The Great Deception of Christianity - Departing the Faith (the Word)

[Dan From Smithville]

Your response...

Depends if you believe God's Word (the scriptures) or not. Can you show me from the scriptures why you claim that Christianity has departed from Old Testament Messianic prophecy? Or do you make the same mistake as the Jews do and mix up the prophecies with that point only to the 2nd coming of Christ with the first coming of the Messiah for which the earthly temple and sin offerings point to? The JEWS were indeed given the oracles of God (old testament scriptures) sadly most of them did not understand them, believe them or followed them. It seems you make the same mistake as the JEWS. I am happy to discuss this is detail proving why from the scriptures if your interested. Just let me know.

I am sorry I believe it does not work that way according to the scriptures which say that the natural man (unbelievers) cannot receive not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them for spiritual things are spiritully discerned. If you do not know God or his Word you will never understand it as God needs to be your guide and teacher *ISAIAH 55:8-9; HEBREWS 8:11; JOHN 14:26.

I believe you have no rights according to the scriptures because you do not know God therefore you cannot know God's Word so you cannot know what is true and what is not true. You do however only have an opinion that you cannot prove or know is truth.

Your response..

I do not think Dan has provided any scriptures has he? If so where?

Your response...

Not really. I believe the "last generation" has already been qualified to the one that sees the fulfillment of all the signs of the second coming and the context is the end of the world or age *MATTHEW 24:3. That is the generation that will not pass and will see the second coming. Though there is also application to the destruction of Jerusalem as pointed out earlier.

Thanks for sharing your view.

I am pretty sure that he means I have not made attempts to twist observations that anyone can make to force them to fit scripture or invent and force interpretations of scripture to fit with reality. I believe he also means that I am not building arguments on logical fallacies, hand waving, misrepresentation, misinformation, grandiosity, and petty tricks like opening posts with lines like "YawwnZzz . Sorry did you say something?".

That is some strange fruit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think much of it. My interest is in exploring the scriptures, history and archaeology.

For instance.. Re:the differences between Israel and Judah.

1. Racially the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel had had, ever since the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C., a more mixed population, within which more conservative Jewish areas (like Nazareth and Capernaum) stood in close proximity to largely pagan cities, of which in the first century the new Hellenistic centers of Tiberias and Sepphoris were the chief examples.
2. Geographically Galilee was separated from Judea by the non-Jewish territory of Samaria, and from Perea in the southeast by the Hellenistic settlements of Decapolis.
3. Politically Galilee had been under separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century B.C. (apart from a period of “reunification” under the Maccabees), and in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.
4. Economically Galilee offered better agricultural and fishing resources than the more mountainous territory of Judea, making the wealth of some Galileans the envy of their southern neighbors.
5. Culturally Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication being compounded by their greater openness to Hellenistic influence.
6. Linguistically Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic whose slovenly consonants (they dropped their aitches!) were the butt of Judean humor.
7. Religiously the Judean opinion was that Galileans were lax in their observance of proper ritual, and the problem was exacerbated by the distance of Galilee from the temple and the theological leadership, which was focused in Jerusalem.

Me neither.

Those are certainly more interesting areas of inquiry than "here's my personal religious view, if you don't follow my personal religious view you are not Christian".

 

[3rdAngel]

Hi ANS nice to see you again. Some comments below for your consideration...

Thanks, but I'm not interested in a theological debate. My interest here is in confirmation bias and faith-based thought. I've seen the scriptures, read and understood them notwithstanding your insistence that an unbeliever can't understand simple language and see that the principal character in the New Testament is not the one described in the Old Testament.

Well when stating earlier that according to the scriptures the natural man (unbelievers) cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them for spiritual things are spiritully discerned. This is not directed at you personally and in a negative way. It is simply stating from the scriptures what the scriptures teach in relation to someone trying to understand what the scriptures teach if they do not know God.

According to the scriptures if you do not know God or believe and follow his Word we can never understand it as God needs to be your guide and teacher according to the scriptures *ISAIAH 55:8-9; HEBREWS 8:11; JOHN 14:26. This is a concept that is hard to understand for many academics and educated that rely on themselves to understand what the scriptures teach.

Part of the problem between us is not just that we believe different things, but we use radically different processes to decide what is true about the world, and these will affect what we believe in ways that neither of us can penetrate. I can't reach you with reason and evidence, which is why I don't want to bring out scripture here for discussion. You believe what you do by faith, which is impenetrable to contradictory evidence. Nor will I budge any regarding your faith-based beliefs that can only be believed by faith, such as your claim that unbelievers cannot understand the Bible. I've given you an argument that unbelievers can understand it better along with examples, but that wasn't going to affect you. You believe what you do by faith, so there is no way to resolve our differences

Well I agree with you here to some extent ANS. Although, I believe what you are sharing here applies also to you and others who do not believe in God or in the existence of God. As we have discussed elsewhere, I believe if you have no evidence that there is no God or the existence of God then all those who do not believe in God also live by faith that there is no God because we have no evidence that God does not exist. So this belief is simply faith based also.

For me personally though, I have all the evidence I need in God's revealing himself to me personally as I believe and follow his Word. I am not an isolated case but a part of the collective witness that also knows God from personal experience from all around the world that cmakes up to 1/3 of the worlds population.

So for me I know as a Chirstian that I live by faith. I have personal evidence of my faith. I believe in order to know God we can only find him by believing and following His Word and according to the scriptures there is no other way to find God accept through faith in His Word. I believe God is calling everyone and everyone feels this calling to know Him but many try to close their minds eyes and ears but the promise is always there for those who want to know him "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me" *Proverb 8:17 "And you shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart *Jeremiah 29:13.

3rdAngel said: ↑ Can you show me from the scriptures why you claim that Christianity has departed from Old Testament Messianic prophecy?

Your response...

Yes, but I feel no burden of proof with somebody who processes information by faith. I have zero hope of changing your opinion however much evidence I provide. You won't carefully and dispassionately consider the argument and evidence given with a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. You'll just begin to try to sanitize the discrepancies and contradictions.

Well this is perhaps were there may be a misunderstanding. As you would also note I do casrefully read to everything you say and respond to your posts section by section and state why I agree or disagree with what you are sharing. For me the evidence in relation to what we are discussing here (the prophetic scriptures of the OT in relation to coming Messiah) is in the scriptures. Can you show from what the scriptures teach and how Christianity has got the prophetic scriptures in relation to the Old testament wrong? I believe I can show you why it is correct if your interested. The scriptures I would provide with be my evidence to that fact and you know already it is the scriptures that are evidence to what I believe. So I believe it is not correct or perhaps a misunderstanding on your side to state that I wil not carefully and dispassionately consider argument.

As to evidence. I do not believe you have provided any in my opinion that I have considered changes what I believe. It is really as simple as that IMO. You say I try to sanitize discrepancies and contradictions. I say this is not true. I simply believe those who view certian scripture passages as discrepancies and contradictions simply do not understand what the scriptures are teaching because they do not know God or his Word and only go to the Word of God in order to try to prove there is no God. Yet here we still are. No evidence that there is no God and no evidence to definitively prove (beside personal experience and a collective witness) that there is a God, so both of us live by faith in our respective beliefs.

To be continued..

 

[3rdAngel]

My rights don't come from scripture, and I decide what is true for myself - not by referencing any holy book or any other external source for the opinions of others, but by the process I have described to you repeatedly.

Actually I believe everything someone believes comes from our views of the world around us and the opinions and beliefs of others that we are in contact with or that have been before us. This includes what we read. We make a decision at some point not to believe or to believe something very early on in our experience for nearly everything in life as it is presented to us all through our life time. Everything that we know in life comes from the opinions of others and our own experiences in my opinion. There is nothing new under the sun. What has been is what will be according to the scriptures.

I have demonstrated the truth of my opinion to myself by observing countless examples of believers trying to sanitize scripture with mental gymnastics in discussion with unbelievers.

We would possibly disagree here. As shown earlier I beleive that the scriptures teach those who do not believe and follow God cannot understand or know God's Word. Have you ever thought that perhaps you may be simply wrong and you may not have correctly interpreted or understood what the scriptures are teaching. This happens to many people that try to cherry pick scripture out of context to what the scriptures are teachings and I believe do not have God's Spirit as their guide and teacher. I believe we cannot find God outside of his Word although he is everywhere and calling us to his Word.

And no, I can prove nothing to you. Proving, or making a convincing argument, is a cooperative effort. I don't expect you to cooperate. I expect you to defend what you have chosen to believe by faith by any means you can think of.

Well it depends. You have made no convincing argument in my view that has made me want to change what I believe. I have believe I have carefully considered everything you have said and posted and have responded to everything you have said section by section in your posts as to why I believe or disagree with you so from this view I believe I have been vert cooperative. I would suggest your comments here go both ways and can be applied to yourself also. It seems we both simply have difference faiths and views in my opinion.

3rdAngel said: ↑ I do not think Dan has provided any scriptures has he? If so where?

Your response...

I don't think he's quoted scripture, either. My comment was to point out an example of a Christian who doesn't try to sanitize scripture. As best I can tell, except for his god belief, which appears to be well compartmentalized so as not to interfere with reasoning, he processes information the way I do, which is true of several of the Christians posting on RF. I know this because their arguments are reasoned and evidenced, and their conclusions appear sound. They also happen to agree with mine providing intersubjective support for the notion that we're both correct.

Well this was my point. He @Dan From Smithville was expressing a view that was simply his opinion not based on any facts. On the other hand I believe by God's grace, I have been able to show from the scriptures why his view and the views of some others here have been in error by showing context to scripture application they may not have considered. If someone has a misunderstanding of the scriptures that are viewed out of context leading to a wrong interpretation of what the scriptures teach providing the correct interpretation that shows perfect harmony is only showing something that was there all along in my opinion. If the argument is reasoned and evidence is provided within the scripture context that it provides sound reasoning to present harmony of interpretation.

Because we all share this method of deciding what is true, when we disagree, we have a means to sort out where and why, and possibly resolve the disagreement if it is over a matter of fact or logic, or at least identify why we disagree if it is because we have different values, in which case we can still say to one another that although we don't agree, if we had the values of the other, we might come to the same conclusion. That's the power of this mode of thinking. That's where you and are at.

Well this is where I disagree as shown earlier. We all do not share the same methods of biblical interpretation. Spiritual things I believe a spiritually discerned according to the scritptures and unless God is our guide and teacher as we seek him through his Word we can never no God or his Word and what his Word means. Without God all you will see is contradiction and error through misinterpretation in my opinion. Those who do not believe God's Word can never understand it. This is the same as those who only surface read the scriptures but do not know them.

But when dealing with a faith-based confirmation bias, that can never happen. That person and I process information too differently for their to be any hope of either moving the other.

• "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris

Already addressed above and elsewhere. I believe your argument here can be applied both ways and back to you. For example if someone has no evidence that there is no God and the other person has no evidence to definitively prove that there is a God (beside personal experience and a collective witness), both of us live by faith in our respective beliefs. Perhaps you cannot see this but you should consider what I am sharing with you here. I admit as a Chirstian I live by faith. You also live by faith bacause you cannot prove there is no God and you have no evidence that God does not exist. Your choosing not to acknowledge this truth in my opinion. I think the remaining part of your post here has already been addressed so will leave it for now.

Likewise. It's always a polite and pleasant discussion with you.

Thanks for sharing your views ANS. Nice talking to you again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually I believe everything someone believes comes from our views of the world around us and the opinions and beliefs of others that we are in contact with or that have been before us. This includes what we read. We make a decision at some point not to believe or to believe something very early on in our experience for nearly everything in life as it is presented to us all through our life time. Everything that we know in life comes from the opinions of others and our own experiences in my opinion. There is nothing new under the sun. What has been is what will be according to the scriptures.

We would possibly disagree here. As shown earlier I beleive that the scriptures teach those who do not believe and follow God cannot understand or know God's Word. Have you ever thought that perhaps you may be simply wrong and you may not have correctly interpreted or understood what the scriptures are teaching. This happens to many people that try to cherry pick scripture out of context to what the scriptures are teachings and I believe do not have God's Spirit as their guide and teacher. I believe we cannot find God outside of his Word although he is everywhere and calling us to his Word.

Well it depends. You have made no convincing argument in my view that has made me want to change what I believe. I have believe I have carefully considered everything you have said and posted and have responded to everything you have said section by section in your posts as to why I believe or disagree with you so from this view I believe I have been vert cooperative. I would suggest your comments here go both ways and can be applied to yourself also. It seems we both simply have difference faiths and views in my opinion.

Your response...

Well this was my point. He @Dan From Smithville was expressing a view that was simply his opinion not based on any facts. On the other hand I believe by God's grace, I have been able to show from the scriptures why his view and the views of some others here have been in error by showing context to scripture application they may not have considered. If someone has a misunderstanding of the scriptures that are viewed out of context leading to a wrong interpretation of what the scriptures teach providing the correct interpretation that shows perfect harmony is only showing something that was there all along in my opinion. If the argument is reasoned and evidence is provided within the scripture context that it provides sound reasoning to present harmony of interpretation.

Well this is where I disagree as shown earlier. We all do not share the same methods of biblical interpretation. Spiritual things I believe a spiritually discerned according to the scritptures and unless God is our guide and teacher as we seek him through his Word we can never no God or his Word and what his Word means. Without God all you will see is contradiction and error through misinterpretation in my opinion. Those who do not believe God's Word can never understand it. This is the same as those who only surface read the scriptures but do not know them.

Already addressed above and elsewhere. I believe your argument here can be applied both ways and back to you. For example if someone has no evidence that there is no God and the other person has no evidence to definitively prove that there is a God (beside personal experience and a collective witness), both of us live by faith in our respective beliefs. Perhaps you cannot see this but you should consider what I am sharing with you here. I admit as a Chirstian I live by faith. You also live by faith bacause you cannot prove there is no God and you have no evidence that God does not exist. Your choosing not to acknowledge this truth in my opinion. I think the remaining part of your post here has already been addressed so will leave it for now.


Thanks for sharing your views ANS. Nice talking to you again.

And I do not believe you. You may think you are God's messenger, but were you receiving guidance, you would not have to resort to the techniques you have. Why would you?

 

[3rdAngel]

And I do not believe you. You may think you are God's messenger, but were you receiving guidance, you would not have to resort to the techniques you have. Why would you?

What is it you do not believe Dan? If I have only shared the scriptures with you they are God's Words not mine. All you do is to seek to deny God's Word with your own words which are not God's but yours. If I have only shared Gods' Word with you my dear friend why do you not believe them? I believe the scriptures can be a blessing for us or a curse. They are a blessing to us if we believe and follow them and a curse if we ignore and reject them once we know them and do not follow what they teach. As the scriptures teach "For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure to him". I believe God is speaking to you Dan what will you do?

May you receive God's Word and be blessed. Ignoring them does not make them disappear.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well when stating earlier that according to the scriptures the natural man (unbelievers) cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them for spiritual things are spiritully discerned. This is not directed at you personally and in a negative way. It is simply stating from the scriptures what the scriptures teach in relation to someone trying to understand what the scriptures teach if they do not know God.

Yes, you've already told me what you believe. I've told you that I disagree. Why keep repeating it?

As we have discussed elsewhere, I believe if you have no evidence that there is no God or the existence of God then all those who do not believe in God also live by faith that there is no God because we have no evidence that God does not exist. So this belief is simply faith based also.

I have made no claim that there are no gods. Why do you think I need evidence for a claim I didn't make? I'm an agnostic atheist.

the collective witness that also knows God from personal experience from all around the world that makes up to 1/3 of the worlds population.

That's not meaningful to me. I have no reason to believe those people are correctly interpreting their psychological experiences. I used to be a Christian, and had those experiences myself. I subsequently came to understand what they were - me experiencing my own mind and a will to believe.

And if you like arguments based on numbers, 2/3 of the world rejects that god. I doubt that that is any more meaningful to you than the number you cited to me.

Can you show from what the scriptures teach and how Christianity has got the prophetic scriptures in relation to the Old testament wrong?

Yes, but that's not of interest to me to do again. You can find this material on the Internet, here for example: Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia

EDIT: I also just found this fairly new RF thread that may be of interest to you.: Why Did the Jews Reject Jesus as the Messiah?

As to evidence. I do not believe you have provided any

Evidence for what? You seem to think that I am making claims other than what I don't believe. I don't evidence to reject the claims of others. They need the evidence if they care to convince people that make decisions about what is true based on evidence.

As you would also note I do carefully read to everything you say and respond to your posts section by section and state why I agree or disagree with what you are sharing

Except that we don't make progress. You're still telling me things that you know I reject.

Actually I believe everything someone believes comes from our views of the world around us and the opinions and beliefs of others that we are in contact with or that have been before us. This includes what we read. We make a decision at some point not to believe or to believe something very early on in our experience for nearly everything in life as it is presented to us all through our life time

Some people decide what to believe. Others are passive recipients of the beliefs of others that they absorb uncritically. If one wants it, one can be the one who decides what he believes, but he must learn how to think critically and not lapse back into faith-based thought and belief. I may have heard or read what became my beliefs elsewhere, but once I have vetted them and accepted them based on their merit and supporting evidence, they become my beliefs.

Have you ever thought that perhaps you may be simply wrong and you may not have correctly interpreted or understood what the scriptures are teaching

Yes, but I have decided that you are wrong, not me, and I do that by looking at Old Testament messianic prophecy and the description of Jesus dispassionately and without any need for it to agree, and I see that they don't. You would not permit yourself to see that whether true or not, so your disagreement isn't meaningful to me.

As I explained to you when discussing Dan, as best I can tell, apart from his god belief, he and I process information alike, which means that when we disagree, we have a means to sort out those differences. Your thinking is alien to mine, and we have no such means of resolving differences. Your positions are faith-based, notwithstanding any claims to evidence. We can never resolve our differences.

What I mean by all of that is that I believe that if I think Dan was mistaken about something, I could demonstrate that to him, that he would consider the evidence and argument dispassionately and with the willingness to to be convinced by a compelling argument, and that there is a very real possibility that one of us could convince the other. If that's not how you think, then there is no such possibility of ever convincing you of anything.

This is why I don't care to go through the messiah thing again. There is nothing in your Bible that you can show me that I haven't read and considered. This issue is settled for me. You would just be showing me another variation of sanitizing the scriptures to make them say what you believe they say by faith - a seamless narrative of prophecy fulfilled without error or contradiction.

You have made no convincing argument in my view that has made me want to change what I believe

And I never will. I need your cooperation for that to happen.

He @Dan From Smithville was expressing a view that was simply his opinion not based on any facts

As I noted, his opinions and mine are very similar, which is meaningful to me given that we use the same process to arrive at them, the only process that generates useful generalizations about reality. Faith is not a path a truth, and opinions based in faith, like creationism and climate denial, are of no value to me.

if someone has no evidence that there is no God and the other person has no evidence to definitively prove that there is a God (beside personal experience and a collective witness), both of us live by faith in our respective beliefs

Yes, but neither of those describe the agnostic atheist, who rejects faith-based thinking.

 

[3rdAngel]

Yes, you've already told me what you believe. I've told you that I disagree. Why keep repeating it?

I think because your repeating your arguments and claims in relaiton to knowing the scriptures. I guess I do not believe this but I wanted to make sure that you understood that when I say I do not believe you it was nothing personal. It is simply a belief based on the scriptures.

I have made no claim that there are no gods. Why do you think I need evidence for a claim I didn't make? I'm an agnostic atheist.

I believe you have already made up your mind that there is no God according to our past conversations. An agnostic athiest is a contraditions of definitions so I believe there is no such thing.

That's not meaningful to me. I have no reason to believe those people are correctly interpreting their psychological experiences. I used to be a Christian, and had those experiences myself. I subsequently came to understand what they were - me experiencing my own mind and a will to believe.

Indeed. There is an old saying; "For he that has had the experience no explanation is necessary. For he that has not had the experience no explanation is possible". For me though and the many others around the world it is personal evidence of the presence and reality of God.

And if you like arguments based on numbers, 2/3 of the world rejects that god. I doubt that that is any more meaningful to you than the number you cited to me.

Well the numbers cited were only in relation to the colelctive witness. These are not sporadic one time events but events witnessed by a large population throughout the whole world.

Yes, but that's not of interest to me to do again. You can find this material on the Internet, here for example: Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia EDIT: I also just found this fairly new RF thread that may be of interest to you.: Why Did the Jews Reject Jesus as the Messiah?

I believe that all you have posted here in the first link from wiki is a one sided Jewish view based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures where the JEWS misinterpret the first coming in relaiton to the prophetic scriptures of the Sanctuary and sin offeriengs with the second coming of JESUS as a conqouring king.

The second link only supports what I already believe and stated in the new testament that many JEWS believed that JESUS was the Messiah. Not sure why you posted that one as it does not support your claim here. Anyhow keeping on the same topic I have provided some links showing why some of these JEWS believe from the scriptures that JESUS was the promised MESSIAH that may be of interest to you

1. The two commings of the Messiah as King of peace and king of war (Jews for Jesus)
2. Scripture proof that Jesus is the promised Messiah (Jews for Jesus)
3. Prophecies fulfilled proving Jesus is the promised Messiah (Jews for Jesus)

To be continued...

 

[3rdAngel]

Evidence for what? You seem to think that I am making claims other than what I don't believe. I don't evidence to reject the claims of others. They need the evidence if they care to convince people that make decisions about what is true based on evidence.

Not really I believe your claims here of faith go both ways. For me my personal evidence is my perosnal experience with God and the collective world wide witness that has been present not only today but all through time. You arguing against God only shows your unbelief in God. You may not see it but I can your claims are simply faith based as you cannot prove there is no God. I believe that deep down inside you know there is something more to life or you would not be in a religious forum.

Except that we don't make progress. You're still telling me things that you know I reject.

Perhaps, but you are doing the exact same thing. The point was that I do consider everything you post and respond to it. This does not mean that I agree with everything you are saying. All I have done is show that I have considered what you have said and have shown why I agree or disagree with what you have posted. In some cases of course we would agree to disagree.

Some people decide what to believe. Others are passive recipients of the beliefs of others that they absorb uncritically. If one wants it, one can be the one who decides what he believes, but he must learn how to think critically and not lapse back into faith-based thought and belief. I may have heard or read what became my beliefs elsewhere, but once I have vetted them and accepted them based on their merit and supporting evidence, they become my beliefs.

If we are being honest and thinking critically we cannot reject something that we have no evidence for rejecting. This is also critical thinking. If you have no evidence for your belief it is simply fath based.

Yes, but I have decided that you are wrong, not me, and I do that by looking at Old Testament messianic prophecy and the description of Jesus dispassionately and without any need for it to agree, and I see that they don't. You would not permit yourself to see that whether true or not, so your disagreement isn't meaningful to me.

The "Yes but" is simply hand waiving in my view of you not wanting to consider the possibility that you are not correct. The evidence of this is that you are unwilling to look at the Old Testament scriptures with me or talk about them when I invited you to in an earlier post. So I do not believe your claims here to understanding what the Old Testament scriptures teach in relation to Messianic prophecy and your view does not hold any weight of evidence with me if your not willing or able to discuss them. Anyhow there is some nice links showing the Old Testament scriptures provided above from what the JEWS that believe in JESUS as the Messiah believe posted in this post if you are interested in at least having a look at why these JEWS changed their view from the scriptures.

As I explained to you when discussing Dan, as best I can tell, apart from his god belief, he and I process information alike, which means that when we disagree, we have a means to sort out those differences. Your thinking is alien to mine, and we have no such means of resolving differences. Your positions are faith-based, notwithstanding any claims to evidence. We can never resolve our differences.

For me, I think the reason for this as shown already in earlier posts which is that I beleive both of our positions are faith-based notwithstanding any claims to evidence. I simply believe you have no evidence for your claims therefore it is also faith based. The difference between us is that I freely acknowledge this where as you do not.

What I mean by all of that is that I believe that if I think Dan was mistaken about something, I could demonstrate that to him, that he would consider the evidence and argument dispassionately and with the willingness to to be convinced by a compelling argument, and that there is a very real possibility that one of us could convince the other. If that's not how you think, then there is no such possibility of ever convincing you of anything.

I think perhaps what you do not realise here is that I am not trying to convince you of anything. You have come here to a thread in relation to end time prophecies on the scriptures and seeking to discuss belief in God which I do not mind BTW as I think you are a nice guy ANS (I say this in all honesty). All I have done is share my view with you and show why I believe or do not believe the claims you have made here. I am not seeking you out and seeking to make you believe what I believe. I do beleive however as a Christian that God has brought you here for a reason though.

This is why I don't care to go through the messiah thing again. There is nothing in your Bible that you can show me that I haven't read and considered. This issue is settled for me. You would just be showing me another variation of sanitizing the scriptures to make them say what you believe they say by faith - a seamless narrative of prophecy fulfilled without error or contradiction.

Depends, as different minds have a different ways of sharing things that we may not have considered before. It it true however as you have stated if you have already closed your mind or made up your mind there is really not much that anyone can do to try to convince you otherwise.

3rdAngel said: ↑You have made no convincing argument in my view that has made me want to change what I believe

Your response..

And I never will. I need your cooperation for that to happen.

I would simply say it goes both ways.

As I noted, his opinions and mine are very similar, which is meaningful to me given that we use the same process to arrive at them, the only process that generates useful generalizations about reality. Faith is not a path a truth, and opinions based in faith, like creationism and climate denial, are of no value to me.

To me this does not mean much. It simply means that you believe the same way as your stating I believe and from what I have experienced I believe you are doing the same things you are sharing here. I do disagree with you here however in that I believe the sciences do not know or tell us everything. If they did they would cease to be science. So if we do not know everything and science does not know or cannot prove the origin of life or that there is no God, having a closed mind in this area is simply faith based and is not critical thinking, nothing more and nothing less. Denial is also of no value to me as it does not show critical thinking and openness of mind to learn what is true and what is not true.

Yes, but neither of those describe the agnostic atheist, who rejects faith-based thinking.

I am sorry I do not believe this as it is a contradiction of terms in my opinion. I also believe from our past conversations that you have already made up your mind that there is no God which in my view puts you as an athiest that has no evidence that there is no God which makes your belief faith-based in my opinion. Anyhow I enjoy our discussions even if they are off topic to the OP ANS and only wish you well

 

[paarsurrey]

The Great Deception of Christianity - Departing the Faith (the Word)

Does it mean the whole Christianity is a deception?
I understand in a way it is. It has drifted away from the teachings of Jesus.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[3rdAngel]

The Great Deception of Christianity - Departing the Faith (the Word)

Does it mean the whole Christianity is a deception?
I understand in a way it is. It has drifted away from the teachings of Jesus.
Right, please?

Regards

Hi paarsurrey, welcome. There are over 40,000 different versions of christian denominations today according to some surveys. I believe YES 99.9% of the churchs have drifted away from believing and following God's Word! Not all of them can be right correct? That is not to say that there is no right one and that does not mean that God's people are not in these Church's. I beleive God's people are in every church but the hour is coming and now is that God is calling his people out of these church's back to worship him in Spirit and in truth, back to the pure Word of God

Thanks for sharing paarsurrey

 

[metis]

Some keep only emphasizing the "Word of God" but seem to forget the Holy Spirit in the process. And it was the latter that helped to guide the Church even before any of the books of the NT were written.

But not only does the HS help guide us as individuals, the HS also guided the Church as Jesus promised, and that Church was always meant to be "one body", as Paul repeatedly stated, composed of the Apostles and their appointees that can trace their appointments all the way back to the Apostles. Only a handful of churches can do that, and that includes the Church that selected the canon of the "Word of God" in the 4th century, and Jesus said he would guide that Church until the end of time and that the "gates of hell would not prevail against it".

IOW, it still very much is here as a continuing fulfillment of Jesus' promise.

 

[Muffled]

Okay, hold on a second. I'm confused. Who are you saying is going to live and who are you saying is going to die? Personally, I believe we're all sinners, but that through Christ, we're all going to live. I'm just not comfortable with people bashing any religion, and I'm particularly turned off by Christians who bash other Christians' beliefs. Catholics don't seem to do that much; that's all I'm saying. So what are you saying?

I believe what I am saying is that the fact that sin causes death must be communicated just as a man fleeing a fire in a building should also let other people in the building know there is a fire.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An agnostic atheist is a contradition of definitions so I believe there is no such thing.

There is no contradiction in not believing or disbelieving in gods (agnostic), and living as if gods don't exist for not believing in their existence (atheist). You can't understand atheism or why it is not faith based if you won't understand that an atheist is not somebody who denies that gods exist, although those are atheists, too, but somebody who simply doesn't believe that they do for lack of a sound reason to believe so.

I believe you have already made up your mind that there is no God according to our past conversations.

But you are incorrect, as I just explained. Why can I not get this idea through to you? What you think I claim would be faith-based, but it not only is not my claim, I have expressly contradicted it - to no avail.

There is an old saying; "For he that has had the experience no explanation is necessary. For he that has not had the experience no explanation is possible". For me though and the many others around the world it is personal evidence of the presence and reality of God.

But I have had the experience. Additional experience helped me understand that what I was experiencing as the Holy Spirit was really just my own mind. And as you say, if you haven't had both experiences, both being necessary to understand the phenomenon, no explanation is possible.

Had I never left my first congregation after a military discharge and return home, I might still be a Christian. We had a charismatic pastor who is still there 40+ years later. It was upon my return to California and the dismal series of lifeless churches that I attended that I realized that there was no Holy Spirit, and reinterpreted my earlier psychological experience of euphoria.

You arguing against God only shows your unbelief in God. You may not see it but I can your claims are simply faith based as you cannot prove there is no God

I'm never going to get it through to you that I have never claimed that there are no gods. I have no way of ruling out the deist god, for example.

I believe that deep down inside you know there is something more to life or you would not be in a religious forum.

My life is full. I'm not looking for more. I am in a religious forum because this is where I have the opportunity to read the opinions of people like you in thousands of words over months or years. Here is where I have seen the spectrum of believers of various sorts, especially zealous Christians, the spectrum of secular humanists, and understand the effect that the church has on its adherents by comparing the two - level of education, quality of thinking, demeanor, belief set, etc..

I also enjoy practicing formulating cogent arguments, identifying and naming logical fallacies, and practicing writing skills.

If we are being honest and thinking critically we cannot reject something that we have no evidence for rejecting. This is also critical thinking. If you have no evidence for your belief it is simply fath based.

Yes, we can reject things we have no evidence for accepting. As Hitchens noted, that which is offered without evidence can be rejected without it.

I believe your claims here to understanding what the Old Testament scriptures teach in relation to Messianic prophecy does not hold any weight with me if your not willing or able to discuss them.

That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. I don't believe that that is any more likely than convincing you that one can be an agnostic atheist, or that I do not claim that there are no gods, or that I don't believe anything by faith, or that I am not drawn to RF due to a hunger or unfulfilled need for more.

I simply believe you have no evidence for your claims therefore it is also faith based. The difference between us is that I freely acknowledge this where as you do not.

No, the difference is that you believe by faith, I don't.

I also feel no need to provide evidence for my claims. There is never a burden of proof with a person who decides what is true about the world not by the application of reason to evidence, but by faith. As Sam Harris noted, what do I have to offer such a person? All I have in my arsenal are reasoned, evidenced arguments, neither of which are of interest to the faith-based thinker. So, no burden of proof.

different minds have a different way of sharing things that we may not have considered before.

Yes, but this avenue has been exhausted for me. There are no new scriptures to consider, and I decide for myself what the words mean. So additional input would not be helpful.

It it true however as you have stated if you have already closed your mind or made up your mind there is really not much that anyone can do to try to convince you otherwise.

And I've explained to you before why that is incorrect. I am willing to consider new evidence, but do not feel the need to give every religious apologist a chance to go over the same material. I already know what I'd see. Your answers about first and second coming are evidence enough that your position is faith-based.

You also claim that the Jews don't understand their scriptures. They say that it is the Christians who don't understand them - that Jesus does not meet biblical messianic prophecies - and I agree with them. And I know why you don't, and it's not for reasons that I consider valid. It's faith. You've chosen to believe that Jesus was who the Gospels say he was without sufficient evidence, and so any other idea is wrong to you.

But that's just not how I think. As I explained earlier, it's not just that we believe different things to be true, but also that we process information so differently that we couldn't possibly have similar belief sets.

 

[Muffled]

Some keep only emphasizing the "Word of God" but seem to forget the Holy Spirit in the process. And it was the latter that helped to guide the Church even before any of the books of the NT were written.

But not only does the HS help guide us as individuals, the HS also guided the Church as Jesus promised, and that Church was always meant to be "one body", as Paul repeatedly stated, composed of the Apostles and their appointees that can trace their appointments all the way back to the Apostles. Only a handful of churches can do that, and that includes the Church that selected the canon of the "Word of God" in the 4th century, and Jesus said he would guide that Church until the end of time and that the "gates of hell would not prevail against it".

IOW, it still very much is here as a continuing fulfillment of Jesus' promise.

I believe you missed the part where it says the one body has many parts: I Cor. 12:14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body
More likely these days it is the body saying it doesn't have a hand or because I am a hand, I am better than a foot.

 

[Muffled]

There are no serious scholars who think Daniel is prophecy or dispute that it was written about Antiochus IV and the Maccabean Revolt. The Jews celebrate Hannukah because they rededicated the Temple after Antiochus defiled it with the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus knew it.. That's why he referenced it.

I believe the scholars must be studying their anus.

 

[Muffled]

@IndigoChild5559 @Ian Jeffreys

The Messiah expected by the Jews was an anointed warrior king who would defeat the Romans. Jesus was NOT that.. How can you dispute ALL the teachings of the OT? How can you dismiss their beliefs?

I believe it is often difficult to ascertain from prophecy exactly what God is doing. The expectations were wrong and then they weren't willing to admit it.

 

[Muffled]

Well, I would invite you to study Daniel without Scofield.

I believe it disingenuous of you to raise the bogeyman of Scofield when you know most of us study the Bible ourselves.

 

[3rdAngel]

Some keep only emphasizing the "Word of God" but seem to forget the Holy Spirit in the process. And it was the latter that helped to guide the Church even before any of the books of the NT were written.

But not only does the HS help guide us as individuals, the HS also guided the Church as Jesus promised, and that Church was always meant to be "one body", as Paul repeatedly stated, composed of the Apostles and their appointees that can trace their appointments all the way back to the Apostles. Only a handful of churches can do that, and that includes the Church that selected the canon of the "Word of God" in the 4th century, and Jesus said he would guide that Church until the end of time and that the "gates of hell would not prevail against it".

IOW, it still very much is here as a continuing fulfillment of Jesus' promise.

GOD’S SPIRIT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE WORD OF GOD

I believe according to the scriptures that the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God not outside of it as it is written in the scriptures " JOHN 6:63, It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life. God's Spirit is only given to all those who believe and follow His Word. Those who do not believe and do not follow God's Spirit do not have God's Word as it is written; ISAIAH 59:2 [2], But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. When we depart the faith by not believing and following God's Word we depart God as being a disciple according to the scriptures as to be a dsciple of JESUS is conditional on believing and following God's Word as it is written; JOHN 8:31-32 [31], Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; [32], And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

..............

Summary: No one has God's Spirit if they do not believe and follow what God says. Being JESUS a disciple of JESUS and receiving his Spirit is conditional on continuing to believe and follow God's Word and God's Spirit works through God's Word as we have believe and follow it. God's Spirit does not work outside of God's Word it works through it. Not believing and following God's Word separates us from God presence because whatsoever is not of faith is sin *ISAIAH 59:2.

Hope this is helpful

 

[3rdAngel]

There is no contradiction in not believing or disbelieving in gods (agnostic), and living as if gods don't exist for not believing in their existence (atheist). You can't understand atheism or why it is not faith based if you won't understand that an atheist is not somebody who denies that gods exist, although those are atheists, too, but somebody who simply doesn't believe that they do for lack of a sound reason to believe so.

Actually I believe I do understand Athiesm as well as many other beliefs and have spent considerable time studying them and also asking questions of those who follow these beliefs. For example I have looked at so many definitions of athiesm and what it means to be an athiest here which are pretty consistent...

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
4. Merriam Webster dictionary
5. Cambridge Dictionary
6. Dictionary.com
7. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
8. Wiki
9. Your Dictionary
10. Someone who believes in Atheism...........?
Merriam Webster dictionary

Now if you have no belief or a lack of belief that there is no God and have no evidence for this belief then in my opinion it is simply a fath based believe in the opposite direction of theism. Actually the Greek αθεϊσμός; atheïsmós;meaning of athiesm means opposed to God or Godlessness, so athiesm means in opposition to thiesm therefore both are faith based.

But you are incorrect, as I just explained. Why can I not get this idea through to you? What you think I claim would be faith-based, but it not only is not my claim, I have expressly contradicted it - to no avail.

The reason being is in the evidence of our past conversations. I did post on this in some detail in another thread I made that we were both posting in which was closed for whatever reason (I was not told why it was closed as it was suppose to be reviewed - Athiests live by faith). In this thread I provded a post on the term "Lack of belief" one of the two part definitions of Athiesm listed in the links above. Taken from that post below...

WHAT DOES LACK OF BELIEF MEAN?

"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid. Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack belief in screaming blue ants. What about it? If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it. This would mean that it is not a purposeful, chosen neutrality about something since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing--even if the category is called neutrality. We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of. If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.

However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.

We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.

To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it. If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection)--depending on further information and analysis. Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief. Actions reflect belief. We act based upon what we do believe--not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something--not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out. In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us but belief.

I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them. I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of. If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so any more than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.

If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous; but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist. If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence. If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.

Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent. Atheists, who say they lack belief in God or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs--not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God but attacks theistic evidences must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.

To say you believe there is no God has problems. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all? If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence, and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist; and the person is really an agnostic concerning God, so his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.

If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence? At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.

If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known, or it doesn't exist. If it were known, then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.

If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position. If by a combination of evidence, logic and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism, and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative. (Source: CARM)"

To be continued...