Christian Concepts

[First Baseman]

While I am at it, there are several people that have challenged the Church over the centuries and were proven right. Many of them were charged with heresy and executed, placed under house arrest, or exiled. Galileo is but one of those people.

Galileo pointed a telescope at the night sky and made the statement that the earth was not the center of the universe (creation). Since the Church held to the belief of geocentricity, this obviously struck a nerve with them. Galileo was put on trial and convicted, with a sentence of house arrest for the remainder of his life (which was 7 years). Oddly enough, we now know that Galileo was right, the Church was wrong, and Pope John Paul II made an apologetic declaration toward that end 350 years after the fact.

The point is that the Church (and people) are so adamant about their beliefs and the Bible that when something comes along and challenges them, they get bent out of shape. They quickly forget Jesus' lessons on morality, compassion and forgiveness and go for the jugular. They are only "Christian" when it suits their needs.

The Church is made of imperfect people. Imperfect people make mistakes. But I guess you never do. Your Ph d makes you immune to sin, I guess.

The Bible is God's word. If you don't believe that then that is your problem the way I see it. I think your problem is that you rely on human wisdom instead of on God's wisdom.

So do you just go along with whatever you think God's word is, or do you make things up as you go?

 

[Neo Deist]

The Church is made of imperfect people. Imperfect people make mistakes. But I guess you never do. Your Ph d makes you immune to sin, I guess.

The Bible is God's word. If you don't believe that then that is your problem the way I see it. I think your problem is that you rely on human wisdom instead of on God's wisdom.

So do you just go along with whatever you think God's word is, or do you make things up as you go?

The Bible is God's Word according to whom? Other people? Which version of the Bible is God's Word, because it certainly would not be in English since that was not even a language at the time of Jesus.

Have you ever met God? Has He ever come down from the cosmos and sat at your dinner table and told you what His Word was?

I am a deist, so therefore God does not give us His Word, only life and the free will to live it.

And no, I have committed plenty of sins. I am sure there are many more to be committed before it is all said and done. My ThD just means I have studied in depth what most people get from listening to some random preacher-type.

 

[First Baseman]

The Bible is God's Word according to whom? Other people? Which version of the Bible is God's Word, because it certainly would not be in English since that was not even a language at the time of Jesus.

Have you ever met God? Has He ever come down from the cosmos and sat at your dinner table and told you what His Word was?

I am a deist, so therefore God does not give us His Word, only life and the free will to live it.

And no, I have committed plenty of sins. I am sure there are many more to be committed before it is all said and done. My ThD just means I have studied in depth what most people get from listening to some random preacher-type.

Well, Jesus Christ came down and ate with sinners. And Jesus lives in his followers' hearts. Are you a Christian Th D and you don't know these things?

 

[Neo Deist]

Well, Jesus Christ came down and ate with sinners. And Jesus lives in his followers' hearts. Are you a Christian Th D and you don't know these things?

I said God, not Jesus.

 

[First Baseman]

I said God, not Jesus.

Thanks. That is sufficient to answer my question. If you don't know Jesus you can't know God. If you don't know God then you don't have any idea what you're talking about, Th D or Ph D or Planetary Almighty Ph D.

 

[viole]

Yeah, maybe only those who accept Christianity are protected by it and judged by it's example. That leaves each to their own faiths. Now you're going to ask me by what example are Atheists judged?

I think He will reward them. i like it when my kids do not believe in things just because someone else said they do exist. Even if those things do indeed exist.

And since I am in His image, if He exists, then the conclusion follows from the premises.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Neo Deist]

Thanks. That is sufficient to answer my question. If you don't know Jesus you can't know God. If you don't know God then you don't have any idea what you're talking about, Th D or Ph D or Planetary Almighty Ph D.

Please tell me the verse where Jesus says "I am God."

 

[First Baseman]

Please tell me the verse where Jesus says "I am God."

You have a Th D and a D.D. and you ask me a theological question? I thought your higher education made you the expert?

Jesus said "I and the Father are One." The Jews killed Jesus because He claimed He was equal with God. But of course since you probably don't believe the Apostles you probably don't believe this, either.

 

[Shiranui117]

Please tell me the verse where Jesus says "I am God."

If you read the verse where Jesus proclaims to the Sanhedrin that they will see Him coming on the clouds of Heaven, and if you know how that imagery is used in the Old Testament (here's a hint: Only God is ever spoken of as coming on the clouds of Heaven, do a search), then you know that Jesus was claiming complete and total equality with God.

 

[Neo Deist]

You have a Th D and a D.D. and you ask me a theological question? I thought your higher education made you the expert?

We'll get to this part...

Jesus said "I and the Father are One." The Jews killed Jesus because He claimed He was equal with God. But of course since you probably don't believe the Apostles you probably don't believe this, either.

Yes, in John 10:30. However, that does not mean "God and myself are the same being." Jesus is referring to being united with God in the effort of spreading His message. In other words, Jesus is saying "God and I are on the same page. Our mission is the same. We are in harmony." That is the meaning behind the Koine Greek term "hen", which means one/unity. Furthermore, the Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. Besides, the Gospels are all hearsay anyway.

In John 14:28 Jesus also states that "...the Father is greater than I," which would indicate that he is not God. For every verse that you can cite where you think Jesus is implying that he is God, there is another where he seems to contradict himself. No where in the Bible does Jesus ever make the statement "I am God." The verse does not exist. The problem with most Christians is that they lack the knowledge and education to truly understand the Bible in context. They have not studied the Hebrew or Koine Greek. They do not have advanced degrees from seminary/university where they go into hermeneutics or apologetics.

How's that for higher education?!

 

[Burl]

And since I am in His image...

irascible, severe and strict?

 

[Demonslayer]

they will see Him coming on the clouds of Heaven

Maybe they meant they will see him soaring through the clouds on that flying space horse he's supposed to come back on.

 

[Neo Deist]

If you read the verse where Jesus proclaims to the Sanhedrin that they will see Him coming on the clouds of Heaven, and if you know how that imagery is used in the Old Testament (here's a hint: Only God is ever spoken of as coming on the clouds of Heaven, do a search), then you know that Jesus was claiming complete and total equality with God.

Jesus made a bunch claims that turned out to be false. Here are some examples:

Matthew 21:22 - If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Funny that no amputee that has prayed for healing has ever received it by way of growing a new limb. How about those that get cancer, pray for healing, and die anyway...like my sister?

John 14:14 - If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

Try asking for world peace in Jesus' name and then watch the news. I am sure ISIS will kill some more people in the meantime...if not, Chicago will take care of it.

Matthew 16:28 - Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

This was one of Jesus' biggest blunders. The people he was talking to died. Countless generations have died since, and still no return.

 

[metis]

The Jews killed Jesus because He claimed He was equal with God.

Jesus was killed by the Romans, and he probably was executed for subversion because of his activity at the Temple and maybe his statements about his "kingdom". For some reason monarchs don't like competition.

 

[Neo Deist]

The very concept that one person could pay the punishment for someone else is evil and I think non-biblical. It gives me pause to discuss it with you since you say you have been a Baptist minister for 30 years. Do you still preach it this way?

I have not been a Baptist minister for 30 years. I grew up as a Baptist and spent 30 years in that denomination. I am 41 and only within the past year did I finish my Th.D. at seminary and become ordained as well. My ordination has nothing to do with being a preacher.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus made a bunch claims that turned out to be false. Here are some examples:

Matthew 21:22 - If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Funny that no amputee that has prayed for healing has ever received it by way of growing a new limb. How about those that get cancer, pray for healing, and die anyway...like my sister?

John 14:14 - If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

Try asking for world peace in Jesus' name and then watch the news. I am sure ISIS will kill some more people in the meantime...if not, Chicago will take care of it.

Matthew 16:28 - Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

This was one of Jesus' biggest blunders. The people he was talking to died. Countless generations have died since, and still no return.

He says if you order a mountain to move, it will move. Strangely, Jesus won't even jump off a cliff to prove his superpowers...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have not been a Baptist minister for 30 years. I grew up as a Baptist and spent 30 years in that denomination. I am 41 and only within the past year did I finish my Th.D. at seminary and become ordained as well. My ordination has nothing to do with being a preacher.

Oh. Congratulations on getting your doctorate by the way.

 

[metis]

I have not been a Baptist minister for 30 years. I grew up as a Baptist and spent 30 years in that denomination. I am 41 and only within the past year did I finish my Th.D. at seminary and become ordained as well. My ordination has nothing to do with being a preacher.

Which convention/conference? Congrats on the degree, and was there any particular are you more specialized in?

 

[1robin]

So were Adam and Eve ever perfect? How about the adversary angel?

Hello CG, Both Adam and Eve and Satan who was eventually cast out of heaven (or the adversary angle if you wish) we created perfect but with freewill. However after using their freewill to select the good (obedience) they eventually used their freewill for evil (disobedience/rebellion) some years or in Satan's case for an undetermined amount of time and became imperfect (fallen).

If not, then they were created, on purpose, with a flaw, and apparently that flaw is freewill? Because of freewill they, and all of us, rebel and make wrong choices that go against God's will. Since we can never be perfect, we will always do something wrong.

Freewill it's self is not a flaw, however they eventually used that freewill to chose imperfection. God loved us so much he created with freewill and as moral agents. That is what Personhood means (the ability to chose). God did not want automatons who could not chose to love him or reject him. This is a massive difference. You yourself would chose a spouse that chose to love you freely rather than getting a kiss from a pair of lips on an ipad which had no choice in the matter. Why are you denying for God what you would chose for yourself.

So some people say they believe in Jesus, yet they won't be able to follow him perfectly. Some people won't do the right things or believe in the right things to be true, born-again Christians, even though they may call themselves Christian. So forget them, they're going to hell. Same with those that reject Jesus. Same with all the people of all the other religions, no matter how "good" they might be, because "good" is never good enough. So only the flawed, still sinning people that "truly" believe in the right things about Jesus get to go to heaven? I suppose a "good" Christian should always repent when they realize they are going against God? But what do they do? They repent and repent and repent and never ever stop sinning. They can't help it, they have freewill and keep missing the mark. God says go right, and they go left. God says don't touch, and what do they do? They grab the thing with both hands and practically maul it. Then, feel guilty and repent. But God knows they'll sin again.

This entire paragraph argues for the same thing so my response should answer all these points.

1. Christians (once born again) are not in danger of going to Hell. Depending on the seriousness of their sin may risk all manner of unwanted temporal fallout (even dying for committing certain citizens) however their eternal destiny is not in doubt.
2. This is so because of what Christ did on the cross. He was perfect, I am not and cannot become so in this life (it is only upon resurrection that we are given a perfect spirit and body). Christ's sacrifice provided what we call substitutionary atonement. This means Christ's perfection if credited to my account the instant I believe (I mean really believe) and am born again, and my sin debt was paid for by Christ on the cross. This transaction do not take place in some kind of lofty faith based hope. It takes place through a bodily, spiritual, and soul transforming experience called being born again.
3. This does make imperfect human a sinless creature. It produces a redeemed but flawed human. It depends on our obedience as to how much we enjoy our new relationship and produces all manner of Christians, from carnal Christians (the majority) to people who are very obedient like Billy Graham and countless others.
4. I can supply countless scriptures to back up everything I have said. After being born again I dedicated a year to read the bible cover to cover then spent 3 years studying everything I could find on the nature of salvation. It is my specialty. I can lay out an exhaustive case for the preservation of the saints (also called once saved always saved) but I do not invest that much time laying it out until I assess the sincerity of anyone who challenges the doctrine.

But then one glorious day Jesus comes back. Forget for now that 1000 year thing, let's get to when everything is done and all believers are in heaven with no more slanderer or adversary to mess with them. So, do they still have freewill?
Thanks 1Robin, it's been a long time. It's good to see a thread you're posting on.

I appreciate the sentiments CG. It is a pleasure to talk with a secular person who is not also bitter and hostile to theology. I have been burned out on debate and I have been out of town and too busy to bother until recently. This is a very good question. I do not know how to answer this challenge, it is not spelled out in the bible, at least as far as my memory serves. I can only offer an indefinite response. The biblical definition of freewill as the ability to chose that which is not logically impossible, i.e. a perfect will not be tempted by evil and so chose evil in that set of circumstances. In heaven when we are resurrected we are given a perfect will, soul, spirit, etc.... IOW it would be logically impossible to chose evil once we are in posses of these perfect faculties. We have freely chose to love God (no matter how imperfect we display that love while in this life) and so I have chose to allow God to not cancel freewill but to eventually to take away my ability to sin once I am in heaven the same way we have no choice to will a square circle. WE cannot will logical inconsistent things even while we are in this life. If I rated this response to your last point I would give it a score of 50, my response to the first point a 70, and to your 2nd set of claims a score of 95. They should be rated by others with that same weighting.

 

[1robin]

If you don't have the originals, you can't guarantee the accuracy and validity of the copies. Therefore the Bible is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate...especially when you translate across languages

Textual scholars by the score and common sense has (in the case of textual scholars) or should have (in a layman's view) concluded that the bible has every thing and more in a textual context where anyone can have justified faith that modern bible's have is between 95% (for opponent scholars) and 99.5% is the same as originally was recorded. There are 5 requirements necessary to place high reliability in the copies made of now lost texts. The bible meets every requirement and no other texts from ancient history measure up (yet vast numbers of these inferior texts are taught as actual history in colleges worldwide). To be constant you need to first deny the historicity of every other textual of any kind to move on to tackle the bible. You have done neither. You simply make inconsistent and inaccurate declarations against the bible. There is not even the attempt to provide any evidence which leaves on your negative sweeping opinions to counter. I can list those 5 necessities if you want.

As evidence of my claim about hostile scholarship:


Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the
changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or
ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—
slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders
of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives
were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached
back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely)
related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of
his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]
From the debate on "Misquoting Jesus" between DR. White and Dr. Ehrman (probably the most popular secular textual scholar in modern time).

1. Humans do not come from a single pair of people (Adam and Eve). Genetics has already shown that it would require at a minimum of 10,000 "original" people to account for the diversity in the world, especially under a young earth theory.
2. There was not a global flood and practically every form of science on earth supports this.
3. Noah's Ark did not happen the way it is written. By that I mean the actual building of the ship, loading of animals and all the supplies necessary to care for them.
4. The Tower of Babel was not the cause of multiple languages.
5. The earth is not the center of creation, the universe, or even our solar system.
6. People were not possessed by demons. They had medical problems such as epilepsy.
7. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt that won their freedom by divine means, and the exodus never happened. There's not a shred of archaeological evidence.

Your not debating any actual scripture in some of these points, but are granting scientific theory as factual. You are merely pronounces dogmatic interpretations held by Catholic tradition.

1. The people record Adam and Eve as simply the first pair of Hominids which had a soul. Whether you grant Evolution as the sole explanation from human descent or biblical claims about the first humans there is no possible way to get 10,000 first humans. It is absolutely impossible to get a first 10,000 of any first "prototypes" of any creature what so ever. You are showing a misunderstanding of both Biblical exegesis and science.
2. You misunderstand biblical hermeneutics again. If you had actually studied the bible in it's original language you would instantly come to understand that the term "world" is used countless time to indicate a localized area not the whole globe. The bible must define it's own language use, not our knowledge of English. Not that I can determine whether the bible means the creation days or Noah's flood as literals and not allegory. I have tried my best but cannot determine the one over the other. Luckily you don't have to know to come to saving faith. Regardless science has concluded that the ANE has had massive localized floods many times in ancient history.
3. I have actually seen scientists confirm many of the flood narratives claims. For example the volume of the Ark it's self and the greatest stability possible for a ship are the exact dimensions laid out for it in the bible. Once again this is merely a convenient truth but the literal interpretation of many of the OT claims has not shown whether this is literal or allegory to the best of my knowledge. BTW: each negative claim you made is inaccessible to science. The claims I made here however are.
4. How in the world has science disproven the tower of babble?
5. What does that mean to contradict? I can't tell if your claiming that humans are the apple of God's eye or that the bible is claiming that Earth is the center of the universe.
6. Science has no access by definition for things of a spiritual nature. Science is emphatically the method of examining natural laws and their implications, spiritual matters (the exceptions to natural law) science has no access to. I spent years reading about cases of demonic activity and while 90% have not met my demands for evidence, approximately 10% have. It is rare (look at the exhaustive methodologies used by Catholic exorcists to rule out demonic activity) but the vaults of texts dealing with demonic activity for thousands of years is brimming over with very strong evidence. Natural law (science) is powerless to account for things like unbelievable strength and the sudden use of unknown languages, etc.... in hundreds or thousands of well documented cases of demonic possession or influence. BTW: millions of billions of Christians claimed to have been passed by the Holy Spirit, if even one claim is true then possession by evil spirits is just as reliable. Do you claim that every single one of the billions of Christians are deluded or lying.
7. First the bible has claiming many things that were once upon a time denied by main stream scholarship and have with time proven the bible was right and the scholars got it wrong. In this case an Israeli presence in any form in Egypt was in the past denied in the scientific community but absolute proof of the Jewish presence in Egypt was in fact true in very significant numbers. As to your claim about slavery. There is not enough evidence at this time to prove either camp right but recently a Jewish graveyard and island city were discovered that hold evidence of the nature of Jewish presence in Egypt was at best indentured servitude (which is the majority interpretation of the bible's use of slavery) or at worst chattel slavery. Also there are Hebrew place names for ancient geographic sites all along the route of the exodus, as well as even potential discoveries of very alter like location as well.

The list goes on.

Well your provided list is still at the starting gate, with you claiming they have finished a race they have not run.

You mad?

Of course not. I am too lazy to get mad. However that same laziness means I get frustrated by claims based on long winded and faulty presumptions made by others which require equally long winded responses which are completely ignored. For example I have provided a link to possibly the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in a legal sense which I have seen no evidence you have even read and I spend much time correcting your misunderstandings about biblical doctrine. It is not whether you made a correct or faulty claim. It is that I have to get you to understand what the bible actually claim before a real debate can ever occur especially since that same person arrogantly claims to be an expert on what they make false denials concerning.

Just because you do not like what I say, does not mean I am wrong. It just means I struck a nerve because I challenge something you believe in. Turn the other cheek...

You did not strike a nerve, no matter how much you seemingly gloat in the false belief that you have. I have spent a lot of time answering your declaration by supplying specific counter arguments to your generalized claims which is hard to justify when you do not seem to even spend time reading. If you look at CG Didymeus's post to me and my response to them you will see that it is not in the context of my not liking a counter point to my claims that I respond in, but that it is the lack of sincerity, arrogance, and close minded dogmatic positions that is frustrating.[/QUOTE]