My Pastor Sets Me Straight

[Fish153]

Josh---

Of course the Bible says that one man, and one man alone is the Son of God. John 1 says that Jesus is the WORD made flesh. There is only ONE of Him.

 

"That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow". God in the Old Testament declares that every knee shall bow to HIM. Therefore Jesus is GOD.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the Bible CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus Himself even declares it many times. "That they might glorify the Son even as they glorify the Father". "I do only those things I see the Father do". "That I may have the glory WE SHARED before the world began (Jesus addressing the Father).

[walterpthefirst]

Fish,

 

You are misreading how things work in this forum if you think that any atheist here is required or even expected to demonstrate that they are a genuine atheist.  In this forum we atheists, agnostics and sceptics expect any and all visitors who call themselves Christians to make good on any of their claims or assertions.  Including their claim to be a genuine Christian.  I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way things work around here.

 

 

I'm glad you've mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

A Jehovah's Witness reading your words can claim that you are the one in error about Jesus, but they know the truth about God.   So, how can we know who is right and who is wrong?  To us you are both making evidence-free claims and assertions that neither of you can support.  At times like this we honour the tradition of invoking the Hitchslap.

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

So Fish, if you can supply no evidence to support your claims other than making further claims, then most likely we will dismiss your claims.

 

Including your claim to be a genuine Christian.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

11 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Josh---

Of course the Bible says that one man, and one man alone is the Son of God. John 1 says that Jesus is the WORD made flesh. There is only ONE of Him.

 

Wrong again. I've been researching Idealist Philosophy lately and it came up that the platoic "logos," which filtered through Philo and then was picked up by the gospel writers, actually means "thought," and is more akin to the idea of mentation. Which leads down an entirely different path. One of consciousness creating matter, basically. And more Gnostic in orientation than orthodox. 

 

You've subscribed to a losing argument associated with perversions of ancient mythology. Again, I give you the benefit of assuming that you've done so in ignorance and not intentional malice. 

[Joshpantera]

42 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the Bible CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

Go back to the video, 11:15 forward. Get out the bible.

 

 

In John 10:33 "The" is italicized indicating an interpolation. The greek shows it as "A." 

 

Further, when quoting Psalm 82, the context was YHWH referring to the Elohim as "sons of god." It was a plural oriented reference in Psalm 82. Which furthers the argument. And makes sense within the running context. It was a citation to plural sons of god and the question was why then do you seek to stone me for saying that I am a son of god? That's the literal context of how it reads in the Greek. "The" interpolation gives a false impression of meaning and breaks the running context. 

[Fish153]

Walter--

I never said anyone needs to prove they are a genuine atheist. I take the man at his word that he is an atheist. I stated that if you use "fruits" alone as your test you might come to the conclusion an atheist is a Christian because they display the fruits of compassion and love.

 

Your original post was based on people "failing the fruits test". I was just attempting to show that you cannot use "fruits" alone. You need to stay in context and judge what someone believes first, then see if there are any fruits to back that up.

 

As far as Jehovahs Witnesses go they are the only ones to falsely interpret John 1:1 to read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god". ANY professor of Biblical linguistics will tell you that this is a BLATANT misinterpretation. "a god" is patently false. "and the Word was God" is the true interpretation. So I could care less whether a Jehovah's Witness tries to correct me on who Jesus is. They base their whole premise on falsehood.

I can easily tell you "they are wrong".

 

But I can see this discussion is just going in circles. I've explained all I can explain, but I think nothing will satisfy you. I really have nothing more to add. So I think I'm finished with this discussion. Let's start a new one.

 

Which is better? Dogs or cats?

 

[walterpthefirst]

19 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

I never said anyone needs to prove they are a genuine atheist. I take the man at his word that he is an atheist. I stated that if you use "fruits" alone as your test you might come to the conclusion an atheist is a Christian because they display the fruits of compassion and love.

 

Your original post was based on people "failing the fruits test". I was just attempting to show that you cannot use "fruits" alone. You need to stay in context and judge what someone believes first, then see if there are any fruits to back that up.

 

As far as Jehovahs Witnesses go they are the only ones to falsely interpret John 1:1 to read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god". ANY professor of Biblical linguistics will tell you that this is a BLATANT misinterpretation. "a god" is patently false. "and the Word was God" is the true interpretation. So I could care less whether a Jehovah's Witness tries to correct me on who Jesus is. They base their whole premise on falsehood.

I can easily tell you "they are wrong".

 

And they can just as easily tell you that you are wrong, Fish.

 

But that is not the issue here.

 

The issue is, how are we supposed to know who is right when both of you call each other false?

 

Stop telling us that you are right and start telling us how we should decide between these two equal claims.

 

(And NO, they are equal to us.  How you or your JW rival see things is irrelevant to us.)

 

19 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

 

But I can see this discussion is just going in circles. I've explained all I can explain, but I think nothing will satisfy you. I really have nothing more to add. So I think I'm finished with this discussion. Let's start a new one.

 

Which is better? Dogs or cats?

 

 

Yes, if you can only recycle the same claims as others or your earlier claims, then you won't satisfy me.

 

You probably won't satisfy many others here either.

 

But you can break the deadlock if you show us some objective evidence to support your claims.

 

Can you do that?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

 the Bible CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is the Son of God

The bible also clearly teaches that the sons of god came down from heaven and had sex with the daughters of men and created a race of giants in the land and men of great renown (Gen 6).  It's not clear whether jesus was amongst them or not.  What is clear is that we cannot trust what the bible says about sons of god in general, nor about any son of god in particular.

 

If we take the passage in Genesis to be metaphorical, mythological, or anything other than literal, then we have no compelling reason to believe that jesus was literally the son of god either.  If, contrariwise, we take Genesis literally, then jesus clearly was not the only begotten son of god.  Either way, nothing the bible says about sons of god can be taken at face value. 

 

Quite a pickle, ain't it?

[Fish153]

No Walter you are wrong. They cannot just as easily say I am wrong. When faced with "obvious" misinterpretation of John 1:1 they run for cover. They cannot stand up to any Biblical Linguistics expert. That is why they are the ONLY ONES to use THEIR OWN TRANSLATION. (the New World Translation). No one else will touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

Yes-- I can say "They are wrong" with deep conviction. They claim to be "Christians" but alter a verse to FIT THEIR DOCTRINE.

They are a CULT.

 

So Walter, you can know who is right. How do you decide between two equal claims? One Biblical translation (THEIRS) is completely discredited by scholars and linguistic experts. Is Jesus "a god"? Absolutely not. Or does the Bible say "the WORD was GOD"? According to hundreds of scholars it does. So can we say the Jehovah's Witnesses are right? No. Absolutely not. So, yes Walter, I can say they are wrong.

 

But in truth Walter I don't have to "prove" anything to you. It wouldn't matter. You would accept NOTHING I say anyway. You want "objective evidence". Even if I post a photo of myself giving to the poor, or hugging a child in a cancer ward, you could easily say "how do we know you aren't a fake Christian pretending to care about children??"

 

There really is no way to satisfy your argument. Once you've decided someone is not a Christian because they've failed "the test" it doesn't matter what "proof" they might manifest.

[Fish153]

The "sons of God" are angels. None of them is THE SON OF GOD. You need to read Hebrews 1 which explains this clearly.

 

The SON is "the exact representation of God". Whereas angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister..."(Heb. 1:14)

 

The book of Job speaks of the "sons of God" breaking forth into singing. It doesn't say they are GOD-- they are "gods".

 

There actually is no problem if one really takes the time to read chapters like Hebrews 1. It was actually written to show everyone how Jesus is FAR ABOVE the angels as He has always been, and they are created beings.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

2 hours ago, Fish153 said:

You seem to be looking for a black or white answer. But as I mentioned you must read the Bible in "context".

If you want me to prove I am a genuine Christian by being 100% compassionate for 100 days in a row I can't do it.

 

coupled with:

 

2 hours ago, Fish153 said:

A genuine Christian is known by what they believe also. The Bible says that everyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God is born-again. The fruits are a RESULT of the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Yet,

 

Matthew 7:15 -23

Quote

 

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

 

Luke 6:43-45

Quote

43For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 44For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 45A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

 

James 2:19

Quote

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble

 

Matthew 16:16-18 (emphasis added)

Quote

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

I'm tired of quoting, so I'll add to James the Rich Young Man/ruler stories in Matthew 19:16-26, Mark 10:17-31 & Luke 18:18-30 as evidence for belief & following the commandments alone are not sufficient for eternal life.

 

@Fish153,

 

Has the bible been mistranslated, or is Walter missing context?  The book you claim is god's holy word seems to make a clear case:

1. Good trees are incapable of bringing forth bad fruits
2. Bad trees are incapable of bringing forth good fruits
3. belief alone is not sufficient for salvation.
4. belief + prophesying, casting our demons, and wonderful works are not sufficient for salvation.

Other than the quote from James I limited myself to the words of Jesus.  God should need no translator to explain himself.  He is not the author of confusion.

 

Actual people, and by your own admission yourself, display both sets of fruit, which is to be expected of reality.  However, this is explicitly denied by Matthew and Luke above.  This is what Walter was trying to get you to see. the book has glaring errors unless you're willing to handwave them away, but your arms will get tired at some point.

 

You're already falling down the well of "correct translation" with Josh, which is why I further limited myself to the KJV in my quotes (as everyone knows it's the only true English translation).

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

No Walter you are wrong. They cannot just as easily say I am wrong. When faced with "obvious" misinterpretation of John 1:1 they run for cover. They cannot stand up to any Biblical Linguistics expert. That is why they are the ONLY ONES to use THEIR OWN TRANSLATION. (the New World Translation). No one else will touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

Yes-- I can say "They are wrong" with deep conviction. They claim to be "Christians" but alter a verse to FIT THEIR DOCTRINE.

They are a CULT.

 

So Walter, you can know who is right. How do you decide between two equal claims? One Biblical translation (THEIRS) is completely discredited by scholars and linguistic experts. Is Jesus "a god"? Absolutely not. Or does the Bible say "the WORD was GOD"? According to hundreds of scholars it does. So can we say the Jehovah's Witnesses are right? No. Absolutely not. So, yes Walter, I can say they are wrong.

 

But in truth Walter I don't have to "prove" anything to you. It wouldn't matter. You would accept NOTHING I say anyway. You want "objective evidence". Even if I post a photo of myself giving to the poor, or hugging a child in a cancer ward, you could easily say "how do we know you aren't a fake Christian pretending to care about children??"

 

There really is no way to satisfy your argument. Once you've decided someone is not a Christian because they've failed "the test" it doesn't matter what "proof" they might manifest.

 

I'm sorry Fish but you are just repeating your unsupported claims about who is right and who is wrong.

 

We don't care how much deep conviction either you or the JW have.

 

We cannot tell either of you apart because your claims appear identical to US.  That is the bottom line here.  How your claims appear to US.  Not to you and not to the JW.  To US.  We, the atheists, agnostics an sceptics in this forum.

 

I'm not asking you for proof either.

 

Just some objective evidence to support your claims.

 

Can you do that?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

17 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

No Walter you are wrong. They cannot just as easily say I am wrong. When faced with "obvious" misinterpretation of John 1:1 they run for cover. They cannot stand up to any Biblical Linguistics expert. That is why they are the ONLY ONES to use THEIR OWN TRANSLATION. (the New World Translation). No one else will touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

Yes-- I can say "They are wrong" with deep conviction. They claim to be "Christians" but alter a verse to FIT THEIR DOCTRINE.

They are a CULT.

 

So Walter, you can know who is right. How do you decide between two equal claims? One Biblical translation (THEIRS) is completely discredited by scholars and linguistic experts. Is Jesus "a god"? Absolutely not. Or does the Bible say "the WORD was GOD"? According to hundreds of scholars it does. So can we say the Jehovah's Witnesses are right? No. Absolutely not. So, yes Walter, I can say they are wrong.

 

But in truth Walter I don't have to "prove" anything to you. It wouldn't matter. You would accept NOTHING I say anyway. You want "objective evidence". Even if I post a photo of myself giving to the poor, or hugging a child in a cancer ward, you could easily say "how do we know you aren't a fake Christian pretending to care about children??"

 

There really is no way to satisfy your argument. Once you've decided someone is not a Christian because they've failed "the test" it doesn't matter what "proof" they might manifest.

 

No, that's not true.

 

You are coming dangerously close to bearing false witness about me, Fish.

 

You can't say that I would accept NOTHING that you say.

 

You can guess that I might do that, surmise that I might do that or expect me to do that.

 

But you cannot claim that I wouldn't.

 

Doing that requires you to be able to read my mind and see into the future.

 

Watch yourself and be very, very careful what you say about me!

 

 

[Fish153]

Krowb---

Both you and Walter have a way of taking a verse and making it absolute.

"A good tree is incapable of producing bad fruit"Fruit.

But then the Bible also says "If we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ (1John 2:1)

But wait? How can a good tree produce bad fruit? Then why mention sin at all?

 

Or 1 John 3 where it says a Christian "cannot sin". Are we supposed to believe Christians NEVER SIN? But 1 John 1:10 says "if we say we have no sin we make God a liar".

The problem with Walter, and now yourself, is that you are not using context when you "choose" Bible verses to use.

 

Paul in 2 Thessalonians mentions "Christians" who refuse to work and are "busy bodies". Yet he says to avoid them but "treat them as brothers". James mentions "a brother overtaken in a fault"--and Paul mentions "weak brothers" who have taken a fall.

 

I will repeat: Christians are not morally super-human. If you decide to "judge" them that way then EVERY Christian will fail "the test".

 

I'm having to repeat the same thoughts over and over.  

 

I like dogs best. Cats are really intelligent but dogs are really loyal. I've got two Maltese Poodles. They are great dogs. They like to sleep lying on their backs. They're funny. I just love those guys!

 

[Fish153]

Walter--

Great. If all that is important is what appears true to "US" go talk to deconverts. There are plenty of them here. If you refuse to accept anything I say I'll talk to someone else. I've been arguing with you about this for hours. I can't "prove" I'm a genuine Christian to you. OK, fine. I really don't care.

 

I know what I believe. I came here to understand how people deconverted not to PROVE I am a Christian to anyone. I'm not sure why I've stayed in this discussion. I knew where it was going when we started.

 

I guess I'm learning patience through this. That's a good thing.

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Krowb---

Both you and Walter have a way of taking a verse and making it absolute.

"A good tree is incapable of producing bad fruit"Fruit.

But then the Bible also says "If we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ (1John 2:1)

But wait? How can a good tree produce bad fruit? Then why mention sin at all?

 

There's a simple enough way to resolve the contradiction, Fish.

 

The bible contradicts itself.

 

7 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

 

Or 1 John 3 where it says a Christian "cannot sin". Are we supposed to believe Christians NEVER SIN? But 1 John 1:10 says "if we say we have no sin we make God a liar".

The problem with Walter, and now yourself, is that you are not using context when you "choose" Bible verses to use.

 

A contradiction that you resolve for yourself by faith.

 

7 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

 

Paul in 2 Thessalonians mentions "Christians" who refuse to work and are "busy bodies". Yet he says to avoid them but "treat them as brothers". James mentions "a brother overtaken in a fault"--and Paul mentions "weak brothers" who have taken a fall.

 

Another contradiction.

 

7 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

 

I will repeat: Christians are not morally super-human. If you decide to "judge" them that way then EVERY Christian will fail "the test".

 

I'm having to repeat the same thoughts over and over.  

 

I like dogs best. Cats are really intelligent but dogs are really loyal. I've got two Maltese Poodles. They are great dogs. They like to sleep lying on their backs. They're funny. I just love those guys!

 

 

You are having to repeat yourself because you still haven't provided any objective evidence to support your claims, Fish.

 

Support each claim with objective evidence and then you won't have to repeat yourself.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Fish153 said:

Walter--

Great. If all that is important is what appears true to "US" go talk to deconverts. There are plenty of them here. If you refuse to accept anything I say I'll talk to someone else. I've been arguing with you about this for hours. I can't "prove" I'm a genuine Christian to you. OK, fine. I really don't care.

 

I know what I believe. I came here to understand how people deconverted not to PROVE I am a Christian to anyone. I'm not sure why I've stayed in this discussion. I knew where it was going when we started.

 

I guess I'm learning patience through this. That's a good thing.

 

No, Fish.

 

You don't get to tell us who to go to talk to.

 

This forum serves our needs and operates according to our rules, not yours.

 

The onus is on you to support your claims with objective evidence.

 

If you can't or won't do that, then at least have the courtesy to say so.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

Great. If all that is important is what appears true to "US" go talk to deconverts. There are plenty of them here. If you refuse to accept anything I say I'll talk to someone else. I've been arguing with you about this for hours. I can't "prove" I'm a genuine Christian to you. OK, fine. I really don't care.

 

I know what I believe. I came here to understand how people deconverted not to PROVE I am a Christian to anyone. I'm not sure why I've stayed in this discussion. I knew where it was going when we started.

 

I guess I'm learning patience through this. That's a good thing.

 

Once again Fish, watch yourself!

 

I have never said that I would not accept anything you say.

 

Don't repeat that.

 

What I have been saying to you is that whatever you claim needs to be supported with objective evidence.

 

That is NOT saying that I will never accept anything you say.

 

Objective evidence, ok?

[Fish153]

Walter--

I give up. Now you are back to my "bearing false witness". "Be very, very careful about what you say about me". What does that mean?

I will no longer respond to, or address your posts. There are a lot of other people you can talk to. I wish you the best. I wouldn't want to "say" something that might offend you. I mean that sincerely. If I have said anything to offend you in my other posts I apologize. I'll just talk with others for now.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Fish153]

58 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The bible also clearly teaches that the sons of god came down from heaven and had sex with the daughters of men and created a race of giants in the land and men of great renown (Gen 6).  It's not clear whether jesus was amongst them or not.  What is clear is that we cannot trust what the bible says about sons of god in general, nor about any son of god in particular.

 

If we take the passage in Genesis to be metaphorical, mythological, or anything other than literal, then we have no compelling reason to believe that jesus was literally the son of god either.  If, contrariwise, we take Genesis literally, then jesus clearly was not the only begotten son of god.  Either way, nothing the bible says about sons of god can be taken at face value. 

 

Quite a pickle, ain't it?

 

[Fish153]

It's called the "Clausen Argument".

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

The "sons of God" are angels. None of them is THE SON OF GOD. 

No.  Genesis 6 does not call them "angels."  Genesis 6 calls them the "sons of god."  Moreover, there is nothing in the text of Genesis to suggest that they are angels.  You are shoe-horning your own interpretation into the text because you don't like the idea of jesus getting his freak on with some daughter of man.

[Fish153]

Anyone ever see the Monty Python sketch about the "Argument room" where you go to argue with ssomeone?

 

The guy goes in and gives the man $5.00. The man says nothing. The guy who paid him says "well come on. I gave you the $5.00". The man says "No you didn't" the guy says "yes I did". "No you didn't" he says.   Great sketch. I'm going to look for it on YouTube. lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

46 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister..."(Heb. 1:14)

Yeah.  They sure did minister to those daughters of men.  They ministered so good that god decided to destroy the world with a flood because he didn't like the kids these "angels" fathered.

 

The "sons of god" were not angels.  Not in the literal sense; and certainly not figuratively. 

[sdelsolray]

21 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Sdelsolray—-

 

But deconversion has everything to do with the Bible doesn’t it? I know you no longer believe it, but you can’t study deconversion from Christianity without referring to the Bible or Abrahamic religions can you? I want to know how someone who used to believe the Bible now says it’s “make-believe”. I think that is the angle I’m looking at— but thanks for the suggestion.

 

Well, it starts with your statement:

 

"I am still investigating every angle of deconversion." (emphasis added)

 

To which is responded:

 

"One "angle" I suggest that you study is information, writers, speakers and sources that have little, if anything, to do with the Bible, the various Abrahamic religions or religions in general."  (emphasis added)

 

As deconversion proceeds, most folks reignite their innate curiosity, discover new topics, invest in hobbies and develop interests in subjects that have nothing to do with the religion they are setting aside.  This is healthy behavior.  Since you indicated you are investigating "every angle", this is just one angle that you will likely undertake.

 

 

 

[Fish153]

Redneck-- 

Most scholars think the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are either angels or the children of Seth.