going to hell if we don't receive this supposed free gift.

 

What is the motive of the giver of this particular gift? Isn't it control? If it is not, why are the consequences so severe if I decide to reject it?

 

No, you are right, I can't presume to understand or comprehend a deity/human life form, much less the peculiar suffering that life form might have undergone, so from that standpoint I suppose maybe Jesus didn't have it easy. Ya know, LNC, honestly, I am to the point where I can't even wrap my brain around this atonement nonsense to know where to begin on this - the notion of the atonement is so absurd as a whole.

 

Maybe you can let me know what you consider to be absurd about it. I find it quite coherent and meaningful.

 

I just am completely unable to narrow it down. The entire idea of a God separate from humanity is unprovable and, to me, quite absurd. To expect God to save me in any way is simply beyond belief. Save me from what? Some condition called sin that God made possible to begin with. It is incoherent and not in accordance with my life experience. It is absurd. It is also immoral to have someone else take punishment which you deserve yourself.

[Antlerman]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

[centauri]

According to Catholic doctrine, salvation is also contingent on recognizing the authority of the Church.

If you've departed from that authority, your version of truth and your very salvation is far from assured.

 

That may be so, but I left Roman Catholicism many years ago because I found that their doctrines didn't match up with what was in the Bible, which I consider to be the ultimate authority for doctrine, life and practice. Regarding my salvation, I don't consider the Roman Catholic church to hold the keys to that nor do I find any reference to the Roman Catholic referred to as such in the Bible, so I don't think that my salvation is in jeopardy from the Roman Catholic church.

Then your salvation is subjective, being grounded in your personal interpretation of the Bible.

Your instructions to people on this forum regarding salvation are equally subjective.

The same Bible that you say doesn’t reference the Catholic Church is used by that Church to validate itself.

http://www.protestanterrors.com/

...If one of the churches must be true, it is the Catholic Church since it is clearly the only perpetually existing Christian Church since the time of Christ. The new Protestant churches therefore cannot be called true, but can only be called heretical.

 

...To those Protestants who would claim the Catholic Church did not exist for a time since the time of Christ, we ask you to name the years in which She didn't exist.

[centauri]

And those verses are undermined by the failed prayer of Jesus in John 17 that his followers were to display complete unity, not schisms and divisions.

 

Can you give me your hermeneutic that indicates that you have interpreted this verse correctly? Also, could you tell me how you know that this means that there cannot be different denominations (which is what I assume you mean by schisms and divisions) among true believers (I don't consider what false believers do to be a concern)?

What is it that you don’t understand about complete unity?

What is it that you don’t understand about the prayer for all believers to be in complete unity as Jesus said he was one with God?

Tell me how Protestant refusal to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church isn’t a schism or division when the Catholic Church maintains that failure to do so invalidates salvation.

Tell me why use of the word “heretic” isn’t a term relating to schism, rebellion, and division.

The phrase "false believers" has little meaning.

There is no universal standard to define such a person because it's subjective.

[centauri]

So, according to you transubstantiation is a myth.

 

I don't consider myth to be the proper characterization. I would consider it a faulty teaching that finds no support in the Scriptures. If you disagree, maybe you could tell me how you would justify this teaching.

 

But it's your game LNC.

It shows how subjective your theology is.

Jesus claimed that his blood was real drink, not simply wine pretending to be blood.

Paul asserted that failure to discern the Lord’s body in the ritual brought condemnation.

You want to establish your opinions as binding on others.

You then proceed to selectively choose which miracles can be classified as valid and which ones cannot.

Nice try at tossing out "truth" though.

 

Can you show me where Jesus tapped his veins and filled the cup? Can you tell me where the Apostles believed that they were drinking real blood?

The transformation is supernatural.

If water can turn to wine as the Bible says it did, then wine can turn into blood.

According to Christians, this is fully justified by scripture.

http://www.protestanterrors.com/

"The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, ,,which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" 1 Corinthians 10:16. This clearly shows the Apostles belief in the bread and body of Our Lord being the same. So why do the Protestant reformers choose to oppose the Apostles regarding this?

 

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him" John 6:56-57. Again we have an unmistakable equation of Our Lord's flesh and bread, and Our Lord's blood and the wine. Combine this with the meanings of the verses above, and we clearly have something extremely special, something infinitely more special than something only symbolic.

 

Let us also consider these verses, "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:26-29. Here we ask Protestants who believe the bread and wine only to be symbols of Our Lord's body and blood, for what purpose does Our Lord say "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" if these are only symbols? How does one eat a symbol "unworthily"? And does it make sense that we would bring judgment on ourselves by eating and drinking only a symbol? Some Protestants choose not to believe in the real presence since this doctrine "sounds silly" or because they cannot comprehend it. Is the doctrine of the real presence a mystery? Absolutely! And if it is a mystery, we surely cannot fully comprehend it, rather we believe it because Our Lord told us it was so. We cannot choose not to believe a doctrine Our Lord teaches us simply because we cannot fully comprehend it. There are other doctrines we cannot fully understand either such as God's omnipresence. Do we not believe this because we cannot fully comprehend it? Of course not. We cannot expect to fully understand the actions or doctrines of an all-powerful God, and our limited understanding of them does not limit what God can do.

 

You simply don't understand covenant language and how Jesus was speaking at the Passover meal. Do you understand the meaning of the cups used in the Passover? There are four cups used in the Passover celebration: the cup of sanctification, the cup of judgment, the cup of redemption, and the cup of restoration and praise. It was after the first cup that the family ate the Passover meal consisting of the lamb that takes away sins...

Show me the verse from the Hebrew scriptures that says passover lambs are sin sacrifices.

 

If you believe that your reading is correct, it is incumbent upon you to make the case for it rather than just reading the select passages that you did and reading them out of context. So, I will look forward to the defense of your interpretation. However, I will say that no scholar throughout history that I know of takes your position.

It is incumbent on you to prove that I took anything out of context, rather than simply claiming I did.

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist isn't my position, it’s the position of the Catholic Church, which is filled to the brim with scholars, and has been for centuries.

 

If we look at ancient writings from the Christian Church we also see repeated mention of the real presence in the Eucharist going back to the earliest centuries of the Church. Many writings from prominent members of the Church which teach of the real presence include writings of St. Cyprian in the 3rd century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century, St. Ambrose in the 4th century, St. John Damascene in the 8th century, and St. Paschasius in the 9th century just to give a few examples. And during those early centuries we do not see anyone contesting this belief so it remains clear that the early Christian Church openly believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. If the early Church believed in the real presence, on what grounds did the Protestant reformers discard this belief?

[Neon Genesis]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

Is this like a new record for the forums or something?

[RationalOkie]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Do you have evidence that there have been no converts? What do you define as 'answers'? How do you define irrefutable? I've answered these questions in previous posts. In December of 08 I clearly refuted..blah....blah....blah....

 

Holy looooooord, someone needs to kill this worthless thread I started. My apologies to humanity.

[Abiyoyo]

Rational may be on to something,.... If the thread is closed, then it will force LNC to "WAKE UP!" and see that it is indeed October and he is replying to July's posts.

[agnosticator]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Do you have evidence that there have been no converts? What do you define as 'answers'? How do you define irrefutable? I've answered these questions in previous posts. In December of 08 I clearly refuted..blah....blah....blah....

 

Holy looooooord, someone needs to kill this worthless thread I started. My apologies to humanity.

 

You have his number!

 

The only way to kill this thread is for LNC to offer himself as a sacrifice to you RationalOkie! You have opened this thread of christian blathering, so crucify him! Sacrifice him in the name of sanity and reason! Then you can resurrect LNC as CNL...christian no longer, his mirror image.

[NotBlinded]

The only way to kill this thread is for LNC to offer himself as a sacrifice to you RationalOkie! You have opened this thread of christian blathering, so crucify him! Sacrifice him in the name of sanity and reason! Then you can resurrect LNC as CNL...christian no longer, his mirror image.

 

CNL!

 

[Auracle]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Do you have evidence that there have been no converts? What do you define as 'answers'? How do you define irrefutable? I've answered these questions in previous posts. In December of 08 I clearly refuted..blah....blah....blah....

 

Holy looooooord, someone needs to kill this worthless thread I started. My apologies to humanity.

 

You have his number!

 

The only way to kill this thread is for LNC to offer himself as a sacrifice to you RationalOkie! You have opened this thread of christian blathering, so crucify him! Sacrifice him in the name of sanity and reason! Then you can resurrect LNC as CNL...christian no longer, his mirror image.

 

Brilliant!

[Antlerman]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Do you have evidence that there have been no converts? What do you define as 'answers'? How do you define irrefutable? I've answered these questions in previous posts. In December of 08 I clearly refuted..blah....blah....blah....

 

Holy looooooord, someone needs to kill this worthless thread I started. My apologies to humanity.

 

You have his number!

 

The only way to kill this thread is for LNC to offer himself as a sacrifice to you RationalOkie! You have opened this thread of christian blathering, so crucify him! Sacrifice him in the name of sanity and reason! Then you can resurrect LNC as CNL...christian no longer, his mirror image.

Indeed. So perfectly said.

 

This thread will remain open until the absurdity of it is embraced by LNC and he becomes liberated from his folly.

 

 

As I said Neon, he is transparent...

[Karhoof]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Do you have evidence that there have been no converts? What do you define as 'answers'? How do you define irrefutable? I've answered these questions in previous posts. In December of 08 I clearly refuted..blah....blah....blah....

 

Holy looooooord, someone needs to kill this worthless thread I started. My apologies to humanity.

 

You have his number!

 

The only way to kill this thread is for LNC to offer himself as a sacrifice to you RationalOkie! You have opened this thread of christian blathering, so crucify him! Sacrifice him in the name of sanity and reason! Then you can resurrect LNC as CNL...christian no longer, his mirror image.

 

Could somebody kindly go back and edit this into one of their post so we don't have to wait four months for him to see it?

 

I've been following along (when I can) and he IS the proverbial pigeon everyone here has been playing chess with.

[Antlerman]

 

Could somebody kindly go back and edit this into one of their post so we don't have to wait four months for him to see it?

 

I've been following along (when I can) and he IS the proverbial pigeon everyone here has been playing chess with.

By the time he gets up to this point, all the cells in our bodies will have completely replaced themselves, and he'll be talking to the husks of what we once were.

 

I kind of like the absurdity of it continuing as an example of a religion that substitutes arguments for life. It's all there is. Its how he connects with God. Boy, wouldn't it be interesting to hear something different than yet another rehash of "The majority of NT scholars" blah blah blah... It must be all he has, apparently.

[mwc]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

We could have all re-converted and then de-converted again and he won't have noticed until November...

 

He won't see this until March. We'll all be Muslim by then.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Wow! Page 70! And still no converts. Keep those answers coming. One day someone might shake loose in the face of such irrefutable evidence.

We could have all re-converted and then de-converted again and he won't have noticed until November...

 

He won't see this until March. We'll all be Muslim by then.

 

mwc