Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

[Christforums]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Wow.  I didnt realize asking a question made me god.   I didn't think god liked questions. 

 

I'm not ignoring what you have posted elsewhere, your sarcastic interaction and behavior to me. Don't think because you ask a question now that I'm going to excuse or forget so naively our run ins.

 

What makes a god or anything an idol is that an idolator puts their belief, trust, and confidence in it over the author of salvation. When in themselves, that is, the hidden idol of "self".

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I certainly hope you will remember what I've said.  It may just help you someday.

[Joshpantera]

17 hours ago, Christforums said:

You never addressed the fact that all denominations, 40,000+ denominations profess the essential truths of the faith from Scripture as writ through the Nicene Creed. The very Creed which rejects your heresy. Instead, you're pointing to all these other heretics for support. The very profession which defines the orthodox faith is rejected for falsehood. By your profession and teaching you've placed your understanding outside of Christianity.

 

William this is what I mean. You're free to state your opinions. If you think my take and the take of people I cite is heresy, then that's your roll in the discussion. You will be an accuser of what I have to say. And so be it. Again, what I want to provide is a wide variety of landscape for readers to observe the interactions between. You are representing popular theological views. I am representing popular secular scholarship views at the moment. I haven't strayed away from scholarly points. I have not offered religious oriented views at this point, nor will I because that's not what I'm interesting in doing here. 

 

So if you would kindly elaborate on what you are talking about with the heresy accusation, I'd like to know. Because I'm left guessing at moment. I have to assume that since I've only aired secular biblical oriented scholarly views, that you see secular non-religious scholarship as a religious "heresy." 

 

Are you accusing me of heresy for citing the well known view among secular biblical scholars, archaeologists and textual critics concerning the polytheistic origins of ancient judaism? Or is it one of the other points I've mentioned? 

 

And I have not dressed up christianity in my own attire. 

 

Rather I've given both of you free reign to discuss and make use of as many varieties of christianity that you care to mention. I have not put limitations on you nor christianity. When I say we can look it conservative, liberal, literal, or symbolic - what that means is that I don't care which type of christian interpretations either of you reach for. Reach for them all if you like. And I will analyze what each and every claim amounts to when carefully analyzed, basically. Throw it all at me. Or throw at me only the one version of christian interpretation that either of you have concluded on as "The TRVTH." Lutheran, reformed Presbyterian, etc., etc.

 

It makes me no difference. 

 

This isn't my first rodeo. I've gone over 40 pages just on Genesis 1 with a stubborn apologist before. We've scoured 'nearly' every imaginable way of interpreting the creation account. I haven't seen anything yet from any version of christian interpretation that is self consistent and makes any real sense when analyzed. But I don't think I know it all and have everything completely figured out. So I'm willing to stand corrected if you can provide something that does make clear sense, and is very self consistent. Show me something that I'm unaware of that may change my point of view. 

 

But do so in the informal debate / discussion please.....

[midniterider]

14 hours ago, Christforums said:

You're correct, I don't want to engage others here, call me Jonah.

 

Hokey doke. Have a good day.

 

 

14 hours ago, Christforums said:

 I get it, most here on this board have only engaged Christianity under the guise of horrible translators, theologians, charismatic leaders, and cultist churches.

 

I prayed to Jesus ...but he gave me a horrible translator, bad pastor and a bad church. Thank you Jesus!

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, if the best source for interpretation is the author, and if "all scripture is god-breathed", and if god is "the same yesterday, today, and forevermore", and "not a respecter of persons", then shouldn't each of us just be able to ask god what he meant and get the same, or at least a similar, answer?

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, if the best source for interpretation is the author, and if "all scripture is god-breathed", and if god is "the same yesterday, today, and forevermore", and "not a respecter of persons", then shouldn't each of us just be able to ask god what he meant and get the same, or at least a similar, answer?

 

Not if the whole thing is merely ancient mythology, with no greater value than other number of ancient mythologies when it comes to truth and reality in the physical, objective world.

 

[Joshpantera]

 

[midniterider]

I prayed to Jesus for 10 years.                                                                         William prays to Jesus now and I guess for quite a while now. 

Jesus gave me a false pastor.                                                                         Jesus gave William a good pastor.

Jesus gave me false theologians.                                                                   Jesus gave William good theolologians.

Jesus gave me bad translations.                                                                    Jesus gave William good translations.

Jesus gave me a cultish church.                                                                     Jesus gave William the correct denomination of church. 

Jesus gave me a church that FOLLOWS the NICENE Creed.                      Jesus gave William a church that follows the Nicene Creed.

 

I lost my faith.                                                                                                      William still has his faith.

I trying to figure out what happened here.

 

edit:

And I'm trying to figure how William knows that our loss of faith was the result of all these low quality religious tools. 

.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Question: Have you as an ex-believer ever witnessed a Christian just pull some bullshit right out their ass in order to protect their belief in God? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

[LogicalFallacy]

58 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Question: Have you as an ex-believer ever witnessed a Christian just pull some bullshit right out their ass in order to protect their belief in God? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

 

Yep. 

[mwc]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

I prayed to Jesus for 10 years.                                                                         William prays to Jesus now and I guess for quite a while now. 

Jesus gave me a false pastor.                                                                         Jesus gave William a good pastor.

Jesus gave me false theologians.                                                                   Jesus gave William good theolologians.

Jesus gave me bad translations.                                                                    Jesus gave William good translations.

Jesus gave me a cultish church.                                                                     Jesus gave William the correct denomination of church. 

Jesus gave me a church that FOLLOWS the NICENE Creed.                      Jesus gave William a church that follows the Nicene Creed.

 

I lost my faith.                                                                                                      William still has his faith.

I trying to figure out what happened here.

 

edit:

And I'm trying to figure how William knows that our loss of faith was the result of all these low quality religious tools. 

.

 

 

 

     At least god didn't give you more than you could handle.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

Question: Have you as an ex-believer ever witnessed a Christian just pull some bullshit right out their ass in order to protect their belief in God? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

 

Yes, during such a discussion / debate on the creation account(s) in Genesis as a matter of fact. But these two are treading very carefully. I take that to mean that they are both smart enough to proceed with caution. And I like that. Because I want to see some intelligent feed back. And not just senseless horsing around.

 

The last time a christian engaged me and tried to hang in there, it got bad, really bad. He lost track of his own claims. I had to keep reposting them because the new claims contradicted the old ones. He kept researching diverse apologetic's online reaching for something to use without considering how they all play out against previous apologetic's already used. And in the process he dug a huge whole that there was no way out of. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

Quote

As stated the best method of interpreting Scripture is allowing Scripture to interpret itself.

 

Where you're using "gods" God has revealed Himself in Three Persons. Genesis 1:2 has the Holy Spirit resting upon the waters. And John 1:1-5 states the Logos. There is no good reason to reject these other verses which reveal the nature of God in the Three Persons.

 

I do however, realize, Jehovah's Witnesses teach and mistranslate the bible in John 1:1 to suggest Jesus was "a god". That heresy has long been refuted.

 

Heresy: Arianism The belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were lesser, created beings and not persons of the Godhead.

@LogicalFallacy @midniterider @TheRedneckProfessor @TABA

 

Since William's gone code silent again, I'll put this here in the side gallery for everyone to take issue with. If William decides not to give up and lose by forfeit then he can bring himself back into the debate. 

 

1) The writer of Genesis was a Jew, christianity did not yet exist. 

2) The concept of trinity is not a Jewish one, but a christian concept back read into jewish scripture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

3) The plurality of Genesis 1 would have to make sense according to the ancient jewish beliefs of the writer, not later christians who didn't exist yet. 

4) It can not be said that god revealed himself in Genesis 1:1 as three persons when the concept didn't yet exist when Genesis 1:1 was written. 

 

When allowing scripture to interpret itself, we must allow ruach elohim to be interpreted according to the jewish writers that were writing it, correct? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:2

 

 

Quote

Spirit[edit]

The "Spirit of God" hovering over the waters in some translations of Genesis 1:2 comes from the Hebrew phrase ruach elohim, which has alternately been interpreted as a "great wind".^[9] Victor Hamilton decides, somewhat tentatively, for "spirit of God", but dismisses any suggestion that this can be identified with the Holy Spirit of Christian theology.^[10]

 

Rûach (רוּחַ) has the meanings "wind, spirit, breath," and elohim can mean "great" as well as "god". The ruach elohim which moves over the Deep may therefore mean the "wind/breath of God" (the storm-wind is God's breath in Psalms 18:15 and elsewhere, and the wind of God returns in the Flood story as the means by which God restores the earth), or God's "spirit", a concept which is somewhat vague in Hebrew bible, or simply a great storm-wind.^[11]

 

 

As to the accusations against me of heresy, the only heresy that I can find is in this one post of Williams, since he's failed to answer my question of what he's alleging as heresy on my end. 

 

Arianism, is not anything that I'm even talking about or eluding to. I'm talking about archaeological and textual evidence that scholarship has shown to reveal the beliefs in ancient Israel. The "gods" are plural not because of any Arianism heresy, and have zero to do with Arianism. Zero to do with either jesus or the holy spirit, two concepts that didn't exist in the minds of the writers of jewish scripture. The "gods" are plural because ancient Israel was not strictly monotheistic yet. And there was no concept of the trinity at that time. Scripture in this sense is jewish scripture. The NT was created later and considered heresy by jews against their own ethnic scriptures. They rejected and never accepted it. 

 

Christianity is a heresy to Judaism as Mormonism is a heresy to Christianity! 

 

One can not take the book or Mormon, for instance, and back read it's concepts into the NT any more than one can not take the NT and back read it into the Jewish scriptures without committing the exact same type of heretical oriented fallacies that are involved in both! 

 

A ) The book of Mormon didn't exist, nor it's concepts that are heretical to the NT when the NT was being written. 

 

B ) The NT didn't exist, nor it's concepts that are heretical to Jewish scripture when Jewish scripture was being written. 

 

 

 

[Christforums]

On 5/23/2019 at 8:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

Despite strong traditional and often authoritative interpretative claims that were formed centuries after this ancient text was written and devoid of knowledge about its historical and literary context, the opening of Genesis 1 does not depict a creatio ex nihilo, that is a creation out of nothing. The Hebrew text is clear on this point and recognized by all biblical scholars. Rather, what the text of Genesis 1:2 informs us is that when God began to create, earth—that is the material substance earth; the Hebrew ’eretz (earth) never means the planet Earth (see below)—already existed as a desolate, formless, inhabitable waste—a tohû wabohû in Hebrew—in the midst of a dark surging watery abyss (tehôm). This is the initial primordial state of creation that the creator deity inherits so to speak, and it is a prominent cultural feature in other ancient Near Eastern creation myths, from Egypt to Mesopotamia.

 

Never means the planet earth. This is like saying the fetus is not human but a clump of cells!

 

Never means the planet earth, a scholar and heretic Josh holds in high regard. For example, the teams of scholars that translate the various versions of the English bible fail to compare. Exactly how many "teams" of scholars agreed with your source?

 

New International Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

New Living Translation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

English Standard Version
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

King James Bible
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Contemporary English Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Good News Translation
In the beginning, when God created the universe,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, God created the universe.

NET Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

New Heart English Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

JPS Tanakh 1917
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

New American Standard 1977
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

American King James Version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

American Standard Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

Darby Bible Translation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

English Revised Version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

World English Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

[Christforums]

On 5/25/2019 at 8:18 PM, midniterider said:

I prayed to Jesus for 10 years.                                                                         William prays to Jesus now and I guess for quite a while now. 

Jesus gave me a false pastor.                                                                         Jesus gave William a good pastor.

Jesus gave me false theologians.                                                                   Jesus gave William good theolologians.

Jesus gave me bad translations.                                                                    Jesus gave William good translations.

Jesus gave me a cultish church.                                                                     Jesus gave William the correct denomination of church. 

Jesus gave me a church that FOLLOWS the NICENE Creed.                      Jesus gave William a church that follows the Nicene Creed.

 

I lost my faith.                                                                                                      William still has his faith.

I trying to figure out what happened here.

 

edit:

And I'm trying to figure how William knows that our loss of faith was the result of all these low quality religious tools. 

.

 

 

 

 

Your post is so absurd it is comical. God has given so many warnings in Scripture of false Christs, prophets, teachers etc and has even said I send you into the world among wolves. Yet midniterider beats the chest and curses God. Yes, I wish God would take those false persons out today, but I am promised that one day He will. Will you be one of them?

 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Christforums said:

Your post is so absurd it is comical. God has given so many warnings in Scripture of false Christs, prophets, teachers etc and has even said I send you into the world among wolves. Yet midniterider beats the chest and curses God. Yes, I wish God would take those false persons out today, but I am promised that one day He will. Will you be one of them?

 

So I'm going to ask you again like I did in the thread titled the same: What makes you (Christforums) special? Why has god seen it fit to give you a 'correct' revelation and the rest of us has fallen prey to the wolves? There is no clear distinction between who is right and wrong. It's literally a coin toss between you or my father (And between any other two people claiming mutually exclusive truths). The only honest position to take is to simply say there appears to be no divine truth, no clear message.

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

     So if one person in any given congregation becomes (is) a non-believer does that somehow mean that whole congregation is faulty?  They're all really non-believers?  I have to admit I'm a little lost here.  God sends me into a world of false teachers.  I somehow get a false teacher.  It would follow that everyone in that church also has a false teacher.  I lose my religion.  Everyone else doesn't.  But apparently that congregation is a failure.  It's just bad.  They're all following some bad teacher and teachings even though they just don't know it.

 

     Proper churches with proper teachings apparently never lose members.  Apparently all the times this shows up in the bible, for any reason, it's because the teacher and the teaching is somehow in the wrong.  It would seem if this is the standard it would be wise to stay away if that teacher tries to bring you back into their congregation.  So even though jesus claims to come for the lost sheep it would seem he should never lose that sheep to begin with.  The sheep should remain apart from such a shepherd.  So should the rest of the flock.  I bet there's some special pleading to shift this so sheep should know better and be able to wisely choose only a good shepherd shunning the bad ones but I can't think of anything offhand.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Immigrating to Australia proves that a bloke from Scotland was never a True Scotsman. 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/27/2019 at 3:46 AM, Christforums said:

On 5/23/2019 at 10:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

Despite strong traditional and often authoritative interpretative claims that were formed centuries after this ancient text was written and devoid of knowledge about its historical and literary context, the opening of Genesis 1 does not depict a creatio ex nihilo, that is a creation out of nothing. The Hebrew text is clear on this point and recognized by all biblical scholars. Rather, what the text of Genesis 1:2 informs us is that when God began to create, earth—that is the material substance earth; the Hebrew ’eretz (earth) never means the planet Earth (see below)—already existed as a desolate, formless, inhabitable waste—a tohû wabohû in Hebrew—in the midst of a dark surging watery abyss (tehôm). This is the initial primordial state of creation that the creator deity inherits so to speak, and it is a prominent cultural feature in other ancient Near Eastern creation myths, from Egypt to Mesopotamia.

 

Never means the planet earth. This is like saying the fetus is not human but a clump of cells!

 

Never means the planet earth, a scholar and heretic Josh holds in high regard. For example, the teams of scholars that translate the various versions of the English bible fail to compare. Exactly how many "teams" of scholars agreed with your source?

 

Granted, this is the result of placing Genesis 1 in it's cultural surroundings in comparison to the near eastern creation myths that it is clearly borrowing from. That is the context of the above quotation. That's how these old similar creation myths start out. 

 

As to bible translators, well, that goes without saying. The argument here is that theologians with preconceived religious based biases are the people who 'translate the bibles'. They do not place the creation account in it's cultural context taking careful note of it's mythological context, obviously. Their religious biases won't allow for it, no differently than your religious biases are not allowing for it right now. I'll just note the religious bias factor involved in this discussion as we move along. Or are none of you biased towards your own personal, favored religious beliefs? Let us know please. 

 

So the issue is how the writer of Genesis 1 borrowed from existing creation myths to in order craft Genesis 1 more than anything else. That's what scholars are looking at here in this case. And this is what you're free to continue trying to debate if you'd like. Maybe we'll agree that it is the 'objective planet' that the writer is talking about regardless of what the above quote argues. It makes me no difference, actually. I think you'll lose in the end no matter which direction you take, in my personal opinion. Based on experience arguing these points. But you may win this one point about the earth, to your own demise. Hahahaha!

 

I don't know if you read the synopsis, or whether it changes anything if you do. But for the sake of argument I'll quote it below: 

 

Quote

SYNOPSIS
Modern readers often assume that Genesis 1 depicts the creation of the earth and sky as we know it. Yet in an appeal for textual honesty, Steven DiMattei shows that such beliefs are more representative of modern views about this ancient text than the actual claims and beliefs of its author. Through a culturally-contextualized and objective reading of the texts of Genesis 1 and 2, this study not only introduces readers to the textual data that convincingly demonstrate that Genesis’ two creation accounts were penned by different authors who held contradictory views and beliefs about the origin of the world and of man and woman, but also establishes on textual grounds that what the author of Genesis 1 portrayed God creating was the world as its author and culture perceived and experienced it—not the objective world, but a subjective world, subject to the culturally-conditioned views and beliefs of its author. In the end, this book illustrates that the Bible’s ancient texts do in fact represent the beliefs and worldviews of ancient peoples and cultures—not those of God, not those of later readers, and especially not those of modern day Creationists.

 

That's what we're currently establishing or trying to establish in the debate. Are these two creation accounts claims of how the objective world came to be? This needs hashed out. You and I are here to hash this out as far as I can tell. And neither of you two christian members have committed in writing to agree that the author is making literal claims of how the objective world came into existence. Maybe you agree that it's entirely subjective? I'm awaiting for either of you to commit to one or the other. 

 

Please, let everyone know your position. 

 

Because if you choose the "objective" choice, you are then and therefore subject to trying to defend this mythology as objective truth, about the objective world as we know it and subject to the objective sciences that deal in terms of evidence from a variety of specialized fields of study - such as geology, anthropology, archaeology, cosmology (and accompanying theory), astrophysics, physics, and so much more including the soft sciences like history and even academic critical textual analysis. We have to deal with "objective" claims, "objectively." 

 

And if "subjective," well, then I suppose you are responsible to explain how a subjective religious text that wasn't ever to do with the "objective" world, has anything to do with the "objective" world in the first place? If it doesn't tell us how the "objective" world came into existence, then it's NOT a valid option for how the "objective" world came into existence. So we can cross it off the list of possibilities for how the planet earth came into existence. Right or wrong? It's up to you to either concede this point or push forward trying to debate further and gain some higher ground in the situation we have going on here. 

[midniterider]

8 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

Your post is so absurd it is comical. God has given so many warnings in Scripture of false Christs, prophets, teachers etc and has even said I send you into the world among wolves. Yet midniterider beats the chest and curses God. Yes, I wish God would take those false persons out today, but I am promised that one day He will. Will you be one of them?

 

 

I didn't curse anyone. Your imagination fabricated some baloney and I challenged your baloney with common sense. Your mind does not want to entertain the idea that anyone (including you) could possibly stop believing in Jesus so it must whip up some fabrication that most of us ex-believers here from multiple denominations and mainstream churches all had false teachings. Though most of these churches we went to follow the Nicene Creed like you do, studied the bible like you do, prayed to Jesus like you do and basically believed the same thing that you do. We both did the same thing , felt the same thing, worshiped the same way.... and we left. Wow, you could too. It's definitely possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Astreja]

11 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

Your post is so absurd it is comical. God has given so many warnings in Scripture of false Christs, prophets, teachers etc and has even said I send you into the world among wolves. Yet midniterider beats the chest and curses God. Yes, I wish God would take those false persons out today, but I am promised that one day He will. Will you be one of them?

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, "I don't believe" is not a curse.  It  is a simple statement of fact:  We don't believe what you're telling us, and we don't believe what the Bible says.

 

It's telling -- and unspeakably horrifying and tragic -- that you're actively hoping for your god to "take us out."  That, sirrah, is a genuine curse and I throw it back in your face.

[Joshpantera]

On 5/27/2019 at 3:12 PM, Astreja said:

It's telling -- and unspeakably horrifying and tragic -- that you're actively hoping for your god to "take us out." That, sirrah, is a genuine curse and I throw it back in your face.

 

It tends to outline some of the common narcissism found in many christian religious leader types, or just patriarchal religion oriented types. I know Muslims who fit the bill in the exact same way. The gas lighting and everything else falls in line. I can only imagine that the original writers were very narcissistic personalities themselves, which, is apparently attractive to a lot of contemporary narcissists and draws them in to the message.......

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It appears that Luth believes life to be meaningless without the existence of, specifically, the christian god.  It may be true that his own life would be meaniness without his beliefs; but to put forth the claim that jesus exists because all life is meaningless otherwise is much too far of a leap for intellectually honest individuals.  What of the millions who find meaning in the Dharma, the Koran, or more secular, humanistic pursuits?

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It appears that Luth believes life to be meaningless without the existence of, specifically, the christian god.  It may be true that his own life would be meaniness without his beliefs; but to put forth the claim that jesus exists because all life is meaningless otherwise is much too far of a leap for intellectually honest individuals.  What of the millions who find meaning in the Dharma, the Koran, or more secular, humanistic pursuits?

 I will not be responding much if at all in this Side Gallery but let's put something to rest right now that should have already been seen with a more careful perusal.

"Moreover a position which reduces our experience to chaos cannot claim the adherence of rational creatures. That is, our basis for rejecting certain views is always that we conceive them to be irrational."

The above quote from RNP is rejected as we conceive it to be irrational.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

 I will not be responding much if at all in this Side Gallery but let's put something to rest right now that should have already been seen with a more careful perusal.

"Moreover a position which reduces our experience to chaos cannot claim the adherence of rational creatures. That is, our basis for rejecting certain views is always that we conceive them to be irrational."

The above quote from RNP is rejected as we conceive it to be irrational.

This is just an overly verbose way of saying, "I disagree with your view, but cannot refute it; therefore i will dismiss it as irrational."

 

Lurkers, observe this "tactic" and ask yourselves, "Is this defense the best my religion has to offer?"