Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Ouroboros]

Even LNC serves a purpose, IMO - he reminds me of why I walked away. He epitomizes compartmentalized thinking, cognitive dissonance, and plain old-fashioned stubbornness. These are the foundations on which orthodox Evangelical Christianity is built, and the reason that I simply could not remain any longer.

 

LNC is the perfect antidote for feelings of nostalgia for the church.

 

Well, that's true. I have no plans on kicking him out, if anyone is wondering. He can stay for your entertainment, but I prefer to have him contained in this section.

[Mriana]

Crap. I hate when that happens. This was in response to notblindedbytheblight's loooong post about Joseph Campbell.

 

I must admit, I not only agree with Joseph Campbell on many things, but I appreciate a lot of what he said. BTW, I do believe he died not too long ago. Anyway, I think the most profound thing he said was when he was talking about the Gnostic tradition, in which "we are all Christ crucified". Those 5 words are symbolic for how humans treat each other every day. Not that each and everyone of us finds someone to "crucify", but there is always a person or a group of people who are being persecuted, discriminated against, or what have you on a daily basis by other humans. I really like how Campbell sheds light on the myths and brings them into focus. However, I think we also need to rid ourselves of myths and come up with new stories about life in this century. I think Dr. Seuss did well with stories such as the Lorax. Not that they all have to be children stories, but I'm giving a bit of an example of what our modern literature with some sort of moral should be, instead of the tired old myths that mean nothing to us in today's society, because as Campbell says, they are holding us back... about 2000 years.

Oh, I so agree with you.

 

Sorry about the length...I can get long "winded".

 

I'm not so much worried about you long windedness as I am confusing people concerning who I am responding to.

[Neon Genesis]

 

A good question, which I don't have a good answer for.

 

 

Someone correct m if I'm misremembering because I think I've heard it explained before, but wasn't it because xtians were likely to try and infiltrate the site anyway so it was better to have this section roped off where they can debate or something like that or am I misremembering?

[Ouroboros]

A good question, which I don't have a good answer for.

 

 

Someone correct m if I'm misremembering because I think I've heard it explained before, but wasn't it because xtians were likely to try and infiltrate the site anyway so it was better to have this section roped off where they can debate or something like that or am I misremembering?

True.

 

And I think the idea is to have it somewhat open so if there are doubting Christians out there, they can come in and get questions answered. We do allow witnessing and preaching in this part of the site--which is why I haven't banned him for it--but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to speak my mind and tell everyone that this is what he is doing. It's not a black-and-white issue. Just because we allow Christians here, it doesn't mean we don't have a right to call them out on what they do. And it doesn't mean that we have to follow a protocol for how we can pull down our pants and be fucked. And it doesn't mean we are supposed to sit here while they take over and make this section into preachers heaven. Neither does it mean that we must like what they say, or agree, or be kind, or create an atmosphere of kumbaya.

 

Religion is a form of mind-fuck. It ruins your ability to think straight. Don't let the virus get you, and don't get lured in by the deceptive lies, even if the wolf's fur seems exuberantly shiny and pretty.

[Ouroboros]

You spoke of rapport. I shared some quotes that offer ideas for maximizing opportunity to engage in genuine rapport where there appears to be very little common ground. Because of your post, I thought they might be of interest.

Understood. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

 

I've managed to find some kind of common ground--though shaky--with several Christians that have come here. The thing is to try to find at least a couple of things we can agree on. If there's nothing you can agree on at all, then a true debate can't really happen. It's not only the willingness to learn, but also the presence of some form of agreement to start with and to build upon. With LNC, every point is charged and under discussion. Nothing is common. No agreements. I tried to find quotes, scientists, scholars, and/or theories we could at least agree on, but there are none. So what to do?

[Ouroboros]

In my view, both you and LNC are willing to learn, but have different criteria by which you are willing to accept change. Your view on the world has a lot more flexibility. LNC appears to be more rigid, but he is also willing to change his view if certain criteria are met. They aren't criteria you like, but they still are what is true for him and not really about pissing anyone off.

Ok.

 

There sure seems like there is little to no common ground here.

Agree.

 

I am suggesting another approach to determine that which requires stepping into the other person's world from their perspective and reflecting their understanding back to them without value judgments, criticisms, and responses until they are satisfied they have been completely understood. And then they reciprocate.

Well, that's the problem. I have discussed with LNC since September last year. And not until recently did I give up. I tried to find anything where we could build a ground. And he loves to point out errors and fallacies (and many times he's wrong in using the fallacies), but so far he hasn't backed off one single bit when he has been obviously wrong. I mean, I have--and others--presented Bible verses which were very clear. We have pointed out scholars and historians, but he only accepts parts of what they say, but demand we accept everything he says. There's no middleground so far. And not until he is willing to realize that he can be wrong too (because I have, and I have corrected myself, at least twice with him), we will not have any more to work on. He hasn't accepted one single evidence. Not even the Bible.

 

Take this for an example, which really raised my eyebrows: in one conversation I suggested that Christians have burnt books in the past, and he demanded evidence for it. I gave him the Bible verse where the early church did burn books. Then he replies that he meant something else in his dismissal. But he was wrong. He can't admit to be wrong. Why? Because he hates to be wrong. He wants to be right, and he wants us to agree that he is the greates human in the universe, because he is the best of the bestest. So not until he can accept that he is a fallible human, with errors, and subjective view of the world, we can't really get any further.

 

Try a different approach? Decide there is something to be learned despite a lack of reciprocal interest in understanding and ask questions? Walk away with grace?

I told him I didn't want to argue anymore. He continued to reply to posts from last month. I have quit.

 

Are you suggesting I should shut up and not let anyone know my opinions about him? Hmm... then the rule should apply for all on this website, for all cases, all the time. I'm not sure we want that. The idea was that we can express freely our opinions. That's why I let him continue, but I have backed out, but it doesn't stop me from telling you or anyone else what I think about him. Or?...

 

You do sound spent on this. I'm taking a break myself, and considering this other approach. However, as I said, it tends to be most fruitful when it is a two-way street, and even then, there is a cost-benefit analysis involved.

Well, you are most welcome to take this other approach with him. Go ahead and give it a try. No one is stopping you.

 

You see, the key here is: if you have an opinion about how to approach LNC, then, no one is stopping you. I don't care if you keep on telling me how I should behave, but I will keep on responding if you do. At the same time, I won't stop you for trying another approach. Do you see where the line is drawn here?

[LNC]

You have not shown that Paul encountered anything more than a vision of something he assumed was Jesus, so your speculation that he did is just that, and also unsupported by evidence.

Paul expected big rewards in the afterlife for his work.

Paul deemed himself equal to the Apostles despite not having witnessed the resurrected Jesus in physical manifestation nor having been instructed by him while he was on earth.

 

You have no valid reason for interpreting Paul's encounters in this way. It seems to fit your presuppositions, but it certainly doesn't fit with the text. I am interpreting the text by their plain meaning while you seem to be filtering them through your presuppositions. Where does it say that Paul understood when he trusted in Jesus that he would receive big rewards in the afterlife for his works? If Paul was wrong, as you believe he was, then there would be no rewards and no afterlife. He said himself that if Jesus was not raised, we are most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19). So, if all Paul saw was a vision and not the real Jesus as he claimed, then he would have known that there would be no reward and that all of his suffering was in vain.

 

No one witnessed the resurrection, only the resurrected Jesus, which Paul also did according to his writings that I have cited. So, that would have put him on par with them. The other Apostles also recognized this as Paul came to Jerusalem twice to meet with them (3 years after he trusted in Jesus and then 14 years later). He was clearly recognized as an Apostle. You are also wrong that Paul was not instructed by Jesus as he claimed to have been while in the wilderness during his first three years as a follower of Jesus (Gal. 1:12).

 

So according to your interpretation, Paul says he saw Jesus but Jesus didn’t appear to him.

The story in Acts defines the encounter with Jesus as a vision of light.

Now, if you want to deny the story in Acts as being accurate that’s fine.

And no, it doesn’t take much imagination to see Paul as a salesman who would mold himself in a form that would better able him to sell the product.

Between declaring that the law was not binding and then relenting and keeping parts of it, Paul’s message was to spread a new religion based on faith in a human sacrifice, decorated with inconsistency in its practice.

 

No, Paul said that Jesus appeared to him and that he saw him. Where do you get the idea that Jesus didn't appear to Paul? Where is that stated in the Scripture? The encounter in Acts says that a light shone down, but Paul says that he saw Jesus (see the verses that I cited earlier). The account in Acts clearly doesn't give all of the details and Paul fills in details in other testimonies that he gives recorded later in Acts and elsewhere. So, it is not that the story is inaccurate, it is just not complete. Your interpretation of Paul as a salesman is simply your imaginings, not based upon the data. You take one statement that he made and twist it into your mold according to your presuppositions.

 

Where does Paul say that the law was not binding? I believe that Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and Paul taught that the law was a schoolmaster or tutor to show us our need for Christ, so that is hardly calling the law non-binding. It was not Paul who first preached the message of faith in Jesus' death and resurrection, that was done by Peter and the other Apostles shortly after the resurrection (see Acts 2-4). You have shown no examples of inconsistencies, so I won't address that point.

 

That assumes Paul was writing valid theology, which is unproved.

If Satan was trying to undermine God, then he would tell Paul to preach a replacement theology rather than keeping the mandates and commands God instructed his people to observe.

Or perhaps God sent Satan to deceive Paul, as a test for his people, to see how many of them would remain true to the faith rather than being seduced by a counterfeit one.

 

Unproved? Paul's writings account for much of the NT, which by default shows that they were considered to be valid. If you don't believe that they were valid, maybe you could give reasons why they were not. How do they violate Christian doctrine? By whose authority do you judge them not to be valid. You need to explain more to make your case.

 

Where do you find that people were saved by keeping the law? Could you give me one example of anyone who was saved by keeping the law? Abraham was not saved by keeping the law, he was saved by faith. The same is true of David. Can you give one example to make your case? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the law if that is what you think.

 

Can you give any evidence that Satan sent Paul or is that more speculation on your part? Can you give evidence that Paul's message was counterfeit? Maybe you could give some OT Scriptural basis for your claim. So far, you have merely made unsubstantiated assertions.

[LNC]

I’m sure you have hundreds of scholars to support anything you write, but they’re not here right now.

I got the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles right after the Damascus events by reading the text.

But it seems you would like me to believe that there are three years of an Arabian hiatus somewhere in between verse 25 and 26.

Perhaps Luke should have put a note into Acts saying "see Galatians for more information".

Acts 9:22-28

But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

 

In Acts 22, Paul was in a trance and was told to get out of Jerusalem.

No mention of a three year trip to Arabia prior to coming to Jerusalem.

Acts 22:11-18

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

 

In Gal 1, Paul declares that he did not meet with any disciple or Apostle until his three year sojourn to Arabia had concluded, a three year sojourn completely absent in Acts 9 and 22.

Gal 1:15-20

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

 

Paul doesn’t mention anything about the threats to his life and swears he didn’t see any apostles except Peter and James.

 

So, if you get this idea from reading the text how do you resolve the fact that in Galatians, Paul clearly says that he didn't go up to Jerusalem for three years? Do you think Paul forgot that he had gone up right after he trusted in Jesus? If so, how do you account for such a lapse in memory from such a learned person? Do you have reason to give priority to your interpretation of Acts over Paul's own writing when Acts does not clearly indicate that Paul went immediately? Just because the account of Paul's trip to Jerusalem follows immediately in Luke's account doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be take as chronologically following immediately, so do you have evidence to suggest that this is what Luke was indicating? The fact is that Luke doesn't say that Paul went up immediately, but says "when Saul was come to Jerusalem..." So, what is your evidence that this must be taken to mean that it happened immediately?

 

You also say that Paul doesn't mention anything about threats to his life, which I think would fit the fact that he had an interim time in the wilderness where he wasn't threatened. The threats to his life immediately after he trusted Jesus had apparently subsided in his absence. Yes, Paul says on the first trip he only saw Peter and James. I am not sure of what significance that has to your case.

 

You seem to be speculating again rather than given a case built on solid evidence.

[Guest Davka]

LNC, when will you admit that you were wrong about Occam's Razor?

[NotBlinded]

You have not shown that Paul encountered anything more than a vision of something he assumed was Jesus, so your speculation that he did is just that, and also unsupported by evidence.

Paul expected big rewards in the afterlife for his work.

Paul deemed himself equal to the Apostles despite not having witnessed the resurrected Jesus in physical manifestation nor having been instructed by him while he was on earth.

 

You have no valid reason for interpreting Paul's encounters in this way. It seems to fit your presuppositions, but it certainly doesn't fit with the text. I am interpreting the text by their plain meaning while you seem to be filtering them through your presuppositions. Where does it say that Paul understood when he trusted in Jesus that he would receive big rewards in the afterlife for his works? If Paul was wrong, as you believe he was, then there would be no rewards and no afterlife. He said himself that if Jesus was not raised, we are most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19). So, if all Paul saw was a vision and not the real Jesus as he claimed, then he would have known that there would be no reward and that all of his suffering was in vain.

 

LNC, this is what you said on the previous page:

 

The problem is that we all bring presuppositions with us when we examine the evidence, and if one has, a priori, limited a possible explanation due to a predetermined condition, then they will close off one or more possible explanations because of that.

I think you may be interpreting the text by your presupposition that a real encounter with the ghost of Jesus pulls more weight than a vision. If Paul saw Jesus in a vision as being resurrected why would that mean any less to him? He still didn't "know" if there would be a reward, he only believed there would be as all Christians still do today.

[centauri]

I’m sure you have hundreds of scholars to support anything you write, but they’re not here right now.

I got the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles right after the Damascus events by reading the text.

But it seems you would like me to believe that there are three years of an Arabian hiatus somewhere in between verse 25 and 26.

Perhaps Luke should have put a note into Acts saying "see Galatians for more information".

Acts 9:22-28

But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

 

In Acts 22, Paul was in a trance and was told to get out of Jerusalem.

No mention of a three year trip to Arabia prior to coming to Jerusalem.

Acts 22:11-18

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

 

In Gal 1, Paul declares that he did not meet with any disciple or Apostle until his three year sojourn to Arabia had concluded, a three year sojourn completely absent in Acts 9 and 22.

Gal 1:15-20

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

 

Paul doesn’t mention anything about the threats to his life and swears he didn’t see any apostles except Peter and James.

 

So, if you get this idea from reading the text how do you resolve the fact that in Galatians, Paul clearly says that he didn't go up to Jerusalem for three years? Do you think Paul forgot that he had gone up right after he trusted in Jesus? If so, how do you account for such a lapse in memory from such a learned person? Do you have reason to give priority to your interpretation of Acts over Paul's own writing when Acts does not clearly indicate that Paul went immediately? Just because the account of Paul's trip to Jerusalem follows immediately in Luke's account doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be take as chronologically following immediately, so do you have evidence to suggest that this is what Luke was indicating? The fact is that Luke doesn't say that Paul went up immediately, but says "when Saul was come to Jerusalem..." So, what is your evidence that this must be taken to mean that it happened immediately?

I get the idea that Galatians doesn’t agree with Acts, the stories are not consistent.

That comes from reading the text.

 

I don’t know what Paul did or didn’t forget, the stories are not consistent, that’s the point.

 

Do you have reason to doubt the accuracy and reliability of Luke when he gives three accounts of Paul’s activity after he left Damascus and none of them mention a hiatus to Arabia, generating a time gap of three years?

Give your justification for inserting a three year gap between the verses Luke wrote in each of the three scenarios he describes.

 

Do you have evidence, other than wishful thinking, to assume that Luke, a world class historian who was writing his accounts to confirm with certainty stories that his reader had been taught, would leave out information concerning accurate chronological events?

 

You also say that Paul doesn't mention anything about threats to his life, which I think would fit the fact that he had an interim time in the wilderness where he wasn't threatened. The threats to his life immediately after he trusted Jesus had apparently subsided in his absence. Yes, Paul says on the first trip he only saw Peter and James. I am not sure of what significance that has to your case.

Your facts fit the story in Galatians, not the stories in Acts.

It’s inconsistent with Acts 9:27-28, which indicates he saw more than Peter and James.

 

You seem to be speculating again rather than given a case built on solid evidence.

You seem to be engaging in expedient rationalizing again, rather than recognizing the evidence for inconsistency.

[Guest Davka]

Hey LNC!

 

LNC, I explained to you why Occam's Razor applies to the origin of the Universe. Yet you simply ignored my explanation and continue to repeat that I am incorrect in pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument.

 

What's up with that?

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Occam's razor. . . is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that makeexactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

 

Theory # 1 - The Universe exists, and always has in one form or another.

 

Theory # 2 - The Universe requires a creator. The creator exists, and always has in one form or another.

 

Hmm.

 

Unnecessary multiplication of entities - check. Two theories with the same predictions (i.e. "the Universe exists today, and a Big Bang can be extrapolated from available evidence"), one simpler than the other - check.

 

How again is this a misapplication?

 

And Paul, are you getting class credit at Biola for your discussions with us? Because if you are, you should be getting a "C" for the quality of your arguments.

 

*crickets*

 

Yes, I intend to keep on beating this drum until you address the issue.

[centauri]

You have not shown that Paul encountered anything more than a vision of something he assumed was Jesus, so your speculation that he did is just that, and also unsupported by evidence.

Paul expected big rewards in the afterlife for his work.

Paul deemed himself equal to the Apostles despite not having witnessed the resurrected Jesus in physical manifestation nor having been instructed by him while he was on earth.

 

You have no valid reason for interpreting Paul's encounters in this way. It seems to fit your presuppositions, but it certainly doesn't fit with the text. I am interpreting the text by their plain meaning while you seem to be filtering them through your presuppositions. Where does it say that Paul understood when he trusted in Jesus that he would receive big rewards in the afterlife for his works?

You have no valid reason to reject my interpretation other than to fit your presuppositions.

Your declaration of Paul as a validated eyewitness to Jesus certainly doesn’t fit the plain meaning of the text.

Paul saw a light and heard a voice that he assumed was Jesus, other than that you’ve got nothing but Paul’s word for it.

Paul wrote that good works were rewarded in Eph 6:8.

Paul also expected a crown for believing in Jesus.

 

If Paul was wrong, as you believe he was, then there would be no rewards and no afterlife. He said himself that if Jesus was not raised, we are most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19). So, if all Paul saw was a vision and not the real Jesus as he claimed, then he would have known that there would be no reward and that all of his suffering was in vain.

How exactly would Paul have known if the vision wasn’t genuine?

What is a manifestation of the real Jesus?

Does Jesus appear on hot cross buns, on burnt toast, in window panes, and in people’s dreams?

Is that just as good as what the Apostles saw?

Paul had to ask whose voice he heard and he simply accepted the answer.

He didn’t recognize it.

Paul apparently believed what he saw was genuine and therefore believed his reward was going to be genuine.

However, none of that makes it genuine.

 

No one witnessed the resurrection, only the resurrected Jesus, which Paul also did according to his writings that I have cited. So, that would have put him on par with them. The other Apostles also recognized this as Paul came to Jerusalem twice to meet with them (3 years after he trusted in Jesus and then 14 years later). He was clearly recognized as an Apostle. You are also wrong that Paul was not instructed by Jesus as he claimed to have been while in the wilderness during his first three years as a follower of Jesus (Gal. 1:12).

No, you are wrong.

Paul saw a vision that he assumed was Jesus.

That’s not seeing Jesus in the flesh as the Apostles did.

Jesus was already in heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father.

Before Jesus left earth, he promised to send the Holy Spirit because he had other work to do.

In Acts, Paul is depicted as obedient to the Jerusalem Christians, a team player, and in Galatians he is defiant.

So it depends on which accounts you read before you can assign assertions about Paul.

Paul was instructed by something, but you can’t establish it was the same Jesus that the Apostles saw.

There is no 3 year wilderness story in Acts.

Paul can claim to be instructed by Jesus but you only have his word for it.

It was Paul that caved in to the demands of the Jerusalem Christians, something he avoids in Galatians.

[centauri]

Where does Paul say that the law was not binding? I believe that Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and Paul taught that the law was a schoolmaster or tutor to show us our need for Christ, so that is hardly calling the law non-binding. It was not Paul who first preached the message of faith in Jesus' death and resurrection, that was done by Peter and the other Apostles shortly after the resurrection (see Acts 2-4). You have shown no examples of inconsistencies, so I won't address that point.

According to Paul the law was not binding and believers are not under it.(Gal 5:18)

Claiming parts or all of the law are voided is not consistent with claiming that it would be in effect until heaven and earth passed away.

 

centauri:

That assumes Paul was writing valid theology, which is unproved.

If Satan was trying to undermine God, then he would tell Paul to preach a replacement theology rather than keeping the mandates and commands God instructed his people to observe.

Or perhaps God sent Satan to deceive Paul, as a test for his people, to see how many of them would remain true to the faith rather than being seduced by a counterfeit one.

 

LNC:

Unproved? Paul's writings account for much of the NT, which by default shows that they were considered to be valid. If you don't believe that they were valid, maybe you could give reasons why they were not. How do they violate Christian doctrine? By whose authority do you judge them not to be valid. You need to explain more to make your case.

Just because Paul’s theological musings appear in the New Testament doesn’t make them valid theology.

“Considered to be valid’ doesn’t mean they are valid.

The “authority” of church clerics doesn’t mean much to me.

Paul contradicted the allegedly holy God that set down the rules in the Hebrew scriptures and contradicted Jesus if Jesus is that being.

 

Where do you find that people were saved by keeping the law? Could you give me one example of anyone who was saved by keeping the law? Abraham was not saved by keeping the law, he was saved by faith. The same is true of David. Can you give one example to make your case? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the law if that is what you think.

God gave clear instructions on how to be saved in Ezek 18:20-27.

The formula is repent and keep the law, which as Solomon said, is the whole duty of man.

Abraham was not blessed simply because of his faith, he was blessed because he had faith and kept the law, just as the Bible says.

 

Can you give any evidence that Satan sent Paul or is that more speculation on your part? Can you give evidence that Paul's message was counterfeit? Maybe you could give some OT Scriptural basis for your claim. So far, you have merely made unsubstantiated assertions.

God said he might test his people with false teachers to see if they would remain true to him and his word.

Satan is a servant of God so God could easily have sent Satan to appear to Paul and fill his head with apostasy and lies.

Paul taught that obedience to the law was of no further use and that the law was replaced by a new religion, revolving around faith in a human sacrifice.

That's the essence of a false teacher if the Hebrew deity is taken seriously.

[Auracle]

 

The problem is that we all bring presuppositions with us when we examine the evidence, and if one has, a priori, limited a possible explanation due to a predetermined condition, then they will close off one or more possible explanations because of that. I believe that the Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrman and others have done this in regard to possible supernatural explanations and therefore, will not come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead because they have closed off that possibility. The question that must be asked is whether there is a valid basis to exclude that possibility, and I don't believe there is.

 

 

So, what are your presuppositions, LNC?

 

Have you ever NOT been a Christian, or seriously doubted Christianity? Have you studied Christianity from the standpoint that it might be false, or have you merely been studying to find the best interpretation of a collection of documents you presuppose to be historical, rather than a likely amalgamation of history, fiction and/or myth, poetry, etc.?

 

If you answer "no" to the first two questions and the first part of the third question in the above paragraph, then I would wager that you yourself hold a "supernatural bias" (or perhaps an "anti-anti-supernatural bias"), given that the entire foundation of Christianity rests on the supernatural. If that is the case, then you have no grounds on which to criticize anyone here for a supposed "anti-supernatural bias" or even use it as part of your argument.

 

I have another question related to this as well, but I need to focus on work at the moment...

[LNC]

LNC: As for the idea of God being a judge, yes, I do see that God is a judge and that justice is a part of our universe as evil is a part of our universe and the existence of evil demands justice.

 

WHY ?

 

This is a recurring theme among many of my Christian friends; I'm often intrigued by this notion that in the first place "evil" can even be defined (since everything is dependant upon context; everything...) and that somehow there is a one-way street where all humans must be punished for "wrongs", yet no reward for "rights" or living a generally ethical and moral life. (thus proving in the end that God does not give a hoot about morality at all)

 

Who cares about wrongs committed thirty years ago that are actually quite frivolous ? Why would a God care about that ? Sounds a little OCD to me, and I contend that such an obsession is just that; an irrational obsession with what is considered "imperfection".

 

Philosophically, an act can be described as evil, of course, but only occurs as action or lack of action. There is no such thing as something just being "evil" as an object, thing, or action without context. Even killing is sanctioned if the context is acceptable, such as capital punishment, and of course, warfare. Religion even allows for killing innocent people, if again the context is justifiable, and termed "collateral damage".

 

This is where religions have always failed; they will sanction war, slavery, rape, oppression and brutality by justifying "context". There are some exceptions; such as pacifist religious groups, but they are quickly pounced on by the powers of the dominant theology.

 

It must be hard sometimes to keep trying to defend these strange theologies and God-beings and their deceptive ways; methods that are so transparantly human-created.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" is the most redundant commandment of them all. There really wasn't even much point in God bringing it up.

 

Was there ?

 

First of all, you ask why the existence of evil demands justice. I would say that it does because justice exists and justice is the great equalizer. Would you say that evil should not be dealt with? Should not the rapist or the child molester receive justice? If not, why not?

 

I don't think that evil is a thing and many have defined it in various ways; however, I believe that evil exists. Plato defined evil as the absence of good or doing good and I would say that is a decent definition, yet maybe doesn't capture the whole scope of what people do when goodness is absent. Anyway, evil is displayed by thoughts and actions.

 

I don't know why you assume that humans are only punished for bad thoughts and deeds but not rewarded for good deeds. Maybe you are confusing or conflating concepts when you think along this line. People are not rewarded with heaven for good deeds; however, good deeds are recognized and in some respect rewarded in that those who go to heaven will experience greater reward if they have live according to God's plan and those who have not will receive lesser rewards. The same goes for the degree of suffering for those who have rejected Christ's free offer of eternal life in heaven, their degree of punishment will vary based upon how they lived their lives otherwise. It may be a confusing concept, but ultimately heaven is not based upon a person's good deeds, but on Christ's payment on the cross and our trust in him for that payment.

 

Regarding the question of killing, there again is a confusion over what the Bible actually condemns. It is not killing that is condemned, but murder. The reason that people are usually confused about this is that the KJV poorly translated the command to "Thou shalt not kill" when it should have been "Thou shalt not murder." If you look at more recent translations, that is how it is translated into English.

 

I don't believe that the Bible ever sanctions rape. As for killing, yes in war murder is justified or in carrying out God's mandated judgment; however, one is not sanctioned to kill other humans by their own choice. Slavery, as practiced in the Old and New Testament was not the type of slavery that most people think of today. Back then it was more of an indentured servitude or enslavement of enemies of war. However, slaves were protected in the way that they could be treated by God's command. One was never allowed to mistreat a slave as happened in the 18th and 19th centuries in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere (in fact, slavery still goes on to this day in parts of the world). The Bible also mandated a Jubilee in which debts were forgiven every 7th year and slaves were set free. So, if a person went into debt during the 6th year, they could be enslaved for no more than a year. To be honest, we have a system not much different than this in the way that we handle credit in this country, except for the fact that we don't have a Jubilee in which our mortgages, car loans and credit cards are forgiven - although, that would be nice!

 

As for war, God mandated it in limited circumstances and only went with his people when they were obedient. There are plenty of accounts in which the Israelites were soundly thumped by the enemy, and also judged by God directly for their disobedience. As for pacifist groups, there are some in existence today. The Mennonites are an example and they haven't been pounced upon. However, you do point out the biggest problem, which is the sinful human heart that corrupts religions and behaviors.

 

It is not hard to defend theology and actions by God when one understands the theology and the actions by God in context. I would find it harder to defend a world in which everything was subjective. How can one legitimately condemn anything? How can we determine what is actually right or wrong when there is no objective standard? I don't find the Bible to be transparently human-created, or even human-created at all. I think if humans were in charge of what was in the Bible they would have written it much differently. There would be none of these stories that seem to make God look bad and man to look worse. I think it would be a much rosier picture all around. I also think it would give man ways to work his way to God rather than to say that man cannot work his way to God.

 

Again, "Thou shalt not kill" wasn't in the commandments, it was "Thou shalt not murder" and I find that even though it is in there, it is still ignored all too often, so no, I don't find it redundant at all that it is in the Bible.

[NotBlinded]

The same goes for the degree of suffering for those who have rejected Christ's free offer of eternal life in heaven, their degree of punishment will vary based upon how they lived their lives otherwise.

You actually used "free" in that sentence...

[Neon Genesis]

Waitwaitwaitwaiiiittt a minute. Does LNC actually have the nerve to claim that some xtians are going to be treated better than other xtians in heaven? So even if we were to convert to xtianity and believed all the right doctrines and never did anything majorly bad, God is still going to subjectively decide that we're going to be treated WORSE in heaven than other xtians are? What kind of freaking god is this?! Does not God repeatedly say in the bible that he does not show partiality to ANYONE?! LNC would have been excommunicated in my parents' church for preaching such hearsay. LNC is not even following his own scriptures correctly and is making crap up and is making his god even worse than the god of traditional fundamentalism. At least most fundies believe God treats everyone the same in heaven but God is going to treat some xtians WORSE in heaven than others? What's the point in being xtian then? Why doesn't LNC just bugger off already?

[Mriana]

Sounds like some sort of Norse mythology to me or possibly Greek mythology.

[mwc]

Waitwaitwaitwaiiiittt a minute. Does LNC actually have the nerve to claim that some xtians are going to be treated better than other xtians in heaven?

I was taught this by the baptists. I was told that this was part of building up that treasure and preparing the mansions and how they rectified the faith and works stuff. So, essentially, you get into the "basic" heaven via the "free" gift. Now that you're in you get the basic house and all that. But you also get a job and stuff (yeah, there's stuff to do there). So you have to be a gardener or something. But if you did better you live in a better house higher up the hill closer to YHWH in his super mansion. You also don't have a crappy job. I don't know what you'd do. Middle-management? If you're an apostle then you live right up there next to YHWH/jesus in the same neighborhood. You hope to get as close to that area as possible but since there have been so many centuries of great xians (especially the martyrs...they get the great homes you know) your odds are a bit low. If you get lucky and die in some missionary work or do the end times stuff you may get into that exclusive area. Then you're on easy street. No work for you.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

I was taught this by the baptists.

Now watch LNC deny he ever said this then turn around and say it again in the same post.

[LNC]

It’s not a straw man argument, as Paul confesses his desire to appeal to a wide audience by role-playing, which is a standard tool used by salesmen.

And Paul contradicts God with his gospel, so there is no reason to trust him.

It is you that doesn't understand so your objection does not work.

 

There is a vast difference between adapting to one's audience and being a car salesman. I don't believe that Paul was merely role-playing, but instead adapting to his audience.

 

How does Paul contradict God with his gospel? Paul received the gospel message from Jesus himself, who is God. So, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement and on what you are basing it. Maybe you could explain yourself.

 

The idea that a king messiah, the progeny of David, would lead the people into great compliance with the law comes straight from the Bible.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Jer 33:15

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

 

Do you know what the purpose of the law was and that the law was not too difficult to obey?

As for your claims about Jesus, they’re irrelevant as he wasn’t the expected king messiah.

 

OK, where does it say that the people will be made righteous by keeping the Law? I do know the purpose of the Law as Paul tells us in Galatians:

 

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 2:15-16

 

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 3:10-14

 

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

 

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

 

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave [7] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

 

So, these verses clearly indicate that a person is not and cannot be justified by the Law. They also indicate (see underlined portion) the purpose of the Law to be a guardian (tutor) to point us to our need for a redeemer and savior, Jesus Christ. I posted these in the last post, I am not sure why you continue to insist that the Law was meant to save or even could save anyone.

 

And Paul contradicted God, who declared that repenting and keeping the law would provide salvation, which one does for themselves, not via faith in a pagan human sacrifice.

Righteousness is through the law, not faith in a pagan humans sacrifice.

Paul was promoting a replacement theology, which is why Paul’s musings mean nothing to me.

 

Again, you say that Paul contradicted God but don't give evidence of any contradiction. There is no pagan human sacrifice, Jesus gave himself to be crucified, not as the pagans did to appease their idols, but as God to fulfill his own law. Can you tell me of one pagan religion that had such a practice? Can you tell me where the Bible says that a person can be justified by keeping the Law? So far, you have not and are merely making assertions based upon your own misunderstanding of the Bible. So, you have not proved that Paul was teaching anything other than that which he received from Jesus. Also, Paul tested his message with the other Apostles and found that he was on the same page as them. So, if he was wrong so were they, but they got their message from Jesus as well.

 

The bottom line is that you have to do more to prove your assertion as it doesn't match with what is in the Bible. And if it doesn't match what is in the Bible, what will you use to prove your assertion?

 

Jesus implies it in Matt 5:18-20.

And if Jesus is God, then he declared hundreds of years before Paul came along that repenting and keeping the law were the keys to salvation.

God declared over and over that his people were to keep the law and not deviate from it.

The NT character called “Jesus of Nazareth” didn’t live a perfect life.

And contrary to your assertion, a person doesn’t have to be perfect to be saved, nor do they have to be perfect to keep the law.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the law nor the role of king messiah, so the preaching slogans displayed here are empty.

.

 

Did the thief on the cross go to be with Jesus as Jesus said he would, or was Jesus lying? Did the thief keep the law? If not and he was going to be with Jesus in paradise, how does that fit with what you are promoting?

 

James said that if anyone stumbled in just one point of the law they were guilty of all of it (James 2:10), so can you give me an example of anyone who kept the whole law (other than Jesus) during their lifetime? Surely, the thief on the cross did not, yet, Jesus said "this day you will be with me in Paradise", so how did that happen?

 

Paul said repeatedly that one could not be saved by keeping the law.

 

It is not my assertion that a person has to be perfect to be saved, that is the definition of righteousness according to Jesus, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." You aren't arguing with me, but with Jesus.

 

How do you know that Jesus didn't fulfill the Law or the role of King and Messiah? Where is your evidence of this? You seem to make sweeping assertions, yet I don't seem much evidence to back them up. Am I to take your word on faith? On what basis? Sorry, I need more than just your word on it.

[LNC]

OMG, Galatia was a region, not a town! I never knew that before! OMGGG! Why does LNC act like we've never read all this crap he's telling us before and that he's saying something somehow radically new to us? Does anyone else find LNC to be obnoxiously patronizing? He treats us like 1st graders in his posts.

 

It is not patronizing as I don't know that everyone knows this information. I don't know how you could know that everyone here knows this. Bart Ehrman doesn't assume this in his book, Misquoting Jesus, he actually makes a point to tell people that Galatia is a region and not a town as if most people don't know, so I assume you find him patronizing as well. He must also be treating his readers like their 1st graders. He also writes a large section to tell people that the ending of Mark's Gospel is not original and that the story of the woman caught in adultery is not original even though those passages are clearly marked that way in most English translations and are not even included in the NIV. So, maybe he is treating his audience like preschoolers - even worse!

[LNC]

Yes, it does indicate a willingness, but I'm not sure of your motives for this willingness. From other posts, it appears that you are just wanting to argue, but I could be wrong.

 

Thanks for acknowledging that. Isn't everyone on this thread to argue their points? So far, I haven't engaged with anyone who isn't willing to argue. So, I don't know why you mention this as we all have our point of view and are willing to defend them, you included.

 

Here is where the willingess comes in. You can try to shift your point of view by reading opposing views and reading them without an argumentative mind. A questioning mind yes, but not an argumentative one.

 

Then, as with myself, something shifts inside of you and then understanding comes with such a force that is causes one to tremble. It did with me anyway. I said, oh my god, that is what they are trying to say. I would read many paragraphs over and over and say, I just don't understand what this person is saying. Then once I did, the entire thought process of the person writing would become clear as to before, it made no logical sense. It's one of what is true to the inner reality of the person vs how the person interprets concrete reality. Symbolism vs concretness. I know there are better words, but I can't think of them right now. I apologize.

 

Edit: Ohh...I thought of some words. Explicit vs implicit knowledge and the other important one: Tacit knowledge. Yet, I don't even know if those are the right words to use.

 

Let me ask whether you do that with my posts as well?

 

It's absolutely not irrational. It's an understanding of how our inventions shape our thought processes. I'll try to rephrase those questions.

 

Is their understanding of nature congruent with the way their society is structured?

Our society is very individualistic. It gives the notion that we exist apart and separate from nature and I think much of it has to do with the second question.

 

Does their language reflect a fragmented view of reality that sees things as separate or one that reflects unity?

This is huge in understanding how we view reality. Our language creates "ghosts" as in the "It" that is doing the raining. There are some languages that uses verbs to express reality more so than nouns. Our language requires something to set this "It" into motion or to change positions. Meaning, that it is static to it's core. Can you see how this would jump across into religion to where a "God/It" is required to give life or motion to us?

 

I'm going to paste an excerpt from a book that I just ran across online. The Tao encounters the West: explorations in comparative philosophy

 

The question of being is one of extreme importance, because, whether we are aware of it or not, many of our views on other aspects of the world are dependent on our views on this issue. As a matter of fact, every person, philosopher or nonphilosopher alike, has some view on it, even though most people hold their views tacitly. People who hold different perspectives on this issue hold fundamentally different worldviews. Their worldviews can be so radically different that they hardly share enough common ground to convey to each other their positions on related issues.

 

My focus in this chapter is on the issue of being as identity, that is, the question of what an existent can be said to be. I believe the dominant view on this issue in the East and West are quite different, and that many other disparate views are consequences of this fundamental difference. For this reason it is crucial that we recognize their dissimilarities if we wish to understand both sides and their perspectives on many other issues.

 

Roughly speaking, the dominant view in the West has tended to see the world as consisting of basic elements or "bricks" (e.g. atoms) that are extended in space and make up the world largely through spatial organization. From this perspective, change is merely in appearances and the world is static at a fundamental level. The philosophical focus within this assumption is usually on identifying the basic elements or fundamental bricks, and then explaining how change is possible in a world of these mostly static elements (e.g., in Descarte's view). In contrast, many Eastern philosophers believe that the fundamental element or elements in the world are more subtle and formless. For these philisophers the fundamental nature of the world is change. The static is found merely in the appearance of a world that is essentially dynamic. One of their challenges here is to account for apparent constancy amid change.

 

In the Chinese tradition, the so-called "five elements..." namely, metal, wood, water, fire, and earth, are not understood as five static "bricks," but as dynamic principles that are agents themselves. The five elements may be reminiscent of the ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles' "four elements," namely, water, air, fire, and earth. They are, however, in fact very different in that Chinese "five elements" are not inertial matter that has to be activated from without by some external principles as Empedocles' "four elements" are. The Han Confucian Dong Zhongshu (179 - 104 BCE) said "xing zhe xing ye," that is "xing" means "acting" or behaving." Therefore, "wu-xing" can be better translated as "five agents" or "five operations."

 

The "five elements" are believed to be five types of qi (chi). The Chinese believe that the fundamental element or material of the world is qi, which have been appropriately translated into English as "energy-force." Unlike atoms, in Chinese philosophy qi in intangible, dynamic, and yet forms the myriad of things in the world. This concept of something intangible as the foundation of reality may appear to many Westerners incomprehensible. Fortunately, modern physics has provided a useful instrument for making sense of this concept. Qi is not exactly energy in modern physics, but if one can comprehend how, at the fundamenatal level of the world, energy, which is intangible and dynamic, is equivalent or convertible to matter, one has a good analogy to work with in comprehending the Chinese qi." pp 12 - 13

 

I should have probably said non-rational rather than irrational as that seems to be what you were indicating, sorry for the imprecision of my words.

 

The passage has some interesting concepts, a bit oversimplified as far as I read it, but interesting. I recently took a class on the ancient philosophers from Homer to and through Aristotle and the point where the author seems to oversimplify (and I may be oversimplifying his ideas as all I have read is this section that you posted) is that he seems to categorize the West with what were considered the "atomists" (classically, the Stoics and Epicureans fell into this category) as those who see the world as made up of matter. Now, there is a growing segment within Western culture who would fit into this category, including, I'm sure, many on this site. However, I don't see that as being the dominant view in the West.

 

He also categorizes the East with more ancient philosophers, like Homer, Empedocles and others who saw the universe as consisting of these different elements with one usually the life force or empowering element. That may be an over simplification of the East these days as well. I know what the author is trying to do, but I don't think that people groups fit so easily into these categories anymore. Many in the East are atheists like many in the West as a result of Communism in countries like China and N. Korea, and from materialism in places like Japan.

 

Have you ever read any of C.S. Lewis? You may want to read a book that I am reading now, Abolition of Man. He gives a different understanding of the Tao that you may be interested in reading.

 

It wasn't extraordinary evidence that led me away it was the lack of it. The claims made by literalists demand extradordinary evidence.

 

What do you mean by literalist? I am not sure that I fit into that category, but I need to know how you define it first.

 

That is right superfically. Can you with limited vision know what evil is? Does good ever come from evil? I'm not saying or endorsing evil, I'm only asking how we can really know. I don't know the biological state of the brain of someone that does something evil. I can only judge my little spot of reality just as the cells of the body fight infections, I will fight evil when I perceive something that I believe to be wrong. I can't really blame evil acts just as the cells of the body that fight infections. It makes the body stronger. So yes, on a greater scale, the apparent oppossing forces of good and evil are actually one. Just as when you try to remove the south pole of a magnet. It will remain because it is one.

 

I can know what evil is based upon revelation and based upon my conscience, although conscience can be hardened, so it is not always accurate. Good can come from evil, but I don't believe that it is never a justification for evil. Otherwise, we could tell people to be as evil as they want because some good is bound to come from it. If evil is based upon biology, then there is no evil as we cannot determine whose biology is good and whose is bad, we can only say that they are different. If good and evil are one, then they are none as there is no such distinction. But I don't think anyone could or does live that way.

 

Wow, even my Unitarian Church minister wears a robe! I mostly agree with everything you said after the "God is a judge" part but in context to my above paragraph.

 

I feel bad for your Unitarian minister on hot days. Do you believe your Unitarian minister to be a judge?

 

Of course my post reflects the fragmentation that I discuss. Yes, language is a very large problem, but if you can understand that it is, you can look past it in order understand differently. Again, check out the book by the physicist Daivd Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

 

Seems that we cannot get away from the problems of language, even in describing language. So, how is this argument not self-defeating?

 

Good for you!

 

I thought individuality in China was a relatively recent Western trend? When I went to college, cheating wasn't seen as cheating by the Chinese people I went with. They saw it as cooperation. But, I wasn't in China, just with the Chinese that were here to go to college. I can't really say what it is now.

 

Yes, I think that things have changed as a result of Communism and now, Capitalism.

 

It's not suspending rationality...it's expanding it. And the varidicality will change based on one's understanding of reality within their worldview. When waves and particles are seen, they are seen as measurements of reality. But, what is the real reality of them? Do they move of their own accord or is there a mover? We keep looking for the cause of the stuff in the pattern of the stuff. I say, good luck because the cause and the effect are one. In other words, the effect is in the cause, it's just our perception of time (which is a measurement) that causes us to see these as separate events. This causes us to look for a mover.

 

I'll try a little harder to have more patience with you until I can honestly see whether you are being disingenuous or not. I hoped I answered some of your questions more throughly.

 

I don't know that scientifically we could describe anything if cause and effect are one. We end up in a vicious loop of circular reasoning and everything is left unexplained and unexplainable. I don't think that these ideas will stop scientists from pursuing the causes for the effects. I am enjoying our exchange and look forward to more of it.

[centauri]

It’s not a straw man argument, as Paul confesses his desire to appeal to a wide audience by role-playing, which is a standard tool used by salesmen.

And Paul contradicts God with his gospel, so there is no reason to trust him.

It is you that doesn't understand so your objection does not work.

 

There is a vast difference between adapting to one's audience and being a car salesman. I don't believe that Paul was merely role-playing, but instead adapting to his audience.

That’s what Peter was doing also, and Paul chastised him for it.

You can believe anything that makes you feel good, but Christianity is a product that’s sold by various forms of advertising, and Paul wanted to sell his product to Gentiles in particular, even going so far as to tell them they had no hope without “Jesus”.

 

How does Paul contradict God with his gospel? Paul received the gospel message from Jesus himself, who is God. So, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement and on what you are basing it. Maybe you could explain yourself.

Paul undermined the law by declaring it obsolete and no longer binding.

Paul encountered a vision that he assumed was Jesus, so your claim that it was Jesus himself is unproved.

Jesus isn’t God, claimed to have a God, and didn’t know all the things God knows.

But if your version of God requires Jesus to be God, then Paul contradicted Jesus, which makes his claim about being personally instructed by Jesus quite dubious.

 

centauri:

The idea that a king messiah, the progeny of David, would lead the people into great compliance with the law comes straight from the Bible.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Jer 33:15

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

 

Do you know what the purpose of the law was and that the law was not too difficult to obey?

As for your claims about Jesus, they’re irrelevant as he wasn’t the expected king messiah.

 

LNC:

OK, where does it say that the people will be made righteous by keeping the Law? I do know the purpose of the Law as Paul tells us in Galatians:

 

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 2:15-16

 

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 3:10-14

 

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

 

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

 

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave [7] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

 

So, these verses clearly indicate that a person is not and cannot be justified by the Law. They also indicate (see underlined portion) the purpose of the Law to be a guardian (tutor) to point us to our need for a redeemer and savior, Jesus Christ. I posted these in the last post, I am not sure why you continue to insist that the Law was meant to save or even could save anyone.

The law was Paul’s competition and he couldn’t have righteousness or salvation tied to keeping it as that would eliminate the need for Jesus.

Paul was an apostate Jew, and contradicted God’s word.

The law brings blessings, not curses, to those that keep it.

Psa 119:1-4

Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

 

Righteousness is imputed to those that keep the law.

Psa 103:17-18

But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

 

Deut 6:24-25

And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

Jesus wasn’t a valid king messiah and didn’t lead the people into great compliance with the law.

He didn’t have the pedigree for the position of king, didn’t usher in an era of peace and prosperity, and didn’t sit on the throne of David.