Question For The Christians

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1290180306' post='623217']

Seriously - where did you learn this wacky theology? Is this from Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copelend, Kenneth Hagin, & Jim Bakker?

 

 

Exactly.

I grew up Pentecostal. But when I was around 20, I joined a church that had connection to these guys. And I heard them preach many times. Then I moved to USA and left that church behind, and joined a Vineyard church. I was a member there for many years before one day I realized it's all made up. People believe in these fairy tales because they need something above and outside themselves to hold on to. But I grew up and don't need it anymore. I feel fantastic without it!

 

OB, I agree that Pentecostals are just wrong in much of their theology re: the Christian life. I believe the modern Pentecostal movement started about 1910 in Los Angeles, with a 'prophecy' delivered by a young girl. The Vineyard would be a slight improvement - but again, they're sloppy & misguided in their theology about the power God supplies for Christian living.

 

Somehow, people think that apart from regular miracles - God is not at work, and they're "missing out" on something God has for people. Yet - how many miracles did David perform, or Solomon, or Samuel, or Isaac, or Stephen, or ???? Scant few! But would we say that they did not live abundant lives, blessed mightily by God? No, of course not. Much of daily Christian living (and much of Judeo-Christian history) does not include the miraculous. But it does include Gods's providential care and work in us and through us.

 

In the parable of the talents - were the men commended for miracles - or diligence and faithfulness?

 

"Well done, My good and faithful servant."

[Guest Valk0010]

William Lane Craig according to the following link said this in his book reasonable faith, I don't own a copy of the book so i can't check for myself but I figure you might

 

The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

 

…We’ve already said that it’s the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2931#footnote_1_2931 So taking that to mind, if all the evidence in the world was against him, he would believe christianity because of his supposed holy spirit. In fact, read that link, you will find he later said he would do that. But I couldn't find a direct source for that quote, so I didn't link it.

 

The problem with theology as assumption, as well as it being an assumption(something I can forgive depending on the circumstance) is its not an assumption in the same science would be. You have to prove the bible to factually, to use its theology at all. You can't use its theology to prove the bible however. For example, assuming a devil exists, is not like assuming, there is no gravity at all outside of a planet or a moon. Theology is a lot like the guesswork type of assumption not the deductive type. You would never admit to that as a christian, since you will claim divine mandates over the experiences of other religious beliefs, and not see it for what it is, man interacting with the material world and trying to explain it.

 

Just because spiritual pursuits are good for the brain doesn't mean that there true, a lie can give comfort.

[Antlerman]

OB, I agree that Pentecostals are just wrong in much of their theology re: the Christian life. I believe the modern Pentecostal movement started about 1910 in Los Angeles, with a 'prophecy' delivered by a young girl. The Vineyard would be a slight improvement - but again, they're sloppy & misguided in their theology about the power God supplies for Christian living.

Seriously, this is like one child calling another child an idiot. You're both dweebs.

 

 

 

I know the Pentecostals, and I know you. Your both ducks, one with stripes on the wings, and one with stripes on the crown. Quack. That's the same sound. The same noise. The same Gospel. Quack.

 

Quack, Quack.

 

 

 

Somehow, people think that apart from regular miracles - God is not at work, and they're "missing out" on something God has for people. Yet - how many miracles did David perform, or Solomon, or Samuel, or Isaac, or Stephen, or ????

Or Aphrodite, or Hercules, or Athena, or Zena the Warrior Princess?

 

Scant few!

Or none!

 

But would we say that they did not live abundant lives, blessed mightily by God? No, of course not. Much of daily Christian living (and much of Judeo-Christian history) does not include the miraculous.

Or anything approaching spiritual. Frankly.

 

But it does include Gods's providential care and work in us and through us.

Couched in self-serving views of reality that has themselves and their salvation at dead center. How amazing.

 

In the parable of the talents - were the men commended for miracles - or diligence and faithfulness?

How do you measure faithfulness? Dogma allegiance?

 

"Well done, My good and faithful servant."

Think so?

[Ouroboros]

OB, I agree that Pentecostals are just wrong in much of their theology re: the Christian life. I believe the modern Pentecostal movement started about 1910 in Los Angeles, with a 'prophecy' delivered by a young girl. The Vineyard would be a slight improvement - but again, they're sloppy & misguided in their theology about the power God supplies for Christian living.

That's right. Pentecostal, Vineyard, Faith Movement, Southern Baptist, Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, ... all of them... all of them are false. No one is a True Christian™.

 

Why would your version be true in comparison to all of those who are wrong?

 

Somehow, people think that apart from regular miracles - God is not at work, and they're "missing out" on something God has for people. Yet - how many miracles did David perform, or Solomon, or Samuel, or Isaac, or Stephen, or ???? Scant few! But would we say that they did not live abundant lives, blessed mightily by God? No, of course not. Much of daily Christian living (and much of Judeo-Christian history) does not include the miraculous. But it does include Gods's providential care and work in us and through us.

Or nature as such is in us and we are the works of and for nature.

 

In the parable of the talents - were the men commended for miracles - or diligence and faithfulness?

 

"Well done, My good and faithful servant."

I'm glad I got out from religion and away from all those false Christianities. Every version I've met since are also false. So I'm still good with what I have.

[DesertBob]

William Lane Craig according to the following link said this ...

 

The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

 

…We’ve already said that it’s the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role

Well, at least Craig is honest.

[bornagainathiest]

rayskidude >> Paul anticipated - and Paul even experienced when he was caught up to the third heaven-

 

He experienced the third heaven 'IN THE SPIRIT', not in the body. Go back and read it. His body never left the Earth. The third heaven was a 'spiritual' experience. Did the Apostle John physically leave the island of Patmos, when he says, "I was in the spirit."? No. Only Enoch, Elijah and a few others left this world to go to heaven.

 

as did the thief on the cross (from Jesus' own promise) -

 

Oh, so the thief preceded Jesus as the firstfruits of those who've risen from the dead? (See below.)

and we also see in the experience of Lazarus - that after physical death there is a conscious existence in Paradise, in the Lord's presence.

 

Incredible! (That word means beyond belief, btw.) Shakespeare and Homer and Balzac and hundred other human writers can use metaphor and we understand what they mean, yet when Jesus does it He's hamstrung by His inability to tell anything else but the absolute truth. Somehow, if it's not history, he's lying. Nice going, Ray! You've demoted Jesus' and raised humans above Him. Is that what you really intended?

 

Oh an btw, are you denying Jesus' resurrection? Answer this.

So again - we see that the gain in physical death is sleeping in 'timeless time' and Jesus must be sleeping, too.

By your twisted reasoning then Ray, if Jesus is sleeping then he must be dead. Are you denying His resurrection? Sounds like it. Well?

 

You are so wrong about all this. Sez u. Not scripture.

 

Is there a school somewhere that teaches this nonsense? (See my answer below.)

 

Actually - you're understanding of the three passages I presented are simply wrong-headed.

 

Notice the difference, Ray?

 

I say you're wrong and show you how, from scripture.

You say I'm wrong, you fire scripture at me, I refute your points and then you just whine, "You are wrong! You are whacky!"

That's going to change next week. So far I've just been spending a little time 'jousting' with you Ray. Next week, this moves up a gear and then it'll be your turn to explain, answer and refute the many, many questions and scripture passages I'll be firing your way. C u then! (Waves cheerfully.)

 

I'm happy to have anyone look at these verses - it's obvious that having passed from this life, believers are in paradise, God's presence.

 

Yes. But only if your pathological addiction to Literalism forces you to conclude that the passage about Lazarus and the Rich Man is real account of actual events and not an important message, related as a story. Likewise the thief on the cross.

So that would be ALL believer's from Abel onwards? They just 'pop' right up to heaven when they die? Then what's the point of Jesus clearly defeating the power of death (which entered the world thru the sin of Abel's father, Adam) by rising from the dead? There's no need for him to do that in your scheme. You say that all believers just enter the Lord's presence when they die. "Beam me up, Gabriel!"

Can't be so. Look at what Paul says. I'll walk you thru it.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Who is the very first person to rise from the dead? Abel? Adam himself? Anyone from the Old or New testaments (excepting those taken up into heaven alive) get to heaven before Jesus? Anyone from history? C.S. Lewis perhaps? Anyone at all?

No. Paul makes it quite clear that the first and only one to conquer the power of death is none other than the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Nobody else could do this. If Abel or Adam could have conquered death and gone right up to God's side, why was there any need for Jesus to take away their sins?

 

Jesus and only Jesus is the firstfruit of all who've fallen asleep. Nobody else. You are heretically contradicting scripture, if you say otherwise.

Looking at it another way, Ray, if, as you say. sleep is a metaphor for death, then who is the first to rise from this metaphorical sleep? Abel or Adam or King David or Amos? No. The proper answer is Christ. Deny scripture if you dare!

 

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

 

If death literally came thru Adam, then resurrection (victory over death) literally comes thru Jesus. There's no getting round it. It's there in black and white.

Your scheme (of believers beaming up) violates this literal interpretation of scripture. If the account of Adam is real history and his sin introduced death to the world, then, using exactly the same measure of literal interpretation, the account of Jesus' resurrection must be literally true also. Paul is crystal clear about this. Thru Adam all die. When are they made alive thru Christ? When they die? No, look here...

 

... SO IN CHRIST ALL WILL BE MADE ALIVE. Got that? Abel and David and C.S. Lewis and other believers will be made alive in Christ. They are not alive in Christ yet, because it is not yet God's appointed time for this to happen.

They have not been made alive in Christ, yet. YET! Paul's words, you heretic. Read them and weep!

 

So when is, 'will be'? When a believer dies? No. Read Revelation in the context of Paul's word to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians. This. 'will be' is yet to come.

 

Let's look again....

 

23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Each in turn, Ray.

So who comes first? Not Abel, not David, not Lazarus, not the thief. No. Christ is the first to conquer the power of death and thru Him all believers overcome death too. Not by their own power, but thru what he accomplished two thousand years ago.

 

Look what happens when He comes...

 

Those that belong to Him (all believers) rise from death in their turn. As I said before. It's sequential. It runs according to God's timing, not yours and not Abel's or any other believer's timing. You are 100% wrong, 200% in contradiction with scripture and 300% too blinkered by your Literalism to see otherwise.

 

There's no 'soul sleep' afterwards; that's just a metaphor employed to communicate that physical death is a temporary state. Wrong.

 

You're wrong in context - again you didn't answer what I said about Luke 16, not stated by Jesus as being a parable, and the use of proper names. .

 

Oh, really?

I asked you to show me where in scripture - not in headings, footnotes, side notes or marginal notes - where it says, "This is a parable." You haven't addressed that. Do so. And while you're at it, show me where Jesus tells anyone listening to him, "This is a parable and it's not actually a real, historical account of actual events." Sure, he says, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." But that's the kicker - the word 'like'. He doesn't say, "The kingdom of heaven is this." He says, "Like this." So, that's your cue, NOT to take what He's saying literally. Catch?

 

And youn are way wrong about the thief on the cross. Prove it.

 

And did you even really address Paul's statements in II Cor and Philippians?

 

2 Cor, about the tent? Yep. Covered that.

 

Here you are re: the Philippians...

 

but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Php 1:20–23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Q. Who viewpoint is Paul writing from?

A. His own.

Q. To whom is he writing?

A. Other Christians.

 

See Ray? The context of the epistle establishes the proper meaning. Looking at it with exact and robotic literalism skews the real meaning. From Paul's viewpoint, while he lives in the flesh, he labors fruitfully for Christ. Yet, he desires to depart (die) and be with Christ. Can he depart and be with Christ in a way that contradicts what he wrote to the Corinthians about Jesus being the firstfruit of those who rise from the dead? No. Paul knows that...

1. Jesus is the first to rise.

2. When Jesus returns (and not before) those that belong to Him (including Paul and the Phillipians) will rise too.

3. That Paul must wait until the Second Coming to depart and be with Christ.

4. That as far as he, the Phillipians and all other Christians are concerned, that is what will happen. WILL happen. Has not happened yet. The timing is God's, nobody else's.

5. That as far as he, the Phillipians and all other Christians are concerned, once they depart (die and fall asleep) the next thing they know is when they are raised from death and be with him... then. Not before.

 

Your interpretation creates a direct contradiction between Paul's epistles. Did you realize that by doing this you're abusing God's inerrant and perfect word?

 

Again I ask a simple question - what is the Christian school which promotes such poor hermeneutics and who are the Christian authorities/theologians who teach these wrong-headed notions?

 

Are you crazy, as well as deluded, ill-informed, heretical, deceitful and perverse?

You think that I'm going to tell you anything about anything to do with other Christians in other churches? So that you can do what? Insult them? Drive round there and confront them? Get your Creationist buddies to cyber-slander them over the Internet?

I may not be a Christian any more, but one thing I will do is to protect these people from ravening wolves like yourself.

Don't ask again.

 

A final, parting shot for you.

 

In the OT, Abraham and Ishmael, as well as Jacob and Aaron are all described as being, "Gathered to their people" when they died. How? When? In what way? Who is their people? Where are these four now?

Describe what you mean exactly Ray and try not to make your answer contradict what Paul says about Jesus being the firstfruit of those to rise from the dead.

 

Bye,

 

BAA.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude >> Again I ask a simple question - what is the Christian school which promotes such poor hermeneutics and who are the Christian authorities/theologians who teach these wrong-headed notions?

 

Are you crazy, as well as deluded, ill-informed, heretical, deceitful and perverse? You think that I'm going to tell you anything about anything to do with other Christians in other churches? So that you can do what? Insult them? Drive round there and confront them? Get your Creationist buddies to cyber-slander them over the Internet? I may not be a Christian any more, but one thing I will do is to protect these people from ravening wolves like yourself.

Don't ask again.

 

Bye,

 

BAA.

 

Here, you simply reveal your cowardice. Or the fact that no one with any Christian credentials holds to the nonsense you've put forth.

 

Face it, BAA - I've scored the TouchDown and I've already done my victory dance in the end zone - the refs have reviewed and confirmed that I scored. You, on the other hand, are just about to get an 'unsportsmanlike conduct' penalty. Stop, before you embarrass yourself further.

[rayskidude]

That's right. Pentecostal, Vineyard, Faith Movement, Southern Baptist, Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, ... all of them... all of them are false. No one is a True Christian.

 

Why would your version be true in comparison to all of those who are wrong?

 

Anyone who holds to the fundamentals of historic orthodox Christianity is fine. Most Baptists (SBC, GARB, independents, etc), Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterians, most Anglicans outside the USA, the Sovereign Grace Fellowship, many southern Methodists, most independents, most Reformed churches, most Wesleyan churches, Lutheran - Missouri & Wisconsin synods, - all these preach the Gospel. And many Pentecostal churches do, as well.

 

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As we head into the holiday season - I would invite any and all to our church in the Chicago area. We're independent.

[rayskidude]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2931#footnote_1_2931 So taking that to mind, if all the evidence in the world was against him, he would believe christianity because of his supposed holy spirit. In fact, read that link, you will find he later said he would do that. But I couldn't find a direct source for that quote, so I didn't link it.

 

The problem with theology as assumption, as well as it being an assumption(something I can forgive depending on the circumstance) is its not an assumption in the same science would be. You have to prove the bible to factually, to use its theology at all. You can't use its theology to prove the bible however. For example, assuming a devil exists, is not like assuming, there is no gravity at all outside of a planet or a moon. Theology is a lot like the guesswork type of assumption not the deductive type. You would never admit to that as a christian, since you will claim divine mandates over the experiences of other religious beliefs, and not see it for what it is, man interacting with the material world and trying to explain it.

 

I read this book by Craig a few years back - and I remember being somewhat disappointed. But in the link - I was surprised that the author didn't actually quote Craig's response to the resurrection question, but paraphrased it.

 

Re: assumptions - again, we must remember that in 'science' there are a number of phenomena upon which the hard sciences rest that we take as axiomatic. I was just reading some addresses given by Einstein yesterday - and he listed geometry (and much of math) as based on axioms. We also make assumptions re: language, the state of physical laws, etc.

 

So, the issue is whether the assumptions are indeed axiomatic, are correct.

 

Re: reason in faith. Would we, thru reason, establish that God exists as a Trinity? No, of course not. However, once we acknowledge from God's revelation that He is a Trinity - we can then reason thru why this is true. And all throughout Christian history we've seen Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius, etc reason thru why God does exist as a Trinity - and why this actually makes sense.

 

Not the we fully comprehend the Triune Nature of God - but we can see that it's not unreasonable, and that the Trinity reveals amazing aspects of God's nature > and ours.

[rayskidude]

I know the Pentecostals, and I know you. Your both ducks, one with stripes on the wings, and one with stripes on the crown. Quack. That's the same sound. The same noise. The same Gospel. Quack. Quack, Quack.

 

Actually, if you've followed along - you'd see significant differences between myself and Pentecostals. But - shouldn't atheists, Ex-C's, agnostics, etc be their own toughest critics? If not - can you make any serious claim to any validity or honesty of their positions? Shouldn't proponents of any 'dogma' assess their adherents to ensure that the positions are held with intellectual honesty? Should one atheist simply accept another with no critique - no matter how brainless and damaging this person might be to the dogma?

 

Christians must watch over their religion, and do so gladly - so that it's not taken hostage by 'believers' who really don't represent historic orthodox Christianity. Pretenders never advance your position.

 

measure faithfulness? Dogma allegiance?

 

Lemme ask you this - How do you measure faithfulness in atheists? Or those who agree with your religion? Is it possible to even be a faithful Ex-C? If so, howso?

[bornagainathiest]

rayskidude >> Again I ask a simple question - what is the Christian school which promotes such poor hermeneutics and who are the Christian authorities/theologians who teach these wrong-headed notions?

 

Are you crazy, as well as deluded, ill-informed, heretical, deceitful and perverse? You think that I'm going to tell you anything about anything to do with other Christians in other churches? So that you can do what? Insult them? Drive round there and confront them? Get your Creationist buddies to cyber-slander them over the Internet? I may not be a Christian any more, but one thing I will do is to protect these people from ravening wolves like yourself.

Don't ask again.

 

Bye,

 

BAA.

 

Here, you simply reveal your cowardice. Or the fact that no one with any Christian credentials holds to the nonsense you've put forth.

 

Face it, BAA - I've scored the TouchDown and I've already done my victory dance in the end zone - the refs have reviewed and confirmed that I scored. You, on the other hand, are just about to get an 'unsportsmanlike conduct' penalty. Stop, before you embarrass yourself further.

 

I won't be bullied, pushed around, sidetracked or shouted down by you.

 

I have answered your questions and refuted your points. Now it's time for you to answer the questions put to you - all of them.

 

If you want to talk cowardice, Ray - it's the coward who won't deliver the goods when asked and who runs away and hides behind bluster, arrogance and evasion. Which one of us would that be, I wonder?

 

If you want to talk Touchdowns and victory dances, consider this. You've scored a goal alright - in your own end!

You did so by insisting on being literal, when you there was no need. Simple really.

 

It is your literal interpretation of that Philippians passage that causes the Apostle Paul to contradict himself.

In your theology, the content of the letter he wrote to the Philippians directly disagrees with what he wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, as I have shown.

Lose the literalism and everything falls into place. Keep the literalism and you gain a contradiction.

 

Now, if you're so gosh-darned certain that the Bible is God's perfect and inerrant word and you have the proper take on it, how can you live with yourself, knowing that your literal interpretation actually generates contradictions within scripture?

 

Ok Ray, the time has come for you to put you money where your mouth is. I'm now going to dismantle your incorrect notion that the Apostle Paul actually visited heaven in any way. So, refute these and show your 'correct' understanding of the Bible, Mr. True Believer.

 

1.

There are accounts of Paul's meeting with the risen Jesus to be found in Acts 9: 1-19, Acts 22: 1-11, Acts 26: 1- 23 and Galatians 1:11-24. Where-o-where does it say in any of these that Paul's physical body left the Earth and visited heaven? If it were a historical fact that Paul visited third heaven, then, using the same brain-deadening literalness you subscribe to, scripture would say so, wouldn't it?

 

2.

Acts 26:19. "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:"

See that? Not a visit to, but a vision of heaven. Heavenly vision, in the original NT Greek reads, "ouraniO optasia". You can check this out here... http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act26.pdf

Where's the visit?

 

3.

Then, later in Paul's tesimony he says, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first to rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:23) So, who does Paul say is the first to rise from the dead?

 

4.

Time for some more Greek!

In Galatians 1:12, Paul talks about how he received the Gospel he preached. Does he mention a visit to heaven? Nope. "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Revelation, huh? Now what's this word in the original Greek, I wonder? Let's find out..

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/gal1.pdf See verse 12? The word revelation reads "apokalupseOs" or 'from-covering'. The meaning of this becomes clear when we see other examples of Paul talking about what God reveals...

Galatians 1:16 - "apokalupsai" or 'to unveil'

Romans 8:18 - "apokaluphthEnai" or 'to-be-from-covered'

Romans 8:19 - "apokalupsin" or 'unveiling'

1 Cor 1:7 - "apokalupsin" or 'unveiling'

Yes... a revelation is an unveiling or uncovering, given by God, so that divine knowledge can be imparted to the receiver without them having to be taken up to heaven. They see what God uncovers/unveils, even though their feet are firmly anchored to terra firma by gravity. Most significantly, look at Revelation 1:1...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev1.pdf "apokalupsis" or 'unveiling'

You see Ray? It's not called the Book of Revelation for nothing. John never left Patmos. Everything he wrote from 1:1 to 22:21 was unveiled/uncovered/revealed to him by God.

 

BAA.

[bdp]

ray = colossal asshole. Anyone think ray scored anything on anyone EVER on this board?

[bdp]

 

How do you measure faithfulness in atheists?

 

This is the single most asinine question I've ever seen anywhere on any message board.

 

'Faithfulness' to what? To self determination maybe? ray is just a total idiot, I almost feel sorry for him. Except he's an asshole and all.

[Ouroboros]

Anyone who holds to the fundamentals of historic orthodox Christianity is fine. Most Baptists (SBC, GARB, independents, etc), Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterians, most Anglicans outside the USA, the Sovereign Grace Fellowship, many southern Methodists, most independents, most Reformed churches, most Wesleyan churches, Lutheran - Missouri & Wisconsin synods, - all these preach the Gospel. And many Pentecostal churches do, as well.

 

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As we head into the holiday season - I would invite any and all to our church in the Chicago area. We're independent.

In the case when you have a version of Christianity where they preach the false gospel, do they (members) know that they are wrong?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Re: assumptions - again, we must remember that in 'science' there are a number of phenomena upon which the hard sciences rest that we take as axiomatic. I was just reading some addresses given by Einstein yesterday - and he listed geometry (and much of math) as based on axioms. We also make assumptions re: language, the state of physical laws, etc.

So you repeat the same thing you just said, when I just pointed out a difference, between axiomatic scientific assumption and the assumptions of religious faith.

 

So, the issue is whether the assumptions are indeed axiomatic, are correct.

Like I said, assuming a devil exists is not like assuming that there is no gravity everywhere in space. There is tangible variables to the qravity assuption, you can't provide me with nontheological(nontheological meaning historical, archeological, etc) variables to the existence of a devil.

 

Re: reason in faith. Would we, thru reason, establish that God exists as a Trinity? No, of course not. However, once we acknowledge from God's revelation that He is a Trinity - we can then reason thru why this is true. And all throughout Christian history we've seen Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius, etc reason thru why God does exist as a Trinity - and why this actually makes sense.

 

Not the we fully comprehend the Triune Nature of God - but we can see that it's not unreasonable, and that the Trinity reveals amazing aspects of God's nature > and ours.

Isn't that a bit along the lines of starting with a conclusion and working backwards? The God hypothesis, is designed the be an explanation, the god's nature is greater then ours copout, is the lazy mans way to get out of the problems of the bronze age explanation, they didn't know something so they said, ohhhh god is big.

[Guest Valk0010]

Building on some earlier points

Theology is not much of a realm of truth, since its based off of assumptions. Religious truth assumes there should be a religion. Also the sensation of love is a byproduct, which just value it in a high way. So ray do you believe the devil causes mental illness via demons or that some people are just legitimately messed up in the head? Ever noticed how god and particularly the devil get smaller in responsibility. What is now known as mental illness, was always assumed to just be the devil, just to use an example. So the failings of the human body are better explain by sin problems then medical science ray? People also used to believe that. If god was the be all end all of explanations, things like those would still be true.

 

Like I said, assuming a devil exists is not like assuming that there is no gravity everywhere in space. There is tangible variables to the qravity assuption, you can't provide me with nontheological(nontheological meaning historical, archeological, etc) variables to the existence of a devil.

 

Keep this in mind while I can respond to a critcism, about this.

 

Assumptions not based solely in the known world, aren't good calls. There are even more speculative then anything science could ever put forth as axiomatic assumption. Speculation creation, is not a mechanism to find truth, its only a mechanism for at best speculation. I for example may say. I don't know where lighting comes from, but sense there is no way I can explain it, it must be god(speculation). That is speculation based of assumptions, based of assumptions based of assumptions.

 

Is all science and all math and all language axiomatic assumptions? I don't think so. If I am right, the less speculation the better as far as being a method of truth. Theology is almost all speculation, a devil exists, earth is created in six days, on no known variables that I am aware other then quicky fill of ignorance.

 

Assumptions based off of fact are fine(its deductive reasoning), assumptions based of nonfacts or even more larger assumptions aren't. Theology is based of assumptions to fill a gap(and about 90 percent of the time if not more are like the lightening analogy). If you assume however, all the claims of religion are true, then theology becomes like science. However, religion is theology, you can't really seperate them. So you can't start with a conclusion, and use that conclusion to prove itself. You can't start with religion/supernatural and use it to prove religion/supernatural.

 

I can take a rock, and if I didn't know what it was I could say its something for sure. You can't say that however about supernatural stuff. Therefore guesswork.

[bornagainathiest]

Back again, Ray!

 

Oh gee, look at that! You failed to answer this one, from my earlier posting.

 

In the OT, Abraham and Ishmael, as well as Jacob and Aaron are all described as being, "Gathered to their people" when they died. How? When? In what way? Who is their people? Where are these four now?

Describe what you mean exactly Ray and try not to make your answer contradict what Paul says about Jesus being the firstfruit of those to rise from the dead.

So then, what did it mean to Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob and Aaron, to be 'gathered to their people'?

How did this, "gathering" happen?

And when?

Gathered to where?

What does scripture mean by, "their people"?

Where are these four fundamentally-important OT personages now?

 

Please answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok, here's some more indigestible items of scripture for you to chew over.

 

Genesis 37: 29-36.

(Here's a preface for you Ray - so that you know that this the literal truth and not a metaphor. Ok? I know you have a problem distinguishing reportage from metaphor, so here's a helping hand. Please read on...)

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

"...I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning?"

 

What? Not up to heaven? But you say that all true Christian believers immediately go up to Christ's presence in heaven. Isn't that right, Ray? Isn't that what would happen, if the what Jesus said to the thief, was literally true? So why's Joseph talking about going down to Sheol? Is this a metaphor, perhaps? Nope. Can't be. The preface, 'Joseph sold by His Brothers' tells us that it must be the literal truth - a totally and absolutely accurate and perfectly reliable account of historical events. Not a metaphor at all. Can you resolve this contradiction please?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What about Job?

Praised by God Himself as, "...blameless and upright, who fears God (Me!) and turns away from evil." Since it is impossible for God to boast or exaggerate and since God always speaks the perfect truth, Job must have had these qualities, right?

And wasn't it just a little while ago, in this very forum, that you said that the whole Book of Job is historical? Isn't that right Ray? You did say that, didn't you? So, being a true and historical account of what God said, what Satan said and what Job, his wife and friends said - this must be true, right?

 

So, what does Job say about those who die? They go right to heaven, don't they? That's his hope, isn't it?

Job Continues: My Life has no Hope. (This is the preface for Job 7, from the English Standard Version - your Bible version of choice, Ray. So this must be the truth!)

 

9As(Q) the cloud fades and vanishes,

so he who® goes down to Sheol does not come up;

10he(S) returns no more to his house,

nor does his(T) place know him anymore.

 

Ummm... help us out please Ray! Clearly Job was wrong. Wasn't he?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

King David, now.

Ok, this is a Psalm - just a song. It doesn't have to be literally true. Clear?

Psalm 6: 4 & 5

4Turn, O LORD, deliver my life;

save me for the sake of your steadfast love.

5For in(H) death there is no remembrance of you;

in Sheol who will give you praise?

 

Hmmm... you'd have thought that someone as close to God as David wouldn't have written these things? You know. About there being no memory of God among the dead? Perhaps they're all sleeping? That might also explain why the dead don't praise God.

 

Don't fret, Ray. It's just a song. David's obviously wrong here and you're right. Relax.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Let's hear some wise words from King Solomon. Surely he'll know that all true believers go up to heaven when they die?

 

Ecclesiastes 9

('Nuther preface, Ray. So this must be true! Ok?)

Death Comes to All

 

1But all this I laid to heart, examining it all,(A) how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him. 2© It is the same for all, since(D) the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil,[a] to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who(E) swears is as he who shuns an oath. 3This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that(F) the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and(G) madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know that they will die, but(H) the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for(I) the memory of them is forgotten. 6Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

Enjoy Life with the One You Love

 

7Go,(J) eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

8(K) Let your garments be always white. Let not(L) oil be lacking on your head.

 

9Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your(M) vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your(N) portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. 10Whatever your hand finds to do,(O) do it with your might,(P) for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

 

The dead know nothing. (Must be asleep then.)

They have no more reward. (Not going immediately up to Jesus?)

Their love, hate and envy have already perished. (Because those who sleep do nothing at all - they don't love, don't hate and don't envy.)

There is no work, thought, knowledge or wisdom in Sheol. (Because all there are sleeping.)

...to which you are going. (Not up to heaven?)

 

Contradiction alert, Ray!!!! The 'true' accounts of Lazarus and the rich Man and that of the crucified Thief, don't agree with these wise words - if you take those two NT accounts l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y.

(Hint. Treat them as non-literal. It harmonizes things.)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So what is this Sheol that Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Aaron, Job, David and Solomon all talk about as being the place the dead go to?

 

Well, Ouroboros was right when mentioned this... http://en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Sheol

 

To the Jews, Sheol was where all of the dead went, regardless of their faith in God, or not. This explains why Revelation says what it does...

 

The Judgment of the Dead

 

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

Hades is the NT term for the Jewish Sheol.

So, when God commands, the sleepers awake and arise when death and Hades/Sheol give up their dead - not before. Hades/Sheol cannot give up the likes of Enoch and Elijah and Jesus, because these people have either been taken up alive into heaven or have conquered death and been resurrected in the new, imperishable flesh - they can no longer die. From that time forward, the physical condition of death (which came thru Adam) cannot affect anyone. Jesus conquered it's power.

 

Not only Jesus. Everyone who has died, is now clothed in this same imperishable flesh. However, not everyone's name is written in the Book of Life. Only true believers have their names written there. All others are cast into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death. It is called that because the first death (which claimed every mortal) is now out of a job. Since nobody can ever die a physical death again, Hades/Sheol is out of a job too, metaphorically speaking. That's why these things are also cast into the Fire. They have no more use or purpose.

 

The Lake of Fire is permanent, unlike the first death and Hades/Sheol. These were only a temporary conditions of 'sleep' and a temporary holding place for the 'sleepers'. With no more physical death, there are no more temporarily sleeping dead. Without any sleeping dead, there is no need for a temporary place to keep them until the appointed Day of Resurrection and Judgement. These things have just happened. Now it's all over. Finished. The End.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please answer and refute what I've written here Ray. Also the other stuff, in previous messages.

 

I'll have some more for you soon, so hurry up!

 

BAA.

[Xerces]

 

measure faithfulness? Dogma allegiance?

 

Lemme ask you this - How do you measure faithfulness in atheists? Or those who agree with your religion? Is it possible to even be a faithful Ex-C? If so, howso?

 

Oh shit! look at the masters in biochemistry answer a question with another question directed back at the questioner! You're good for one thing ray and that thing is that you're a testament, just because someone has a degree does not guarantee intelligence. By the way in case you didn't get the memo, atheism isn't a fucking religion.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Here, you simply reveal your cowardice. Or the fact that no one with any Christian credentials holds to the nonsense you've put forth.

 

Face it, BAA - I've scored the TouchDown and I've already done my victory dance in the end zone - the refs have reviewed and confirmed that I scored. You, on the other hand, are just about to get an 'unsportsmanlike conduct' penalty. Stop, before you embarrass yourself further.

 

"No one with any Christian credentials holds to the nonsense I've put forth?"

 

Izzat so, Ray?

 

Shall we see what God Himself says about this?

 

You'd accept His Christian credentials, wouldn't you?

 

 

 

 

Ok then, I'm cutting and pasting this from the Biblegateway site, using the English Standard Version - which is the version of scripture you seem to be most familiar with. To get the right context for this passage, look up Daniel 10 and note that this a vision, not a visit to heaven, just like Paul's and John's visions. Daniel is told many, many things about what must come to pass in the future. The passage below deals with the events at the End of Time, a.k.a. Judgement Day. Care to take a guess at the identity of who's speaking to Daniel? If you're not sure, compare the description of Daniel's riverside companion in chapter 10 with Revelation 1:12-18, taking special note of the keys that this person has and what they unlock.

 

Happy to carry on?

 

Now, you'll see that I've also included the relevant footnotes, so that you can check out the scripture I've been quoting at you. Notice how it all agrees with what I've been saying about the sleep of the dead?

Doesn't agree with your, "Beam me up, Gabriel!" school of literal theology, does it?

 

Daniel 12 (English Standard Version)

 

Daniel 12

 

The Time of the End

 

1"At that time shall arise(A) Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered,© everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2And many of those who(D) sleep in(E) the dust of the earth shall(F) awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3(G) And those who are wise(H) shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;[a] and(I) those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4But you, Daniel,(J) shut up the words and(K) seal the book, until(L) the time of the end.(M) Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

5Then I, Daniel, looked, and behold, two others stood, one on(N) this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the stream. 6And someone said to(O) the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream,(P) "How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?" 7And I heard(Q) the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream;® he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and(S) swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a(T) time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of(U) the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. 8I heard,(V) but I did not understand. Then I said, "O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?" 9He said,(W) "Go your way, Daniel,(X) for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10(Y) Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but(Z) the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand,(AA) but those who are wise shall understand. 11And from the time that(AB) the regular burnt offering is taken away and(AC) the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. 12(AD) Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. 13(AE) But go your way till the end.(AF) And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at(AG) the end of the days."

 

Footnotes:

Daniel 12:3 Hebrew the expanse; compare Genesis 1:6-8

Daniel 12:6 Or who was upstream; also verse 7

Cross references:

Daniel 12:1 : Daniel 10:13

Daniel 12:1 : Jer 30:7; Matt 24:21; Mark 13:19; Rev 16:18

Daniel 12:1 : Exodus 32:32, 33; Ezek 13:9; Luke 10:20; Rev 20:12

Daniel 12:2 : Psalm 17:15; John 11:11

Daniel 12:2 : Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-10

Daniel 12:2 : Matt 25:46; John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:12, 13

Daniel 12:3 : Daniel 11:33

 

"And many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt." Yep. That's the sleeping dead awakening for Judgement and being divided into the saved and the damned.

 

"But you Daniel, shut up the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end." When's that, Ray? In the time of Abraham? In the time of Jesus? Now? No, sir! The dead do not rise until the End times. Capiche?

 

"Then I Daniel, looked and behold, two others stood, one on this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the stream." Three persons in Daniel's vision, Ray. Any guesses as to who these others might be? Try Genesis 18: 1 - 3 for a clue.

 

"But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of days." Not when Daniel dies? Ooops!

 

Now then Ray, I've saved the best bit till last! This one's just for you! Enjoy!

 

verse 10.

"Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked will act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand."

 

 

 

"No one with any Christian credentials holds to the nonsense you've put forth."

 

 

 

Who doesn't understand, Ray?

Who rejects the sleep of the dead?

Who contradicts scripture?

Who acts wickedly?

Who would that be, I wonder?

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

p.s.

More to come tomorrow!

 

You can stop me turning up the heat on you at any time... just lmk!

[oddbird1963]

I know the Pentecostals, and I know you. Your both ducks, one with stripes on the wings, and one with stripes on the crown. Quack. That's the same sound. The same noise. The same Gospel. Quack. Quack, Quack.

 

Actually, if you've followed along - you'd see significant differences between myself and Pentecostals. But - shouldn't atheists, Ex-C's, agnostics, etc be their own toughest critics? If not - can you make any serious claim to any validity or honesty of their positions? Shouldn't proponents of any 'dogma' assess their adherents to ensure that the positions are held with intellectual honesty? Should one atheist simply accept another with no critique - no matter how brainless and damaging this person might be to the dogma?

These differences you mention are just the patterns of the stripes and the colors of the feathers. It's all still "Duck-speak." Or, it might as well be. Your position has no grounding in reality. At least the way you and the others in your paddling want to filter facts and express your reality is rather skewed and not so logical or rational to those who want some correspondence to reality.

 

The rest of the quote is just diversionary. You're asking rhetorical questions in hopes of constructing a straw man. You don't seem to know anything about atheists and skeptics. You just seem familiar with the straw men you have constructed. Do you dress them up and conduct little play pretend debates with them? I bet you come out the winner every time.

 

measure faithfulness? Dogma allegiance?

 

Lemme ask you this - How do you measure faithfulness in atheists? Or those who agree with your religion? Is it possible to even be a faithful Ex-C? If so, howso?

Lemme as you THIS. Why don't you try to honestly answer Antlerman's valid and appropriate question. What is faithfulness? And how is it different from mere "Dogma allegiance?"

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

[bdp]

 

Should one atheist simply accept another with no critique - no matter how brainless and damaging this person might be to the dogma?

 

 

What 'dogma'? There's no groupthink going on here, we - the ex-C's - are all self determinists - I don't give a flying fuck what Antler or Ouro or Desert Bob or anyone else believes, they sure as hell don't need my approval, and I would never presume to give it, as I have no basis to do so (just as I don't need or desire THEIR approval). The farther I get from it the stranger Xtianity becomes.

[Antlerman]

I know the Pentecostals, and I know you. Your both ducks, one with stripes on the wings, and one with stripes on the crown. Quack. That's the same sound. The same noise. The same Gospel. Quack. Quack, Quack.

 

Actually, if you've followed along - you'd see significant differences between myself and Pentecostals.

I was quite aware of what I was saying. I stand by it, as I've been on both sides of that debate, the one the Pentecostals proclaim, and the side the John MacArthur Jr. and company's side of the debate have. You're all arguing over the size and shape and actions of GI Joe Doll, what it is supposed to be doing in the sandbox, not whether or not you're actually playing with a doll. You're both in the sandbox playing with the same toy, arguing who's playing with it the right way.

 

But - shouldn't atheists, Ex-C's, agnostics, etc be their own toughest critics?

Absolutely!! We should never just accept others doctrines or opinions. We should constantly question ourselves that we don't fall into that same religious behavioral trap we practiced when part of the group-think of our former Christian-group affiliation.

 

I actually spend a lot of time here pushing others on just that very challenge to them to not fall into that sort of trap, which you exhibit very much the way we all did. Never forget, we were you. Nor should we ever forget that either, lest we turn back to our old ways, like a dog returning to its own vomit.

 

Shouldn't proponents of any 'dogma' assess their adherents to ensure that the positions are held with intellectual honesty?

If by that you mean that if in some imaginary universe someone like me were saying "this is the how of things", and all must adhere to this in order to find the salvation of my ways, that I should make sure they were true believers in my way? I actually can't imagine thinking like this, so I can't answer.

 

The only closest thing I could come to is if someone were to try to understand a teachers model and misstate what that model of that teacher actually is, then it would be a matter of correction for that teacher to that student. However, you don't have that teacher present, and it's now at very best just a bunch of students arguing amongst themselves who is the better student and has the better understanding of what they think the teach meant. How on earth can that be binding in the way you suggest? And don't give me some crap about you being guided by the spirit to tell you your right. Your arguments are from your reason, not your soul.

 

Should one atheist simply accept another with no critique - no matter how brainless and damaging this person might be to the dogma?

Should one Christian simply accept another with no critique - no matter how brainless and damaging this person might be to their psychological and spiritual well being, simply because they believe the Bible is the trump card over any other thought, and that some Christian think they know they have the right interpretation - like you, for instance?

 

Christians must watch over their religion, and do so gladly - so that it's not taken hostage by 'believers' who really don't represent historic orthodox Christianity.

What if orthodoxy itself hijacked Christianity itself? Ever consider that?

 

[How do you] measure faithfulness? Dogma allegiance?

 

Lemme ask you this - How do you measure faithfulness in atheists? Or those who agree with your religion? Is it possible to even be a faithful Ex-C? If so, howso?

First, you avoided an answer. I expect one.

 

Second, I would not want faithfulness from anyone to any doctrine or dogma anywhere. That's religion. What I consider faithfulness, is being true to yourself in the sincere pursuit of understanding and peace. The opposite of that is selfishness. Selfishness in the sense of believing that being true to some dogma, some tenet of faith, some interpretation of some mythical book of absolute Authority (which is your true god it seems), is going to secure your place amongst the angels in this god's holy city where he has prepared a special place just for you - you, you. You.

 

That is not faithfulness. That is narcissism. Faithful to truth that leads to love. That is Life.

[Deva]

Christians must watch over their religion, and do so gladly - so that it's not taken hostage by 'believers' who really don't represent historic orthodox Christianity. Pretenders never advance your position.

 

What is "historic orthodox Christianity"?

 

Nicene Creed or something else? Just curious.

[bornagainathiest]

So what is this Sheol that Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Aaron, Job, David and Solomon all talk about as being the place the dead go to?

 

Well, Ouroboros was right when mentioned this... http://en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Sheol

 

To the Jews, Sheol was where all of the dead went, regardless of their faith in God, or not. This explains why Revelation says what it does...

 

BAA.[/color]

 

Whoopsie! Typo on the Wikipedia link. Try this instead...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

 

Yep. That works.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Ray!

 

It's that time again. That time I promised you. The time when I show from scripture just how far you've deviated and fallen from a true understanding of God's word, Mr. 'True Believer'.

 

Ready? (Don't care if you're not!)

 

Here we gooooooooo!

 

1 Samuel 28: 3-20 (ESV)

 

3Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him© in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put(D) the mediums and the necromancers out of the land. 4The Philistines assembled and came and encamped(E) at Shunem. And Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped(F) at Gilboa. 5When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. 6And when Saul inquired of the LORD,(G) the LORD did not answer him, either(H) by dreams, or(I) by Urim, or by prophets. 7Then Saul said to his servants,(J) "Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a medium at(K) En-dor."

 

8So Saul(L) disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said,(M) "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you." 9The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done,(N) how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?" 10But Saul swore to her by the LORD,(O) "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing." 11Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me." 12When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul." 13The king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth." 14He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped(P) in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.

 

15Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and(Q) God has turned away from me and® answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." 16And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? 17The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me, for(S) the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18(T) Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. 19Moreover, the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you(U) and your sons shall be with me. The LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines."

 

20Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear because of the words of Samuel.

 

Wow! Spooky, huh?

 

"Then the woman said,'Whom shall I bring up for you?'" " Up? Up, from out of the earth? That can't be right, can it, Ray? According to you, Samuel went up to heaven. Surely the witch meant that she'd bring him d-o-w-n?

"He said, 'Bring up Samuel for me." Hmmm.... looks like King Saul expected Samuel to come up from Sheol as well? Didn't he know that all true believers go immediately into the presence of Jesus when they die? What a schmuck that Saul was!

"I see a god coming up out of the earth."

Now this needs a little more explanation.

Look here... http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa28.pdf and zoom in on verse 13. The woman saw aleim or Elohim, coming up out of the earth. This does not mean God himself.

Look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim ...and go down to the section, "Pagan gods, angels and judges". So the witch is seeing a spirit alright, but not the spirit of the God of Israel. Saying that would be blasphemy!

"Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Good question, Samuel! Why indeed? Because the living are forbidden to consult with the spirits of the dead. It is unlawful and against God's command. These matters are not for human eyes and ears. We know this, not just because God told Saul to outlaw this practice, but because elsewhere in scripture we see God directly commanding these things to be 'sealed up'.

 

Remember what God said to Daniel and to John on Patmos? Seal these things up. The time has not yet come. Got that, Ray? Nobody is in heaven yet - because the proper time has not yet come.

Even when the disciples questioned Jesus about the future, what did He say?

 

6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

 

See? Jesus knew exactly what they we asking. The disciples wanted to know when God would restore the nation of Israel from the dust. They weren't talking about a restoring of Israel's political or military power. Nope. Having recently witnessed Him conquer the power of death, the next natural question to occur in their minds was, "When do the people of Israel rise from Sheol/Hades?" We know the answer, don't we, Ray? Do I have to spell it out for you?

And what did Jesus do next? He ascended into heaven... ...and will not return until the appointed and 'sealed' day.

 

Finally, on the topic of Samuel, what about this?

"...and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me." Where? In heaven? In hell? No. In Sheol/Hades, awaiting the proper time. It all fits - unless you take parts of scripture l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y, when you shouldn't.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

John 11: 1-44

Prefaced in the ESV like this...

The Death of Lazarus / I Am The Resurrection and The Life / Jesus Weeps / Jesus Raises Lazarus

 

I won't cut-n-paste the whole passage this time. Instead I'll just use parts of it to show you how badly you're mistaken about scripture. Ok, Ray? (Once again, don't care if you're NOT ok with this.)

23Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24(W) Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in(X) the resurrection on the last day."

 

Q. So, how did Martha know about the resurrection on the last day?

A. Unlike you Ray, Martha understood what the patriarchs and prophets of Israel had written down about what happens to the dead.

 

25Jesus said to her, (Y) "I am the resurrection and(Z) the life.[d] Whoever believes in me,(AA) though he die,(AB) yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me(AC) shall never die. Do you believe this?"

 

"Though he die, yet shall he live..." When do all true Christian believers live again? Do I have to say it, Ray? Not when they die.

 

How many times have you read these words without understanding them?

How long have you worshipped the false god of Literalism... years? Decades, even?

 

40Jesus said to her, (AT) "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see(AU) the glory of God?"

 

The glory of God? Do you really want to see the glory of God Ray or do you want to persist in your errors and unbelief? You say that you love God and you believe that you're a 'true believer', yet you don't believe what scripture plainly tells you. Well?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ephesians 5: 8-17.

 

8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. 14 This is why it is said:

 

“Wake up, sleeper,

rise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

 

15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.

 

Paul's right on the money here, isn't he? Not just about the fruitless deeds of darkness, not just about finding out what God's will is and what please Him, but also the saying he quotes. Wake up, sleeper (from Sheol/Hades), rise from the dead (out of the grave) and Christ will shine on you (in heaven, at the End Times). Ok, it's metaphorical, but just look how skillfully Paul uses language to convey meaning.

 

The following are double-meanings, which I will explain to you.

 

The sleeper isn't just the dead person in the grave, they're also the living person who doesn't yet know and believe in Jesus. Though they are physically alive and awake, they might as well be asleep, because they do not know God.

Rising from the dead doesn't just mean the Day of Judgement, it's also a general call to all unbelievers to rise from their status of spiritual death (which came via Adam) and to come alive thru knowing and trusting in Christ.

Christ will shine on you (the new believer), not just in heaven, but here and now on Earth as you find out what God's will is and how you should please Him with your new life.

 

Serious question Ray!

How can you possibly find out what God's will is and how you can please Him with your life if you can't even understand His written Word properly? If your understanding is stunted, blunted and distorted by your relentlessly literal take on scripture, how can you be living the true life that God wants for you?

 

Will you be foolish or will you be wise?

 

Think about it!

 

BAA.[/color]