Question For The Christians

[LNC]

And to LNC's drivel about having the correct interpretation, isn't it great that we have a whole industry of pastors and theologians and apologists to explain the correct interpretation for us!

 

God's master plan involved the creation of an entire employment sector! He could have just spoken in plain language to everyone throughout time and space, but no, that wacky Yahweh, he wanted to create jobs and keep people employed!

 

Just look at the glory of it, people like LNC can go to school for six years to learn how to explain the bible the correct way, even though it's supposed to be self-evident truth, and then live a comfortable life making an income off the donations of people who earn half of what they do!

 

What a wonderful plan! Keeping society's most useless employed for nearly 2,000 years!

 

The only problem with you theory is that the Bible was written in a different language, in a different land and culture, and in a different time from ours. If it was as easy as you say, we should not have any disputes about the U.S. Constitution which was written in our same language, in our same land, and in a relatively recent time; yet we do have these disputes. So, it is no wonder that we need to have people who know the language and culture in which the Bible was written so that we can understand it as the authors wrote these books. The question is whether we can get to that proper interpretation and I see no reason why we cannot. I have seen no arguments on this site as to why we cannot either. The fact is that the New Testament was written in one of the most fortuitous times in ancient history. The Bible was written in Greek by people who were under Roman rule. Rome's influence was great during this time and this allowed the fast spread of the NT throughout much of the Middle East and then Europe. So, you are quite mistaken in your assessment as a study in history would show you.

 

God's plan has worked out pretty well in hindsight. The Bible has been translated into the languages of every literate people group in the world, so I would say that God worked it out pretty well.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

The question is whether we can get to that proper interpretation and I see no reason why we cannot.

LNC,

 

You are wrong about what the question is. I think you WISH that were the question - I am referring to the quote above, but for most of us here, the question has nothing to do with whether or not we may or may not ever be able to accurately interpret what the biblical "authors" were trying to say. The real question is, "Why should we be interested in interpreting what these authors were trying to say?" Why put so much time and effort into interpreting a writing before first establishing that the body of work has authority in the first place. Are YOU interested in spending your time interpreting the Corpus Hermeticum?... Why not?... Same for me with the Bible.

 

The works selected as canonical, by popular vote, and subsequently compiled by the Catholic church to form the Bible, have no relevance as an authority governing mankind or even as a "good" book with much to teach the human race. Even the ten commandments are a pitiful excuse for a relevant moral guide. To make the collection more insignificant, I do not know one Christian, nor have I ever heard of one, who would attempt to live by the teachings attributed to Jesus as recorded in the essays of the New Testament. How many do YOU know who would give their cloak to the thief who just stole their coat - furthermore how many do you know who think that inviting robbery, as suggested by Jesus, is a good idea or would advise their children to respond to a mugging this way?

 

I use these couple of examples only to point out that there is nothing "life changing" or "enlightening" about the contents of the Bible - nothing that would ever inspire me, or other thinking folk around the world, to commit to the task of an in-depth study of it. If there were something about your personally treasured books that spoke to me as necessary reading, I could go along with the "Let's interpret this thing accurately." position that you suggest, but my 5th grader could come up with better ideas than those in the Bible - ones that would lend themselves to effecting a fruitful and fulfilling life, when applied.

 

The texts of the Bible, or any other literary work, are frankly not worth the trouble to interpret without a compelling reason to invest in such an effort. Pick up a copy of "The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson" if you enjoy reading thought provoking literature that will actually be beneficial. The Bible isn't even a reliable source of history. Many of it's stories, accepted by Christians as "historical", can be found in "The Epic of Gilgamesh", a known poetic fiction, written hundreds of years - perhaps more than a thousand - prior to the first biblical texts. There may be some value to be found in parts of the Bible as an anthropological study. Beyond that, I don't see the point.

 

It seems that you, along with many of your Christian accomplices, deliberately place the cart before the horse. You wish to establish credibility for the texts, by means of magical default - an obvious theme for Christians - and jump into discussions as if proper groundwork was completely unnecessary. It doesn't work that way. I am sure it would be most convenient for those in your position, if we would simply skip the most important part of building a foundation for debate and lose ourselves, straight away, in the garble of translations and / or interpretations. Surely you know this, though I am only assuming. I never cease to be amazed at what some do not know.

 

 

I would like to take this perfect opportunity to return your oft resourced, however thinly veiled, snobbery back to you by adding that I highly recommend you spend more time studying the audience before assuming what the question is. That being said, I hope you will work harder in the future to remember why the question IS NOT "Can we interpret?". IT IS "Why should we want to?" To neglect the real question does nothing but expose you as one who doesn't genuinely care to be understood, but rather one whose motives are only reflections of an over-inflated ego.

 

Pappy

[Sconnor]

 

Apparently, God has done pretty well getting his word to the masses as the Bible is translated into the language of every literate people group (many of whom were not literate until Christians came to their land to teach them to read and write).

 

FACT: The bible is easily misinterpreted and has several varying interpretations from thousands of christian sects and denominations -- all claiming to be true.

FACT: Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands people, throughout time, could not receive god's message, due to language barriers, land barriers, religious barriers, and the disastrously, slow evolution of getting the Bible to book form and then the complete, inability to delivering it to the masses.

FACT: If god is omniscient, wouldn't he have foreseen the devastating inability of his good book as not being a viable source because, at this particular time in history, 70% of the world's population was born into a non-biblical religion?

FACT: And the statistics become even more overwhelming, when you factor all the people throughout time who were born into other religions or were non-religious.

FACT: The estimate of lost souls, because the inadequacy of a book to deliver the one and only true message is staggering.

 

God's plan has worked out pretty well in hindsight. The Bible has been translated into the languages of every literate people group in the world, so I would say that God worked it out pretty well.

 

And what century was this finally accomplished?

 

Think of ALL the centuries that went by before the bible was delivered to the masses – you dolt.

 

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

Then why did it take you so long to understand it?

 

You're always telling us that we don’t understand; that we don’t have the same experience in textural criticism as you do; you studied for years – evidently it isn’t as clear as you make it out to be.

 

Which one is it? Is it your years of study that allows you to understand it or is it easy to understand?

 

You seem confused.

 

 

Your logic doesn't follow. The fact that some people changed parts of the Bible does not in any way indicate that the Bible as a whole was a human construct. I'm not sure how you come to such a conclusion. We know what has been added because we have such solid manuscript evidence. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman agree to that much.

 

Oh you mean the guy who studied the manuscript evidence – you know the guy who became an unbeliever.

 

The books of the Bible were all completed within 70 years of the actual events, not hundreds of years as you indicate. The thousands of errors that you claim occur over thousands of manuscripts and simply by comparing manuscripts we can determine and filter out the vast majority of those errors. As to the ones for which we are uncertain, they have no material bearing on the meaning of the passages in which they are contained. Needless to say, it does not put the whole Bible into question as you say and no scholar of any merit would claim such.

 

I might suggest that you actually do a bit more study of the actual text and what scholars have to say rather...

 

You mean like Bart Ehrman has done

 

Oh, remind me what did he conclude?

 

And still being a condescending little prick. Evidently you are insecure about your beliefs that you have to make a case that you have a big mega-brain and you studied this longer than anyone here and we need to study it more.

 

I have studied it obsessively for the last four years. This was what sealed the deal of my apostasy.

The chronological order of the gospels:

 

1. 27-30 A.D. -- Death of Jesus

2. 30-60 A.D. -- Oral tradition

3. 50-70 A.D. -- Letters from Paul

4. 60-70 A.D. -- First edition of Thomas.

5. 70 A.D. -- The destruction of the temple; the fall of Jerusalem .

6. 70-80 A.D. -- Mark.

7. 85-90 A.D. -- Matthew.

8. 85-95 A.D. -- Luke.

9. 90-100 A.D. -- John.

 

Consider the oral tradition where the stories were handed down for decades – I’m sure no embellishing went on there (sarcasm)

 

Then came the writings of Paul which makes up the majority of the New Testament.

Paul never knew Jesus (except the magical claim of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus) and only wrote about what he had heard to push his agenda at the time – not a very credible source, right out of the gate. All the other Gospels came, after this 60-100 years after the supposed death of Jesus and although some claim an eyewitness account, that does not mean they were actually, written by the eyewitnesses. Some may have been written by later disciples or disciples of disciples -- no eye-witnesses. The Gospels borrow heavily, from each other and embellishments and the magical deeds of Jesus were added, as the stories were told and re-told. Each writer wrote during their own specific time period, adding differing ideas, which dealt with their own specific culture and the issues of the day.

 

What should be noted is, no one signed or dated the manuscripts and we have no original copies. In all cases, we have copies of copies of copies, with thousands of mistakes between them. Several different people, some professional scribes and some illiterate, unprofessional, scribes would make the copies. These were handwritten and copied and re-copied, throughout the centuries. And of these copies, the authors attributed to the New Testament were just, best guesses, by the church.

 

The word of god or painful human construct?

 

Now, what's even more devestating is, there are zero writings from historians from Jesus' time. Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the time of Jesus wrote about, what surely would have been a monumental, piece of history -- what with all his miracles, including healing, walking on water and resurrecting the dead. The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus 20BC - 50AD lived in Jerusalem, during the supposed life of Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes, on the lives of Jews, in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about the miracle-workin' Jesus the Christ. Go figure?

 

This is the main reason I concluded that Jesus is a fictional character -- an amalgamation of possible human prophets and earlier myths -- made up over decades by religious zealots to push agendas of their time – The Jesus story and the message of salvation is a human fabrication.

 

All of this allowed me to conclude the New Testament – is NOT a reliable source for the historicity of Jesus and or the supposed claims of salvation.

 

How am I to believe in a man, Jesus, historically existing, claiming to be the son of God, let alone, bridge a colossal chasm and believe he magically raised people from the dead, walked on water or was sacrificed like a sin-goat, to magically atone, for sins? Every last bit of critical thinking and reason has to be obliterated to believe these things happened. From my perspective this all looks very peculiar and is all based on superstitious nonsense. So far no christian has convinced me, that ANY of this has a reference in reality -- how am I to believe in the preposterous notion, he is metaphysical road to salvation?

 

You can have the last word, (and pretend your arguments have validity) I can assure you I will not read or reply to your posts -- it's like talking to an insane brick, who can only offer massive ignorance and unsubstantiated superstitious nonsense.

 

May reason fall upon you like a heavy anvil.

 

Goodbye and sod off.

 

--S.

[bdp]

I've decided that 'LNC' is just having us on - he's intentionally saying snarky, snotty, ignorant, and obtuse things just for the reaction; he gets off on stirring us up. Nobody is this much of a dunce - are they..?

[DesertBob]

Apparently, God has done pretty well getting his word to the masses as the Bible is translated into the language of every literate people group (many of whom were not literate until Christians came to their land to teach them to read and write).

You're forgetting that most people, throughout most of human history, were functionally if not totally illiterate. And that until well after the invention of the printing press, literacy didn't even matter because most people did not have access to an affordable copy of scriptures in their own language. This "pretty good job" has only been true for perhaps a couple of centuries of human history, and I think its efficacy even today is highly arguable. I am willing to bet that between the remaining illiteracy and lack of education in the world, and political and economic realities, a huge percentage of humanity still has no meaningful access to scripture despite the efforts of Wycliffe Translators, Gideons, and similar organizations. And that's leaving off any concerns about textual transmission issues, translation debates, and the simple question of why it takes years of study and indoctrination to "correctly" interpret the book anyway -- even by the standards of one arbitrary doctrinal stance amongst hundreds.

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

John 3:16, for example, is easy to understand when uncritically accepted at face value as fact without evidence. I don't think anyone here would dispute that, although there are in fact scriptures that are vague, even coy, and passages that conflict with each other. But take that one verse and explain what it means. God sacrificed himself to himself, to change a rule that he himself made, as the Jack Chick send-up a few posts above mentions. To accept John 3:16 is to accept that proposition, and many others that don't stand up to scrutiny: original sin, depravity of man, the reconciliation of the omnibenevolence, omniscience and holiness of god with the concept of eternal punishment ... and so forth.

 

Clarity and comprehensibility as a complete and mindfully assessed proposition? No, it's not there.

I might suggest that you actually do a bit more study of the actual text and what scholars have to say rather than repeat infidel website assertions and memes.

Seems to me that Bart Ehrman is someone who is a bona fide scholar who has studied the actual text and been led to conclusions you would not support. Are you suggesting he is one of those infidels with an agenda who is releasing memes in the wild? I suggest he was led to his conclusions by simple fact and logic.

 

I've studied the topic more than most people bother to, including some formal study years ago when I was a Christian, and I never found textual criticism a source of reassurance for my faith. Since I was an inerrantist, what would have impressed me was supernaturally preserved consistency, which is what you would expect of something uniquely god-breathed and crucial. Instead you see that it's no different than any other ancient text. Which suggests it's like any other ancient text, not unlike any other ancient text.

 

At any rate, claims such as god's existence and nature, scriptural inerrancy, etc. are such that the burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. It's up to someone making extraordinary claims to present extraordinary evidence. Yet a skeptic such as Ehrman has gone to the trouble anyway, and you reject his evidence -- not on its own merits but because it conflicts with your faith.

 

Which only proves that if any one of us had studied all there was to know about textual criticism, apologetics, theology, ancient Greek and Hebrew, hermeneutics -- the whole enchilada, and only from institutions you would approve of -- if we did not simply rubber stamp your theology you still would not accept our arguments. The purpose of scholarship in your world is to validate your beliefs, not to gain insight via objective analysis. To you, any analysis that conflicts with your beliefs is not objective by definition.

 

So please don't weary us with these specious dismissals based on our lack of study or knowledge. We are not ignoramuses and we are not willfully disagreeable. We simply look at the facts and do not see what you see because the facts don't support it -- and, in fact, many facts support the opposite.

[Overcame Faith]

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

 

This conclusively demonstrates LNC's complete lack of understanding. The book is unclear, inconsistent, and in important parts actually contradicted by other parts. As for what it has to say, to the extent it can be understood, it is obviously mythological and contains outright lies which have done terrible harm to many people. It assumes, without evidence, that human beings are unworthy of anything but death and then hell and offers "salvation" from that condition which is the fault of the alleged creator, anyway. It was written by human beings with evil intent of control of the masses and to extract their money from them. And it continues to be used for these nefarious purposes today. You can have your book of horrors if you wish to be subjugated by it and those in positions of religious authority over you. But its filthy lies are patently obvious once the spell of "faith" has been broken. Then the harsh truth compels the rejection of that wretched book called the bible.

[bdp]

Just to be precise: I'm no skeptic, I'm an unbeliever.

[florduh]

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

 

This conclusively demonstrates LNC's complete lack of understanding. The book is unclear, inconsistent, and in important parts actually contradicted by other parts. As for what it has to say, to the extent it can be understood, it is obviously mythological and contains outright lies which have done terrible harm to many people. It assumes, without evidence, that human beings are unworthy of anything but death and then hell and offers "salvation" from that condition which is the fault of the alleged creator, anyway. It was written by human beings with evil intent of control of the masses and to extract their money from them. And it continues to be used for these nefarious purposes today. You can have your book of horrors if you wish to be subjugated by it and those in positions of religious authority over you. But its filthy lies are patently obvious once the spell of "faith" has been broken. Then the harsh truth compels the rejection of that wretched book called the bible.

That's what I was thinking.

 

The Bible states that it is inspired and true. So perfect that none dare alter jot nor tittle. It also says some will believe while others will reject the message. No allowance is made for not believing due to the lack of evidence, which is not rejection but the actual inability to believe.

 

True believers therefore can only see two possibilities: we can accept or reject what is unassailably true to them. There is no concept of the possibility that some are unable to believe, but are no more "rejecting" Jesus than they are "rejecting" Isis, Thor, Superman or Santa.

 

Since this point has been dodged and avoided by all believers for some time now, I am not expecting a relevant response any longer. I'm just saying.

[centauri]

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

Apparently you enjoy being a comedian.

If it was clear and easy to understand, Christians wouldn't be split into hundreds of different sects.

They cannot agree on basic issues of doctrine, despite having ~2,000 years to do so.

They cannot even agree on how a person is properly saved.

They can't agree if Jesus was God incarnate.

You've spent pages illustrating that they can't agree if unbelief is a primary sin that results in damnation.

Christians reject other Christians because they don't like their particular beliefs.

 

All of this bodes ill for the prayer of the god-man Jesus, who prayed that believers would display complete unity as a sign to the world that he was genuine.

The prayer of the god-man was a failure, much like his claim to return within the lifetimes of his associates to set up his kingdom.

[Overcame Faith]

All of this bodes ill for the prayer of the god-man Jesus, who prayed that believers would display complete unity as a sign to the world that he was genuine.

The prayer of the god-man was a failure, much like his claim to return within the lifetimes of his associates to set up his kingdom.

 

And let's quote that prayer for the record:

 

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

John 17:20-23.

 

It appears that even Jesus' (alleged) prayers are not granted. Not much of a Messiah....

[LNC]

I'd just like to bring it to everyone's attention that I'm still waiting for LNC to post the specific verses he bases his interpretation of the bible on (that practicing jews will not burn in hell) so that I can examine them in the original Greek.

 

I don't need a good English translation of the bible. I just need the verses he is referring to that support his claim. I will examine them, in context, in their original language. That way, there can be no risk of 'misinterpretation' from a badly translated English version, and we'll know for sure whether he actually has something, or is talking out of his arse.

 

I am taking his failure to produce these verses as evidence that he is too intimidated by my knowledge of Greek to want to risk revealing that he has nothing but nice feelings to back up his position.

 

Ball's in your court, LNC. *Twiddles thumbs*

 

You are changing the argument. The question is whether a Jew will go to hell for being a Jew. So, let's start with Paul's letter to the Romans (chapter 2:

 

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

Here we see that God judges people for the hardness of their hearts and for not even living up the the standard by which we judge others. To obey unrighteousness is to rebel against God and his righteousness and for that people who are unrepentant will experience God's wrath and fury. However, God shows no partiality in his judgment and he doesn't judge people for being Jews, Greeks, Muslims, Catholics or Protestants. He judges people according to their sin of rebellion. I would be pleased if you check the Greek and do some additional Biblical theological study on this. LNC

[LNC]

The Bible doesn't say or indicate that a person is condemned for that reason; however, it does say that trusting in Jesus' death and resurrection can bring eternal life, but that is a different issue.

 

Your personal theology be damned. What is the scriptural basis for this?

 

Yes, your right, my personal theology be damned if it is not in accordance with Scripture. So, let me refer to Scripture to make the case.

 

Since I referred to Romans 2 in a previous post, let me move on to Romans 3.

 

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

 

 

Here we see that a person is judged based upon sin, but that Jesus is the propitiation (the one who takes sins away) and that we received this by faith (by trusting in him and his redeeming work on the cross.)

 

 

LNC

 

[LNC]

Its belief that Jesus is the son of god, and died for you. I only hear of that in the NT, a collection of books. If you believe in what those collection of books says, you go to heaven. So its just believing in the NT.

 

The Bible says that the demons believed and trembled (James 2:19), so it is more than just believing, it is trusting. Believe can be an intellectual thing, but trust is a commitment of the will. You may also want to read Gen. 15. It says that Abraham believed the Lord and it was counted to him as righteousness (v. 6, also repeated in Rom. 4 and elsewhere in the NT). It is not believing in the NT or the OT, it is trusting in the Lord.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

... God judges people for the hardness of their hearts...

... and on occasion, God himself hardens a persons heart so that they do not repent. What a loving God, and how obvious your deity makes the fact that he is not willing that any should perish. So much for your "too easy to understand" book LNC.

 

... trust is a commitment of the will.

Why do you feel the need to invent definitions LNC? Do you care to provide a resource for your new creation, or is it forthcoming in your next book "The New LNC Dictionary". Stop that shit dude!

[bdp]

 

 

demons

 

What is a 'demon'? Scientifically.

 

This just shows up how utterly asinine everything you're saying on this thread really is. You think you're provided 'evidence' that 'god' exists - give me 'evidence of 'demons.' It can't be any less amusing than you've already been so far.

[Guest end3]

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

Apparently you enjoy being a comedian.

If it was clear and easy to understand, Christians wouldn't be split into hundreds of different sects.

They cannot agree on basic issues of doctrine, despite having ~2,000 years to do so.

They cannot even agree on how a person is properly saved.

They can't agree if Jesus was God incarnate.

You've spent pages illustrating that they can't agree if unbelief is a primary sin that results in damnation.

Christians reject other Christians because they don't like their particular beliefs.

 

All of this bodes ill for the prayer of the god-man Jesus, who prayed that believers would display complete unity as a sign to the world that he was genuine.

The prayer of the god-man was a failure, much like his claim to return within the lifetimes of his associates to set up his kingdom.

 

You don't consider the church as still being made perfect as one through Christ? Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but do we know when the test is definatively over?

[Guest end3]

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

 

This conclusively demonstrates LNC's complete lack of understanding. The book is unclear, inconsistent, and in important parts actually contradicted by other parts. As for what it has to say, to the extent it can be understood, it is obviously mythological and contains outright lies which have done terrible harm to many people. It assumes, without evidence, that human beings are unworthy of anything but death and then hell and offers "salvation" from that condition which is the fault of the alleged creator, anyway. It was written by human beings with evil intent of control of the masses and to extract their money from them. And it continues to be used for these nefarious purposes today. You can have your book of horrors if you wish to be subjugated by it and those in positions of religious authority over you. But its filthy lies are patently obvious once the spell of "faith" has been broken. Then the harsh truth compels the rejection of that wretched book called the bible.

That's what I was thinking.

 

The Bible states that it is inspired and true. So perfect that none dare alter jot nor tittle. It also says some will believe while others will reject the message. No allowance is made for not believing due to the lack of evidence, which is not rejection but the actual inability to believe.

 

True believers therefore can only see two possibilities: we can accept or reject what is unassailably true to them. There is no concept of the possibility that some are unable to believe, but are no more "rejecting" Jesus than they are "rejecting" Isis, Thor, Superman or Santa.

 

Since this point has been dodged and avoided by all believers for some time now, I am not expecting a relevant response any longer. I'm just saying.

 

I would respectfully disagree because in an ex-Christian sense, there was apparently a time of belief that must have been followed by rejection. You are saying essentially that you never believed in the first place due to lack of evidence. And that would make the title of ex-Christian false. Certainly not true for everyone here...

 

Picking on you for sport this evening C....just bored.

[Mister Pappy]

I HAVE A PROPOSITION FOR DESERT BOB OR OUROBORUS AND LNC ...

 

For over a week now, I have been reading this thread and not getting much out of it. I think it is obvious why not. We seem to have 10 or more conversations going on at the same time. None of those conversations actually develop - they are far too convoluted to actually go anywhere. In a strange kind of way, I sort of feel for LNC who seems to be surrounded like General Custer. I have seen great points go totally unrecognized on both sides.

 

Would it be possible to interest the parties named above in taking this to the formal debate area? I would very much like to see the outcome of this discussion - there will probably be no outcome without isolating the subject and participates. LNC seems to be the only Christian here who can form a complete sentence and Bob and Ouroborus are, in my opinion, the best of all of us.

 

How do we make this happen? Is there interest to support it, other than my own?

[Phanta]

Its belief that Jesus is the son of god, and died for you. I only hear of that in the NT, a collection of books. If you believe in what those collection of books says, you go to heaven. So its just believing in the NT.

 

The Bible says that the demons believed and trembled (James 2:19), so it is more than just believing, it is trusting. Believe can be an intellectual thing, but trust is a commitment of the will. You may also want to read Gen. 15. It says that Abraham believed the Lord and it was counted to him as righteousness (v. 6, also repeated in Rom. 4 and elsewhere in the NT). It is not believing in the NT or the OT, it is trusting in the Lord.

 

LNC

 

You suggest that trusting worked for salvation for Abraham, but surely he wasn't perfect, and Jesus hadn't died yet. So how did Abraham get to heaven as a pre-Jesus, trusting-in-God sinner?

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

I HAVE A PROPOSITION FOR DESERT BOB OR OUROBORUS AND LNC ...

 

For over a week now, I have been reading this thread and not getting much out of it. I think it is obvious why not. We seem to have 10 or more conversations going on at the same time. None of those conversations actually develop - they are far too convoluted to actually go anywhere. In a strange kind of way, I sort of feel for LNC who seems to be surrounded like General Custer. I have seen great points go totally unrecognized on both sides.

 

Would it be possible to interest the parties named above in taking this to the formal debate area? I would very much like to see the outcome of this discussion - there will probably be no outcome without isolating the subject and participates. LNC seems to be the only Christian here who can form a complete sentence and Bob and Ouroborus are, in my opinion, the best of all of us.

 

How do we make this happen? Is there interest to support it, other than my own?

It's possible to start a formal debate in the Arena, but every time we do, it doesn't pan out. In my case it's the lack of time, so the debate would span over weeks and I lose interest quickly. If Bob and LNC are interested in having a formal 1-on-1 debate, which would be strictly moderated, they can tell me and we'll set it up.

[DesertBob]

It's possible to start a formal debate in the Arena, but every time we do, it doesn't pan out. In my case it's the lack of time, so the debate would span over weeks and I lose interest quickly. If Bob and LNC are interested in having a formal 1-on-1 debate, which would be strictly moderated, they can tell me and we'll set it up.

That is my impression of the Arena as well, it doesn't seem to attract any interest because the whole appeal of forums is the free interaction. If people aren't able to participate then it's no different than reading a dry transcript.

 

Maybe this thread needs to be broken into 2 or 3 separate conversations so that it doesn't lose focus?

[DesertBob]

The Bible says that the demons believed and trembled (James 2:19), so it is more than just believing, it is trusting. Belief can be an intellectual thing, but trust is a commitment of the will. You may also want to read Gen. 15. It says that Abraham believed the Lord and it was counted to him as righteousness (v. 6, also repeated in Rom. 4 and elsewhere in the NT). It is not believing in the NT or the OT, it is trusting in the Lord.

Elsewhere it's said if you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord you will be saved. So in that verse it's belief plus speaking the belief out loud, specifically acknowledging the lordship of Christ.

 

Elsewhere it's faith alone, not of works (including, presumably, confessing lordship).

 

Elsewhere it's trust.

 

Elsewhere it's repentance (changing one's mind, in this context, about going one's own way / sinning).

 

I'll throw you a bone here and rather than carp about how the Bible can't make up its mind, I'll just say that I am not sure it's useful to split hairs about faith vs belief vs trust, they are overlapping concepts and probably different sides of the same coin. Repentance is different though, it introduces something new into the mix. As does the requirement to "confess", which you could interpret as ritualistically / formulaically uttering one's faith aloud, or you could interpret it as being open about your new faith as opposed to being a "closet Christian" (no small consideration if you were identifying with a persecuted minority).

 

So even assuming we should conflate faith, belief and trust, we are still left with whether repentance or confession are required, and what exactly constitutes those things. The way I always regarded it as a Christian is that something more than mere mental assent was needed. I would say that repentance is what represents a "commitment of will", not trust as you suggested. Trust is just deciding that someone is worthy of confidence. Repentance is actually putting your money where your mouth is. Open repentance / acknowledgment of submission to God are also overlapping concepts and I think they were bolted on as requirements because of a need for converts to show evidence of sincerity and commitment. They are "proofs" that your belief is "real". Also, not coincidentally, they get the new convert invested. It breaks old ties, forms new ones. It burns bridges. As a side effect, it also gets you to invest ego in your decision -- now if you back off you are implicitly admitting you were mistaken.

 

If you are asking someone to believe something without proof, and you want this belief to stick, this is a pretty good set of requirements to impose. You get the person to make a public confession of faith, publicly renounce their free will as corrupt and sinful, swear allegiance to a new faith, piss of your relatives and friends, and isolate you with a new set of like minded friends.

 

In some quarters, that would be called "brainwashing".

[bornagainathiest]

Its belief that Jesus is the son of god, and died for you. I only hear of that in the NT, a collection of books. If you believe in what those collection of books says, you go to heaven. So its just believing in the NT.

 

The Bible says that the demons believed and trembled (James 2:19), so it is more than just believing, it is trusting. Believe can be an intellectual thing, but trust is a commitment of the will. You may also want to read Gen. 15. It says that Abraham believed the Lord and it was counted to him as righteousness (v. 6, also repeated in Rom. 4 and elsewhere in the NT). It is not believing in the NT or the OT, it is trusting in the Lord.

 

LNC

 

You suggest that trusting worked for salvation for Abraham, but surely he wasn't perfect, and Jesus hadn't died yet. So how did Abraham get to heaven as a pre-Jesus, trusting-in-God sinner?

 

Phanta

 

Exactly Phanta!

 

How?

 

How indeed???

 

This pre-Jesus salvation is something that I've put to LNC and now I'm patiently waiting in line for my turn.

 

I've cited Enoch and Elijah, who (somehow) managed to avoid the Father's wrath, without seeming to have any knowledge of Jesus. Sans knowledge, how can there be the belief and trust that LNC says is the only way to deflect the Father's wrath? According to Jesus, Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing say his day, he saw it and was glad. (John 8 : 56) Somehow (LNC, please insert explanation here!), Abraham both knew of and trusted in Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary. Not God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit. No. Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in the reign of Caesar Augustus.

 

Ummm.... perhaps the 'Lord' who visited Abraham's camp at Mamre (Genesis 18) also told the patriarch that He would become a man and die to save all who believed in and trusted in Him? Hmm... doesn't say that, does it? Or perhaps the 'Lord' was Jesus and not the Father? Whatever, it's got me beat!

 

Then there's the small matter of the billions of unborn dead, who lack this same knowledge and the ability to make any kind of choice. Here, I am proceeding under the assumption that LNC considers a even fertilized egg to be just as much a person as you or I - in God's sight that is. Of course, there's no guarantee he holds to this notion and equally, no guarantee that he'll even declare his hand on this issue. Still, I would like to know what he thinks about my unborn sister's ability and/or opportunity to believe in and trust Jesus.

 

Also, lets not forget Overcame Faith's example of the Amazonian native who lived and died without knowledge of Jesus. Since the Christian message spread out from Israel in the early years of the 1st Century A.D., what of those uncounted billions who died before being able to make the necessary decision LNC says is required for salvation? You know. Everyone in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australasia. Don't they get a shot at this? If (as I've speculated earlier) God writes the requirements of his Law on the hearts of the Gentiles, just as Paul says in Romans, of what use is that when it comes to salvation? Paul is quite clear that the Law does not bring salvation, only condemnation. So, even if the Amazonian did listen to these requirements, he's still doomed. Firstly, because he couldn't live up to the required standard (nobody except Jesus can) and secondly, even if he could, doing so would not bring him salvation. The only way to salvation is thru Jesus, remember?

 

Ok, I may be jumping the gun here, but if we take belief and trust in Jesus as the one path to salvation, then almost everyone who ever lived is doomed to suffer God's wrath, without hope of ever acquiring the necessary belief and trust. Not thru their own doing, but simply by the circumstances of their birth - which they had no choice in. How so? Look here...

 

Here we see that God judges people for the hardness of their hearts and for not even living up the the standard by which we judge others. To obey unrighteousness is to rebel against God and his righteousness and for that people who are unrepentant will experience God's wrath and fury. However, God shows no partiality in his judgment and he doesn't judge people for being Jews, Greeks, Muslims, Catholics or Protestants. He judges people according to their sin of rebellion. I would be pleased if you check the Greek and do some additional Biblical theological study on this. LNC

 

"Here we see that God judges people for the hardness of their hearts and for not even living up the the standard by which we judge others."

This standard was always going to be a fail for the whole human race. Nobody can live up to this standard, except (supposedly) Jesus. So, we have an impossible standard set for all of us. No problem! Jesus is the one answer and solution.

But, before his blood can shield you from the Father's wrath, you have to make the conscious and deliberate decision to believe in the Son of God and trust that his sacrifice will deliver you from the wrath that is due to fall upon you. Belief is not enough. You must trust and believe to avoid God's wrath. Now, unless LNC can show us all how the belief/trust combo is possible without knowledge, I'm prepared to say that knowledge must precede this decision just as surely as trust must accompany belief. Without knowledge, the pivotal decision is impossible. Unless he can gainsay me, I'm also prepared to say this knowledge has been denied to almost all the human race thru-out most of history.

 

Secondly, the ability to make this decision must be contingent on the ability to understand the concepts involved. Concepts such as sacrifice, goodness, evil, God, sin, judgement, payment and so on. How can the unborn exercise any ability to understand these things? Do we hear Psalms sung to the Lord, emanating from pregnant women's abdomen's? Not even John the Baptist managed that when his mother, Elizabeth, heard the voice of Mary calling to her! He leaped in her womb, but are we to take that as definitive proof that the unborn do (somehow) believe in and trust Jesus? Because if they can't, then, by LNC's measure, they will feel the full force of God's wrath and fury.

 

"To obey unrighteousness is to rebel against God and his righteousness and for that [those] people who are unrepentant [, they] will experience God's wrath and fury."

These unborn babes can't comprehend what unrighteousness is. Or can LNC show that they do? They cannot comprehend what rebellion is. Ditto what or who God is. And what a person is, what unrepentance is, what experience is, what wrath is and what fury is. All of these concepts are beyond them, just as knowledge of, belief in and trust in Jesus is beyond them.

 

"However, God shows no partiality in his judgment and he doesn't judge people for being Jews, Greeks, Muslims, Catholics or Protestants. He judges people according to their sin of rebellion."

 

Once again, how can the unborn be in rebellion against something they neither know or understand? If (as LNC has repeated) the sin that bring God's wrath is rebellion and not unbelief, how can this apply to those without the ability to rebel? Perhaps the rebellion of Original Sin applies to them? If so, how?

 

"I would be pleased if you check the Greek and do some additional Biblical theological study on this. LNC"

 

Yes, and seeing as I do read Koine (New Testament Greek), I'd be equally pleased for LNC to answer my questions (all of them) and provide explanatory links to the appropriate passages in an online Greek InterLinear. I'm sure that Crazy Donna would be just as interested too.

 

Thank you.

 

BAA.

[DesertBob]

This pre-Jesus salvation is something that I've put to LNC and now I'm patiently waiting in line for my turn.

For what it's worth, what I was always taught is that the Old Testament economy "anticipated" or "foreshadowed" the coming Saviour and that all those who followed the Law were effectively trusting the Christ would would later arise out of that system.

 

There is a verse of somewhat unclear meaning in the N.T. (Paul was the author, I forget the reference) that talks about Jesus "descending into hell" (sheol) following his death on the cross and "leading captivity captive". There was a somewhat involved explanation that the Jewish afterlife was conceptually divided into two compartments, the "bosom of Abraham" for the righteous and "gehenna" for the wicked. Collectively these might be called sheol (supposedly, somewhat erroneously rendered "hell"). (I'm going by memory here; I think I have it generally right even if the particulars of terminology are muddled). At any rate the idea is that Jesus led the departed righteous of the previous age to the true heaven which they could not enter into because of his finished work on the cross.

 

Whew, I guess "somewhat convoluted" is an understatement! I always looked askance at all this as it seemed inherently baroque and smelled of chewing gum and baling wire. But there you have it. I'm guessing LNC will resort to some version of this. It's one of those areas where expositors really jump through rings of fire and eat little pieces of glass to force fit some obscure passage of scripture into an explanation that's required to fix a logical inconsistency.

[centauri]

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

Apparently you enjoy being a comedian.

If it was clear and easy to understand, Christians wouldn't be split into hundreds of different sects.

They cannot agree on basic issues of doctrine, despite having ~2,000 years to do so.

They cannot even agree on how a person is properly saved.

They can't agree if Jesus was God incarnate.

You've spent pages illustrating that they can't agree if unbelief is a primary sin that results in damnation.

Christians reject other Christians because they don't like their particular beliefs.

 

All of this bodes ill for the prayer of the god-man Jesus, who prayed that believers would display complete unity as a sign to the world that he was genuine.

The prayer of the god-man was a failure, much like his claim to return within the lifetimes of his associates to set up his kingdom.

 

You don't consider the church as still being made perfect as one through Christ? Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but do we know when the test is definatively over?

If complete unity was to be a sign for the world that Jesus was genuine then he doesn't fulfill the criteria.

It's taking thousands of years to accomplish what Jesus prayed for.

The prayer was supposed to encompass believers of that time and any future believers.

If the prayer wasn't supposed to be effective until thousands of years later, then it's pretty much meaningless to all those that lived and died, thinking they had latched onto a genuine savior.

He isn't geniune until the sign is displayed.