Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

All The Questions Dodged By Rayskidude.


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

You see friend, everything you believe stands or falls on the issue of Biblical Inerrancy.

Your anti-Evolution stance, your Young Earth Creationism, the historicity of Genesis... everything.

Sadly, I've gotta go... familial committments and all. But I'll be back after the 22nd.

It's a shame because I'd like to stay and rub your nose in the non-existent Inerrancy of scripture.

 

As it is, I'll just have to delay that pleasure.

 

BAA.[/color]

 

When you come up with a valid issue re: Biblical inerrancy, plz lemme know. I've aptly answered all your queries thus far; I'm still waiting for an issue with substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

BAA wrote...

You are simply vomiting up that same Bible passages again and again, deliberately ignoring what I've already covered.

 

Rayskidude replied...

I don't vomit up Bible passages - I quote from Scripture so that you might learn Bible doctrine. Though you maintain you're some serious student - you simply do not understand some fairly simple and straight forward truths.

 

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

'So that I might learn...?'

 

Really?

 

Well Ray, I would remind you that it is not for you to 'teach' anyone anything in this forum.

You have received no power or authority from anyone here to do that. You also have no right to appoint yourself to the role of teacher or to be anything else than equal with all the other members.

 

I would also remind you that of the purpose of this forum as explained the Guidelines...

"These forums exist for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their beliefs."

 

...and in the Rules governing the Lion's Den.

"Attention "True Christians™" and former Christians.

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance."

 

So, these forums are not your classroom, where you may teach. They exist for the purpose described above.

 

Also, in the Lion's Den, you are permitted to evangelize, sermonize, express your opinions and present your arguments, but out-and-out teaching (as in teacher to pupil) is not permitted. Such a scenario involves the creation of a hierarchy. By mutual agreement one party becomes the superior (the tutor) and the other becomes the subordinate (the pupil). The pupil willingly places him/herself under the tutelage and authority of the teacher. This kind of hierarchy is in breach of the fundamental principle of equality that applies to all members of this forum. In fact, any kind of hierarchy will contradict this principle.

 

None may have any authority over the other because all are equals. This principle and the above guidelines and rules apply to you Ray, just as much as to anyone else here. You do not have any special status, rights, priveleges, power or authority over anyone else. Therefore, you cannot assume the role of teacher and... 'quote from scripture so that you [or anyone else] may learn'

Is that clear?

 

Now, I'm not about to willingly submit to you as a pupil and permit you to become my 'teacher', so you can drop that idea - pronto!

 

In case you want to try and force the issue, by claiming that teaching is part of evangelizing or sermonizing, let me put you straight on this too.

 

Evangelizing occurs between two equals, where one attempts to persuade the other on a level playing field. There is no tutor/pupil hierachy involved. Teaching may follow successful evangelization, but it is not part of it.

 

Sermonizing also requires the willing participation of the listener.

I do not give you permission to sermonize to me... capiche?

 

We are all equals here.

If you want to persuade anyone, you must do so by the quality of your arguments.

 

Now, should you persist in trying to 'teach', I will have no choice but to lodge a formal complaint against you with the Moderators.

 

Please indicate that you understand and will no longer 'teach' in this forum.

 

BAA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA wrote...

So, Paul covers what Abraham believed - that he would be together with all the saved in the New Jerusalem, not before. That's what the words, 'only together with us' refer to
.

 

Rayskidude replied...

Nonsense. I just finished reading An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, by St John Damascene, written in the 5th cent. Regarding this nonsense of 'soul sleep' - he says repeatedly in his chapter on death; "And it is clear that the souls do not lie in the graves, but the bodies... For no one surely would say that the souls sleep in the dust of the earth... Now no one in his senses would ever say that the souls are in the graves... We shall therefore rise again, our souls being once more united with our bodies..."

 

So St John of Damascus and I agree with Scripture - your doctrinal position has always been regarded as nonsense by historic orthodox Christianity.

 

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

 

What you are doing here Ray is indulging in a fallacious 'Argument from Authority', as described here...

 

Argument from authority

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although it is possible for the argument from authority to constitute a strong inductive argument, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.[1][2][3]

 

Contents

1 Forms

1.1 Fallacious appeals to authority

2 See also

3 References

 

Forms

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

 

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.

a says p about S.

Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

 

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.

A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

 

X holds that A is true

X is a legitimate expert on the subject.

The consensus of experts agrees with X.

Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

 

Fallacious appeals to authority

Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

 

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur.

 

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

 

In a nutshell Ray, you are saying the following...

 

A. St.John of Damascus is an appropriate authority on scripture.

B. You and he agree on the issue of soul-sleep.

C. Therefore, you have the truth and I do not.

 

Please note that I do not dispute A and B, but I do take issue with C.

 

Because you are using an inductive argument, it is fallacious of you to claim that you have the truth and I do not. That conclusion is a non-sequiur and a non-argument.

 

Lastly, even if you are not claiming to have the truth, but that your p.o.v. is in line with orthodox Christian theology, my response is...

 

"Well, so what?" :shrug:

 

Do you really think that I care a flying **** about Christian orthodoxy?

 

I can see that toeing the line is tremendously important to you, but as both an Atheist and an ex-Christian, I have no interest whatsoever in the things you consider important.

 

Now try presenting a proper argument on the issue. Stop blustering and get down to serious work for a change.

 

BAA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA wrote...

I notice that you've said diddly-squat about that anastasin, the up-standing of the resurrected dead that happens only at the last day.

 

Rayskidude replied...

You're statements re "anastasin" are simply examples of a 'wooden literalism' that reveals your poor hermeneutics. Eisegesis at its best.

 

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

 

Your bald assertions of wooden literalism, poor hermeneutics and eisegesis on my part, do not a proper argument make, Ray.

Since I have chronological precedence over you here, it falls to you to respond in detail about the Anastasin, dealing specifically with all the points I make. Here it is again...

 

rayskidude, on 05 July 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

 

And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Exodus 3:5–6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

We know that Jesus pointed to this Scripture to teach the Sadducees that the resurrection of the dead is true, a reality (see Matthew 22:29-32).

 

Yes. Exactly so Ray.

The resurrection... singular. One event.

Not billions of individual resurrections happening thru history as Christians die and get beamed up as phantoms.

As the Koine (NT Greek) will show us clearly.

 

So according to Jesus, at the time of Moses - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive - about 400 years after the Patriarchs. And also Jesus said that believers in heaven are "like angels" >> i.e., spirits.

 

Now why don't we have a look at what the original NT Greek says, huh?

 

http://www.scripture...NTpdf/mat22.pdf

 

verse 23.

anastasin... "up-standing"

verse 24.

anastesei... "he-shall-be-up-standing"

verse 28.

en th oun anastasei... "in-the-then-up-standing"

verse 30.

en gar th anastasei... "in-for-the-up-standing"

verse 31.

peri de tes anastaseos... "about-yet-the-up-standing"

 

The word anastasei (up-standing) doesn't refer to a Christian's ascension to heaven as an insubstantial spirit.

 

Please refer to Mark 16:19 in the Scripture4all site and you will see that Jesus' ascension is decribed thus...

 

o men an kurios meta to lalesai autois ANELEPHTHE eis ton ouranon kai ekathisen ek dexion tou theou

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was RECEIVED UP into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

The key word, anelephthe is literally translated as was-gotten-up / was-taken-up

 

Not anastasei, which is the up-standing!

 

Ditto luke 24:51.

 

kai ANAPHERETO eis ton ouranaon

...and CARRIED UP into heaven.

The key word, anaphereto is literally translated as he-was-up-carried

 

Again, not anastasei, which is the up-standing!

 

So ascension to heaven is not what up-standing means here. Instead it means the resurrection event, when all flesh will up-standing from their graves.

Additionally, anastasei is always treated in the singular sense, never the plural. Your take on it Ray, would change Jesus' words from...

 

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

 

to...

 

"For in theIR INDIVIDUAL resurrectionS they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

 

That is not what scripture is saying here.

There are not billions of individual up-standingS for each and every Christian. There will be one anastasis (up-standing) for all, when Christ returns.

 

Also, take a close look at Matthew 22:30 again.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

They are as the angels, not with the angels. AS, meaning resembling. AS, meaning similar to. Not meaning, in the same location.

There's nothing here to imply that they are in heaven - only that they resemble the angelic beings who are there, that's all.

 

Falling back on, 'He is the God of whoever' (insert the names of dead patriarchs) is no answer either. That does not imply that these OT persons MUST therefore be in His presence. To say that is to directly contradict the Apostles John and Paul, who clearly avow that no one has entered heaven except the resurrected Jesus Christ.

I've already made it quite clear that you've got it backwards. Abraham et al are known to God (as are all in Sheol), but He is not known to them - they are not aware of anything. They have 'fallen asleep' in Christ, awaiting the time of the anastasein, the up-standing, as Matthew 22 plainly says.

 

John 6:46.

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46(BM) not that anyone has seen the Father except(BN) he who is from God; he(BO) has seen the Father.

 

1 Timothy 6:13-16, ESV.

I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus,(AD) who in his testimony before[d] Pontius Pilate made(AE) the good confession, 14to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until(AF) the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which he will display(AG) at the proper time—he who is(AH) the blessed and only Sovereign,(AI) the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16(AJ) who alone has immortality,(AK) who dwells in(AL) unapproachable light,(AM) whom no one has ever seen or can see.

 

Please note that I've dealt with your OT-based objections to this Ray. This is the New Covenant, not the Old. There's no mileage in qoute-mining anything from the OT about God not being seen here on Earth. John and Paul are talking about Heaven after Jesus' resurrection and ascension. Capiche?

 

So, if you want to continue asserting that Abraham et al are in heaven now as ghosts, try arguing your way around the up-standing!

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

 

If you want to avoid dealing with this Ray, please just come right out and say so. No more dodging or bluster or 'teaching' from you, ok? I can handle it if you want to concede on this one.

 

BAA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because Abraham doesn't specifically say anything about Sheol/Hades, that doesn't automatically mean you're right here.

 

That's it - that's your response to the fact that Abraham never expected to go to Hades - but only a proposal that your twisted theology of death sternly maintains? Yet I have quoted a plethora of Scripture that believers were taught and fully expected to be in God's presence and with their people after physical death. Jesus Himself speaks of Abraham's bosom where the poor man Lazarus. Why do run from the obvious teaching of Scripture?

 

May I remind you that you are not here to teach at all.

You and I and everyone in this forum are all on an equal footing when it comes to scripture.

Oh and talking of equal things, the quantity of scripture quoted does not equal a better argument. Especially so if the underlying concepts of the argument are fatally flawed, as I have already demonstrated.

 

How many times does a scriptural truth about a Bible personage appear in books written by other's centuries or even millennia after they died?

 

Wha???? Is this a serious question? Jesus refers to Adam & Eve, Jonah, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Elijah, quotes from Jeremiah, Isaiah, Moses, etc. Paul continually refers to Abraham and Moses, the entire nation of Israel, etc

Have you read the Book of Hebrews lately - chap 11 in particular?

 

Yes, I have Ray.

But now I would draw your attention to a preceding passage, one that trashes your position... Hebrews 9:27 & 28.

 

27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

 

See that?

If we apply this to your doctrine of daily spirit-only salvation, followed by physical resurrection on Judgement Day, what do we get?

 

Spirits that must face judgement on the day that person died.

This yields a continuous succession of individual judgements that has been going on since Cain slew Abel. Many billions of individual, personal judgements, rather than the one final Judgement as described in scripture.

Where does the Bible say that God's judgement of the dead is an ongoing process, one that began in the time of Genesis, is happening right now and will continue until the Last Day?

 

Yes, I know that you've 'inferred' that this process must be happening because of Jesus' words to the crucified thief, Lazarus and the rich man, etc. But your inferrence contradicts so much other scripture (as I have also demonstrated) that it yields two equally troublesome conclusions.

A. The Bible contradicts itself and therefore cannot be the Inerrant word of God.

B. Your dualistic doctrine of spirit-only salvation does not accord with scripture. i.e., you are wrong.

 

So, chapter and verse please Ray!

Where does the Bible say that God's judgement of the dead is an ongoing process, one that began in the time of Genesis, is happening right now and will continue until the Last Day?

 

And what's the purpose of God recording accounts of their ancient lives? Just to "write things about the Patriarchs that illuminate the lives and beliefs of these ancient believers" ??

 

Bzzzzt!

Wrong context alert!

 

The issue in question here is what Abraham expected to befall him once he died.

 

I've already answered that by quoting from and explaining Hebrews 11, the very same chapter you've just commended to me. So, you know full well what the issue is Ray, yet you've sneakily expanded it to include other OT patriarchs and prophets (Moses twice!), just so that you could use the Romans and Corinthians quotes, below.

 

Romans 15:4 (ESV)

4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

 

1 Corinthians 10:6–11 (ESV)

6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

 

Nice try, but no cigar!

 

You are taking both passages out of context (and you know it), because they have nothing at all to do with what Abraham' after-life expectations were. Romans 15 and it's preceding chapters deal with issues arising from the Law of Moses and how the Roman Christians should behave accordingly. In 1 Cor. 10. Paul is dealing with events from the time of the Exodus from Egypt and the 12 tribes times in the wilderness... Moses again!

 

In both cases, these passages say nothing at all about Abraham's post-death expectations.

 

Please stay in context, on topic and try again!

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

That is, try again after you've responded to the Anastasin.

First things first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.