Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RationalOkie

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

Recommended Posts

What you think it indicates is according to your preferences.

Your belief is based on your subjective interpretation of the Bible.

The scripture does indicate that unbelief alone will result in condemnation.

There are no qualifiers in John 3:36, it says nothing about them having a problem with rebellion or that they earned wrath for other reasons.

The rest of your paragraph is simply standard preaching that contains some claims that are not consistent with salvation according to God's instructions given in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Your statements sound very postmodern. It sounds as if you believe that we cannot arrive at an objective understanding but that all interpretation is subjective. Why should I accept what you have said as an objective statement and not just your subjective interpretation? You see, when you take this position, it becomes a self-defeating position. Can you explain what the Bible means when it says "believe the Son"? Does it mean to believe in him or to believe him and what he says? Which claims of mine do you consider to be inconsistent with what the Bible says about salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures? Could you document this and give your hermeneutical backing for your views?

 

What hit did Jesus take other than to have a painful death?

How long did he stay in hell?

He’s not still serving time in hell for anyone is he?

Did he actually take on the eternal punishment for anyone and remain there or did he get a big reward for his temporary suffering?

The Mafia don will not force you to pay protection money.

If you choose to shun his authority, he will not force you to change your mind.

You won’t be dismembered for failing to pay homage, you’ll be punished for rebellion against authority.

 

What mafia don even takes a purposeful and painful death for his followers?

I don't believe that Jesus went to hell, I think that is a misinterpretation of a verse of the NT.

If he never went to hell, then your third question is moot.

People go to eternal punishment because they remain eternally in rebellion, not because it takes eternity to "pay off the debt." Jesus took the full fury of God's wrath to pay for sin. That is something that no other person will have to face, even those who remain in rebellion.

I wonder from where you get your info about what mafia dons will and won't do. It sounds like you are just making it up. Really, a mafia don won't make a person pay protection money and won't force a person to change his mind if he shuns the don's authority? Where do you get that from? I live near Chicago and have seen evidence that would indicate that you are grossly ill-informed on the subject.

Jesus doesn't force anyone to pay protection money, or force a person to follow him, or dismember those who don't pay him homage. He just allows them to go their way, even if that includes eternal separation from him. People aren't going to hell ignorantly, you have read the Bible and know what it says about people who rebel against God and it seems that it doesn't concern you, so I don't know why you are troubled by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't call that a gift nor do I call that free either. A gift is what you give freely from your heart with no strings attached. Otherwise it is not a gift nor is it free. If there are strings, even to samples of Clinique make-up, I don't consider it a free sample and I don't get any.

 

There are no strings attached and it is given freely from the heart of God. Why do you think otherwise? What strings do you see attached?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is very judgmental of you. I've heard this argument before only it was "Calvinists are wrong and Wesleyans are right." Along with all the reasons as to why Calvinists are wrong, BUT when you get right down to it, there really wasn't much difference in the end, even though they had different theological doctrines and terminology. Personally, I don't think either were right, esp when it came to how they treated people.

 

Your calling me judgmental is judgmental as well, is it OK for you but wrong for me? So Calvinists and Wesleyans have different theological doctrines and terminology, but there are no real differences? I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that your own statement seems to contradict. On what basis do you judge both of them to be wrong and why is that also not judgmental?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is very judgmental of you. I've heard this argument before only it was "Calvinists are wrong and Wesleyans are right." Along with all the reasons as to why Calvinists are wrong, BUT when you get right down to it, there really wasn't much difference in the end, even though they had different theological doctrines and terminology. Personally, I don't think either were right, esp when it came to how they treated people.

 

Your calling me judgmental is judgmental as well, is it OK for you but wrong for me? So Calvinists and Wesleyans have different theological doctrines and terminology, but there are no real differences? I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that your own statement seems to contradict. On what basis do you judge both of them to be wrong and why is that also not judgmental?

In some wonderful insight I received from Neon Genesis: It's not judgemental in the same way that it isn't racist to hate racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"nu-uh," "says you."

 

LNC is rather tiresome in his 'arguments.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"nu-uh," "says you."

 

LNC is rather tiresome in his 'arguments.'

Very repetitive.

 

I place him in the same camp as Ken Hovind. It doesn't matter if he is proven wrong, he consider himself right anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"nu-uh," "says you."

 

LNC is rather tiresome in his 'arguments.'

Very repetitive.

 

I place him in the same camp as Ken Hovind. It doesn't matter if he is proven wrong, he consider himself right anyway.

*sings*

 

Blinded by the [B]light

She got down but she never got tired

She's gonna make it through the night

She's gonna make it through the night

But mama, that's where the fun is

But mama, that's where the fun is

Mama always told me not to look into the eye's of the sun

But mama, that's where the fun is

Some brimstone baritone anticyclone rolling stone preacher from the east

Says, "Dethrone the dictaphone, hit it in it's funny bone,

that's where they expect it least"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you think it indicates is according to your preferences.

Your belief is based on your subjective interpretation of the Bible.

The scripture does indicate that unbelief alone will result in condemnation.

There are no qualifiers in John 3:36, it says nothing about them having a problem with rebellion or that they earned wrath for other reasons.

The rest of your paragraph is simply standard preaching that contains some claims that are not consistent with salvation according to God's instructions given in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Your statements sound very postmodern. It sounds as if you believe that we cannot arrive at an objective understanding but that all interpretation is subjective. Why should I accept what you have said as an objective statement and not just your subjective interpretation?

Define “postmodern” and why such a classification is relevant to validating your theological claims.

You’re haven’t established your version of God as being real.

You haven’t established that your personal theological preferences represent objective reality for anyone.

 

You see, when you take this position, it becomes a self-defeating position.

You see, when you claim something is self-defeating you have to define what defeat actually is.

 

Can you explain what the Bible means when it says "believe the Son"? Does it mean to believe in him or to believe him and what he says?

It means both because failure to do both results in rewards being denied and punishment being administered.

Now, let’s get back to the issue.

Unbelief is sufficient grounds for punishment.

Unbelief merits punishment.

 

Which claims of mine do you consider to be inconsistent with what the Bible says about salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures? Could you document this and give your hermeneutical backing for your views?

Salvation does not require faith in a human sacrifice to atone for your sins.

The documentation for this is found in Ezek 18.

Such a sacrifice isn’t legal according to the law of God as documented in Leviticus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What hit did Jesus take other than to have a painful death?

How long did he stay in hell?

He’s not still serving time in hell for anyone is he?

Did he actually take on the eternal punishment for anyone and remain there or did he get a big reward for his temporary suffering?

The Mafia don will not force you to pay protection money.

If you choose to shun his authority, he will not force you to change your mind.

You won’t be dismembered for failing to pay homage, you’ll be punished for rebellion against authority.

 

What mafia don even takes a purposeful and painful death for his followers?

This isn’t responsive to the issue of an authority figure issuing an ultimatum.

Your version of salvation is not a free gift, it’s an ultimatum.

Failure to react properly results in punishment.

Free gifts require nothing in return.

 

I don't believe that Jesus went to hell, I think that is a misinterpretation of a verse of the NT.

If he never went to hell, then your third question is moot.

That’s interesting.

You deny part of the Athanasian Creed which states:

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

 

Since this is basic to the definition of the Trinity, you need to establish that your version is correct and that this official version is wrong.

Once you’ve established that you are in fact correct, you can then wave the question away as moot.

Until then, it stands and you need to explain why Jesus isn’t serving the eternal sentences of sinners.

 

People go to eternal punishment because they remain eternally in rebellion, not because it takes eternity to "pay off the debt." Jesus took the full fury of God's wrath to pay for sin. That is something that no other person will have to face, even those who remain in rebellion.

I’ve been told by many Christians that the full fury of God’s wrath is for the sinner to spend eternity in hell.

If they have ever sinned, regardless of their current status as “rebels”, they deserve to go to hell.

Did they teach me correctly or did they lie to me?

Jesus did not take the full fury because he’s not being punished, is not in hell, and was rewarded with great power and honor by God for suffering temporary discomfort.

If you have evidence that Jesus is being punished in heaven please present it.

 

I wonder from where you get your info about what mafia dons will and won't do. It sounds like you are just making it up. Really, a mafia don won't make a person pay protection money and won't force a person to change his mind if he shuns the don's authority? Where do you get that from? I live near Chicago and have seen evidence that would indicate that you are grossly ill-informed on the subject.

It was a bit difficult to follow this diversion, it seems like you’re trying to construct a straw-man. Perhaps you failed to grasp the irony of your claim about gifts from God.

You don't want your version of God seen as issuing ultimatums when it behaves in the same manner as the head of a crime family.

You can show me how ill-informed I am by answering a simple question:

Does the Mafia use intimidation and issue ultimatums to coerce people to behave in certain ways?

 

If yes, demonstrate that your version of God is exempt from being catagorized as an authoritarian that issues ultimatums involving punishment for failure to comply with a demand.

 

Jesus doesn't force anyone to pay protection money, or force a person to follow him, or dismember those who don't pay him homage. He just allows them to go their way, even if that includes eternal separation from him.

No, that’s blatantly dishonest because it ignores the authoritarian ultimatum, pretending that it doesn’t exist.

Failure to comply with the desires of Jesus results in eternal punishment.

People are not simply allowed to just go their own way.

Your apologetic skips the nasty results of failure to worship Jesus and turns it into an exercise of blaming the victims for their own punishment.

 

People aren't going to hell ignorantly, you have read the Bible and know what it says about people who rebel against God and it seems that it doesn't concern you, so I don't know why you are troubled by this.

Define exactly what "rebel against God" means and how you know your definition is correct.

You want to continually advertise Christian salvation as a free gift when it's not.

False advertising is troubling to some folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was a bit difficult to follow this diversion, it seems like you’re trying to construct a straw-man.

Perhaps the Chicago mafia is vastly different than the New Jersey mafia.

You can show me how ill-informed I am by answering a simple question:

Does the Mafia use intimidation and issue ultimatums to coerce people to behave in certain ways?

 

Not only is LNC an expert in science, biblical scholarship, religious history, and resurrection metaphysics, but he's also an expert in the mafia! Is there nothing LNC can't do? Our hero! LNC knows the answers to all our problems and will be our savior! He's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was a bit difficult to follow this diversion, it seems like you’re trying to construct a straw-man.

Perhaps the Chicago mafia is vastly different than the New Jersey mafia.

You can show me how ill-informed I am by answering a simple question:

Does the Mafia use intimidation and issue ultimatums to coerce people to behave in certain ways?

 

Not only is LNC an expert in science, biblical scholarship, religious history, and resurrection metaphysics, but he's also an expert in the mafia! Is there nothing LNC can't do? Our hero! LNC knows the answers to all our problems and will be our savior! He's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive...

I just went back and reworded my reply because LNC may have failed to grasp the irony of worshipping an authoritarian God Father and portraying his demands as gifts.

If his God is exempt from being classified as a issuer of ultimatums, then other dictators are exempt as well.

Until he establishes that his version of God is exempt, without special pleading, there is little difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what happened to LNC? This thread has been quiet for a long time. That was an anti-climatic ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what happened to LNC? This thread has been quiet for a long time. That was an anti-climatic ending.

Maybe he finally caught up to where we were all laughing at the absurdity of him obsessively trying to answer each and every post - 4 months after we started saying it. I figure it this way... it's helped keep him off the street doing some real damage to vulnerable minds. Good job everyone! :HaHa:

 

BTW. Page 72!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what happened to LNC? This thread has been quiet for a long time. That was an anti-climatic ending.

He was here this morning but didn't post anything. He was reading the now deleted OSAS thread.

 

I'm not sure we changed his mind, but I do think we made him realize that he can't persuade us to his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that posting in this thread is beginning to resemble beating a dead horse, but i couldn't resist throwing in my 2¢ worth on the schism comment. I'd say the E-W split in Xtianity is the greatest, not to mention the split with the Gnostics, who seem to be making a comeback of late. The Coptic Xtians are even more different from the RCC than any of the Protestants. Moreover, there was never been that much unity of belief in early Xtianity until Constantine stepped in and laid down the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what happened to LNC? This thread has been quiet for a long time. That was an anti-climatic ending.

Maybe he finally caught up to where we were all laughing at the absurdity of him obsessively trying to answer each and every post - 4 months after we started saying it. I figure it this way... it's helped keep him off the street doing some real damage to vulnerable minds. Good job everyone! :HaHa:

 

BTW. Page 72!

 

Sorry, things got busy for the past few months and somethings had to give. Things are clearing up now, so I will try to get back to posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what happened to LNC? This thread has been quiet for a long time. That was an anti-climatic ending.

Maybe he finally caught up to where we were all laughing at the absurdity of him obsessively trying to answer each and every post - 4 months after we started saying it. I figure it this way... it's helped keep him off the street doing some real damage to vulnerable minds. Good job everyone! :HaHa:

 

BTW. Page 72!

 

Sorry, things got busy for the past few months and somethings had to give. Things are clearing up now, so I will try to get back to posting.

:lmao:

 

Cool. Keep up the good fight. Meanwhile while you're busy focusing on that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.