The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

I wasn't asking about short statements. I wasn't asking about how you can memorize passages that you read hundreds of times.

I asked:
how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

How is it I can tell you what I wore and what I did and what I ate and the songs I danced to on my wedding day over 20 years past, and you seem to feel that once one has seen one's best friend resurrected after being crucified, that they wouldn't CONSTANTLY repeat His words and teachings (which Jesus COMMANDED His friends to teach everywhere to everyone) for all those years.

I speak FAR FAR FAR more often about what I know about Jesus than my wedding!

Of course, the problem is you think God cannot help someone's memory, either. If God made the universe in days, do you think He'd really have trouble prompting your memory?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Cite my reference for what? That after 150 years there was no one alive to to say "Hey, wait a minute, I was there. That Jesus fella, he didn't feed no one. "

Are you claiming that people 2000 years ago lived to age 150?

Most scholars agree--including the most liberal and secular religion historians you can imagine--that the entire NT was completed before 90 AD. For example, there is not ONE mention in the NT of the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem or the post-70 revolts against Rome!

Jesus dies 33 CE, writers are done by 90 CE--equivalent to someone today talking about 1961. Do you know anyone alive in '61 who can say "Yes, there was a Gemini rocket program!" or "No, we never went to full nuclear war with Russia!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wow, baseless criticism plus an inability to follow a conversation. I never implied that the idea of handling snakes was from the event in Acts. There is no claim in Acts that others would be able to do the same. Though there is a perfectly reasonable explanation to the Paul event. The snake could have been just a snake. People from areas with poisonous snakes tend to assume all snakes are poisonous. A better safe than sorry approach.

The verses in Mark specifically make the claim that people would be able to handle snakes. That you apparently forgot does not speak well of your supposed degree.

Stop! You were referring to Audie's comment, who was talking about Acts and PAUL, then brought up MARK, because you don't read the Bible with any degree of care. I'm familiar with the Markan addition and not just because one of my three degrees was a Bachelor's in Religion.

PGO!

 

[ecco]

I wasn't asking about short statements. I wasn't asking about how you can memorize passages that you read hundreds of times.

I asked:
how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

How is it I can tell you what I wore and what I did and what I ate and the songs I danced to on my wedding day over 20 years past, and you seem to feel that once one has seen one's best friend resurrected after being crucified, that they wouldn't CONSTANTLY repeat His words and teachings (which Jesus COMMANDED His friends to teach everywhere to everyone) for all those years.

I speak FAR FAR FAR more often about what I know about Jesus than my wedding!

Of course, the problem is you think God cannot help someone's memory, either. If God made the universe in days, do you think He'd really have trouble prompting your memory?

I wasn't asking about what song you danced to at your wedding.

I asked:
how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

Stop ducking and dodging.

 

[Audie]

I see both "unbelievable things in the story" and "that God does unbelievable [supernatural] things in the scriptures". Chief among them--loving people like us who have opposed Him.

And for many years now, I've always taken Paul's nonchalance as indicative of his assurance that he'd be just fine--there's a parallel story where someone dies during his sermon and Paul calmly goes over and resurrects the chap.

I think you are being, well, you, I mean, I believe in a virgin birth and Christ's resurrection from the dead--and also I believe/know/understand that I now bear eternal life and will resurrect from the dead as well.

What is your point? What are you driving at? That people who love Jesus and have been saved believe supernatural occurrences are simple for a powerful being to perform? You are wasting both of our time IMHO.

Point? At its most basic, it is cultural anthropology,
a study of the habits of Christians, probing to see
where limits are. For some, the bible is literal, every word.
Others will accept that the flood is nonsense.

The grotesque extremes to which some will go to try
to deny things like the failure of the Tyre prophecy to
be fulfilled is for sure, a study.

I believe/know/understand ....unbelievable things.

The difference between you and me in this is that
you are capable of just deciding to believe something,
and that as it is self-deception, I wont do it. Maybe
cannot, I dont, in the event, want to try.

I need to actually believe something.

I am not entirely sure it works for you either, though
functionally it is the same, as, by dint of long practice,
the decision / belief will settle in and be indistinguishable.

If there is a god, he could of course magic the snake
and make gold of cowpoop, if he so chose.

Given this distinction, that you decide to believe the
unbelievable, and atheists do not, you are wasting your
time, and ours, by having any discussion of these
matters. Why do you do it?

 

[Katzpur]

Respectfully, I disagree. I'm familiar with the apologetics for this on both sides--however, let's keep "the main thing the main thing"?

Mormonism as I understand it teaches a different gospel than the Bible--the Bible teaches salvation was done totally and utterly on the Cross and in Christ's resurrection. I trust Jesus for salvation as I understand it. LDS, as I understands it, teaches a gospel mixing faith and works, which may not be a saving gospel IMHO.

It really all gets down to what you mean by "salvation." The Bible tells us that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." That is the gospel as Mormons understand it. All will be resurrected and receive a new, perfected body. We don't have to do a single solitary thing in order for that to happen. Christ died and rose again the third day, making salvation from the finality of death a reality for all of us.

The majority of Christians (unless you think that Catholics also teach "a different gospel than the Bible") believe that we will be rewarded for our obedience to His commandments. You may not believe our works matter in the slightest to Him, but Mormons certainly aren't the only ones who believe that they do. That does not mean that they save us. The Book of Mormon teaches that, after all is said and done, we are "saved" solely by His grace. We are "exalted" by His grace coupled with our repentance, faithfulness, obedience and good works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop! You were referring to Audie's comment, who was talking about Acts and PAUL, then brought up MARK, because you don't read the Bible with any degree of care. I'm familiar with the Markan addition and not just because one of my three degrees was a Bachelor's in Religion.

PGO!

Wow! For once you might have been somewhat right. I did come in a bit late. But of course that instance was hardly a "miracle".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wasn't asking about what song you danced to at your wedding.

I asked:
how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

Stop ducking and dodging.

I've answered you with all the following ALREADY. Repeating:

1. Important occasions are replayed in our minds--though not with 100% recall
2. Matthew felt like the Sermon was important, what with--you know-receiving eternal life in person from a crucified-then-resurrected Savior
3. Matthew, in a culture that emphasized oral tradition as much as written documents if not more, would have told his Jesus stories over and again, until he could so with closed eyes
4. Your assumption is Matthew wrote 40 years later
5. God is in the miracle business--He made the universe in days--so guess what? He can inspire someone's memory to give them total recall, as well as perfect prophecies and clear visions
6. The NT is GOD's WORD, not just man's

 

[BilliardsBall]

Point? At its most basic, it is cultural anthropology,
a study of the habits of Christians, probing to see
where limits are. For some, the bible is literal, every word.
Others will accept that the flood is nonsense.

The grotesque extremes to which some will go to try
to deny things like the failure of the Tyre prophecy to
be fulfilled is for sure, a study.

I believe/know/understand ....unbelievable things.

The difference between you and me in this is that
you are capable of just deciding to believe something,
and that as it is self-deception, I wont do it. Maybe
cannot, I dont, in the event, want to try.

I need to actually believe something.

I am not entirely sure it works for you either, though
functionally it is the same, as, by dint of long practice,
the decision / belief will settle in and be indistinguishable.

If there is a god, he could of course magic the snake
and make gold of cowpoop, if he so chose.

Given this distinction, that you decide to believe the
unbelievable, and atheists do not, you are wasting your
time, and ours, by having any discussion of these
matters. Why do you do it?

If I'm wasting your time, feel free to put me on ignore. I'm okay with that--but I talk to you so God won't put you on ignore.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It really all gets down to what you mean by "salvation." The Bible tells us that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." That is the gospel as Mormons understand it. All will be resurrected and receive a new, perfected body. We don't have to do a single solitary thing in order for that to happen. Christ died and rose again the third day, making salvation from the finality of death a reality for all of us.

The majority of Christians (unless you think that Catholics also teach "a different gospel than the Bible") believe that we will be rewarded for our obedience to His commandments. You may not believe our works matter in the slightest to Him, but Mormons certainly aren't the only ones who believe that they do. That does not mean that they save us. The Book of Mormon teaches that, after all is said and done, we are "saved" solely by His grace. We are "exalted" by His grace coupled with our repentance, faithfulness, obedience and good works.

Thank you for your note. My thoughts:

1. Yes, ALL WILL be made alive again, some for eternal life, some for eternal judgment
2. I also believe persons shall be rewarded for obedience to commands
3. Salvation comes from trusting Christ, being a free gift, not from obedience to commands--it was disobedience to commands that led Christ to the Cross, our sin
4. I don't believe I need to try for a free gift or do anything to avoid losing the gift of salvation, for several reasons, including a) the Bible says God's gifts are irrevocable and b) Jesus said whoever trusts Him HAS eternal life and does NOT come into judgment (John 3:16, for one)
5. Unfortunately, official Roman teaching has never changed--one must earn or repay for the free gift--this teaching was a main reason for the Reformation

Please consider the 5 points above before saying "you may not think our works matter to Him" since I live a life of striving to do works. Just not to "show" the omniscient God whether I "really" accepted His gift--I accepted it.

I believe IMO I'm saved, not "saved" as you wrote. However, I was not solely saved by grace, rather, as the Bible says, I received this grace through faith (trust) as it is possible to reject God's grace or receive His grace in vain, as the scriptures put it. His grace gifts all persons--but they can reject salvation.

 

[Audie]

If I'm wasting your time, feel free to put me on ignore. I'm okay with that--but I talk to you so God won't put you on ignore.

You are the one who introduced "wasting time",
after inventing some very strange idea of a
"point i was driving at".

And again here, you ignore what I actually
said, answer no q., etc, but that is your way.

 

[ecco]

I wasn't asking about what song you danced to at your wedding.

I asked:
how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

Stop ducking and dodging.

I've answered you with all the following ALREADY. Repeating:

1. Important occasions are replayed in our minds--though not with 100% recall
2. Matthew felt like the Sermon was important, what with--you know-receiving eternal life in person from a crucified-then-resurrected Savior
3. Matthew, in a culture that emphasized oral tradition as much as written documents if not more, would have told his Jesus stories over and again, until he could so with closed eyes.

So, Jesus starts speaking and magically Matthew memorizes 2000 words as they are spoken. Uh huh.

Oh, BTW, Matthew was not there.

4. Your assumption is Matthew wrote 40 years later
5. God is in the miracle business--He made the universe in days--so guess what? He can inspire someone's memory to give them total recall, as well as perfect prophecies and clear visions
6. The NT is GOD's WORD, not just man's

OK. Now we finally get some honesty. Now you are saying that whoever wrote Matthew could accurately quote all 2000 words of the Sermon on the Mount because God put the words into his mind. That sounds a lot like how the Koran was supposedly written.

There is no indication in scripture that God put any of Jesus' words, deeds or actions into the minds of the authors of the Gospels. So I guess you are just using the Islamic "Messenger" bit since you can't come up with a rational answer.

If you want to use that cop out, then you need to explain why God put different versions of events into the minds of the different Gospel writers.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe IMO I'm saved, not "saved" as you wrote.

And you wonder why I have a hard time having a conversation with you?

Seriously, I wouldn't mind discussing everything in your last post to me, but the OP started this thread to discuss something else entirely, so our discussion would have to take place elsewhere.

 

[Skwim]

And you wonder why I have a hard time having a conversation with you?

Seriously, I wouldn't mind discussing everything in your last post to me, but the OP started this thread to discuss something else entirely, so our discussion would have to take place elsewhere.

Thank you.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are the one who introduced "wasting time",
after inventing some very strange idea of a
"point i was driving at".

And again here, you ignore what I actually
said, answer no q., etc, but that is your way.

Actually, I've responded to your inquiry multiple times regarding the story in the Acts, and in detail. If there's a question from you I've missed, please tell me what it might be.

Thanks.

 

[Audie]

Actually, I've responded to your inquiry multiple times regarding the story in the Acts, and in detail. If there's a question from you I've missed, please tell me what it might be.

Thanks.

You mostly talked about other things,
like asking why I dont want to discuss
"the resurrection". If you write a competoitive
grant that way, it is deemed unresponsive
and circular filed.

So, while you wrote things, I'd not call it
a response.

But never mind, you are as noted,
into believing the unbelievable so of
course you believe that absurd snake
story. No flaw could be great enough
to raise doubts, is that not so?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, Jesus starts speaking and magically Matthew memorizes 2000 words as they are spoken. Uh huh.

Oh, BTW, Matthew was not there.



OK. Now we finally get some honesty. Now you are saying that whoever wrote Matthew could accurately quote all 2000 words of the Sermon on the Mount because God put the words into his mind. That sounds a lot like how the Koran was supposedly written.

There is no indication in scripture that God put any of Jesus' words, deeds or actions into the minds of the authors of the Gospels. So I guess you are just using the Islamic "Messenger" bit since you can't come up with a rational answer.

If you want to use that cop out, then you need to explain why God put different versions of events into the minds of the different Gospel writers.

I didn't say Matthew memorized the Sermon on the Mount while it was spoken--like me, He was probably processing Christ's words instead of disdaining them.

I have no problem with God helping ensure a person's memory.

I also have no problem with different persons, honestly remembering or emphasizing different events--were the four gospels identical or four jurors in a court case--you would cry collusion. You can't have it both ways.

Like other Christians, I see that the four gospels were written for four audiences with four different emphases. There are movies that have been remade three times, and I enjoyed all four viewings. Will you continue to bother me with trivialities or can we just cut to the chase:

1. If I prove Matthew was able to recount the Sermon on the Mount accurately, would you trust Jesus for salvation?

2. What evidence would you need, to prove that Jesus exists as the Savior of the world?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you wonder why I have a hard time having a conversation with you?

Seriously, I wouldn't mind discussing everything in your last post to me, but the OP started this thread to discuss something else entirely, so our discussion would have to take place elsewhere.

I don't wonder at all why you dislike conversing with me:

1) LDS members are trained since birth to identify publicly as Christians while pursuing evangelical Christians to "improve their faith and life" by getting fresh revelations, revelations which utterly contradict sound Bible doctrine IMHO. I've been told by Mormons that yes, I'm saved, but can improve my standing with God by abandoning the assurance I currently have as an evangelical to work towards salvation as a Mormon--not an attractive offer to me.

2) Unlike some that you converse with, I've both read some of the Book of Mormon to see for myself and converse with Mormons while maintaining an open mind, but I also know the scriptures well enough to fend off contradictions offered by the LDS.

3) I have no concerns for your soul, in terms of if you are truly seeking the path of God, He will reveal Himself to you and save you.

 

[Audie]

I don't wonder at all why you dislike conversing with me:

1) LDS members are trained since birth to identify publicly as Christians while pursuing evangelical Christians to "improve their faith and life" by getting fresh revelations, revelations which utterly contradict sound Bible doctrine IMHO. I've been told by Mormons that yes, I'm saved, but can improve my standing with God by abandoning the assurance I currently have as an evangelical to work towards salvation as a Mormon--not an attractive offer to me.

2) Unlike some that you converse with, I've both read some of the Book of Mormon to see for myself and converse with Mormons while maintaining an open mind, but I also know the scriptures well enough to fend off contradictions offered by the LDS.

3) I have no concerns for your soul, in terms of if you are truly seeking the path of God, He will reveal Himself to you and save you.

Mark Twain on LDS, if you have not read it,
wait no longer!
http://www.truthandgrace.com/twainbom.htm

 

[Katzpur]

I don't wonder at all why you dislike conversing with me.

You said you were saved, not "saved." What in the world is that supposed to mean?

1) LDS members are trained since birth to identify publicly as Christians while pursuing evangelical Christians to "improve their faith and life" by getting fresh revelations, revelations which utterly contradict sound Bible doctrine IMHO. I've been told by Mormons that yes, I'm saved, but can improve my standing with God by abandoning the assurance I currently have as an evangelical to work towards salvation as a Mormon--not an attractive offer to me.

Actually, we're trained from about the age of 3 to know that we are children of a loving Father in Heaven whose Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, died so that we might be able to repent of our sins and return to His presence someday. The focus of our early religious education is on Him and our relationship with Him, and not on evangelizing the rest of the world. Of course we're taught to identify as Christians. It would make no sense whatsoever for someone who looks to Jesus Christ for salvation to identify as anything else! Yes, Mormons try to convert Evangelicals but Evangelicals try to convert Mormons. Good grief, it works both ways. Why is it okay for you to do but not okay for us to do?

2) Unlike some that you converse with, I've both read some of the Book of Mormon to see for myself and converse with Mormons while maintaining an open mind, but I also know the scriptures well enough to fend off contradictions offered by the LDS.

"Some of the Book of Mormon"? That's a little ambiguous. A Hindu could read the first two chapters of Genesis and tell you that he's read some of the Bible and that in just those two chapters there are contradictions. Naturally, you and I believe there is an explanation for the discrepancies, but they're there nevertheless. If you're intent on finding contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you'll undoubtedly find a few of them, but you won't find any that are any more significant than the contradictions you'll find between the various books in the Bible. And like the ones in the first two books of Genesis, they can be easily explained.

3) I have no concerns for your soul, in terms of if you are truly seeking the path of God, He will reveal Himself to you and save you.

I have none for yours either, and would give you exactly the same advice you gave me. See in you heaven, BilliardsBall.