# When the Messiah returns...



## jollyroger (Mar 24, 2021)

...how will Christianity respond?

How would you know it is Him and not a charlatan proclaiming to be Him (there could be many)?

Do you think it is in the best interest of the church to have the Messiah return with all of the power and influence they have consolidated?

I know there are many different offshoots of Christianity, some believe the literal word while others take a "read between the lines" approach.

Some say their will be signs so they will know, but what if you are not one of those.

This is meant to be a respectful thought experiment, not intended to provoke or offend.

I've often thought about this stuff myself and wondered what some others think.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2021)

Christianity has alot riding on what they claim will and wont happen upon His return.
What would happen if He showed up and said "Hey just checking in. Gotta go now, catch you later".
There might be some 'splainin to do.

And of course there is also the belief of some in Christianity that He has already returned.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2021)

Because it’s not a meet and greet at corner, or at the chapel at a given time. Christians believe that the same spirit that raised Jesus will also raise them and, they’ll be called to gather together to meet the Lord in the air.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2021)

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/know...tionq-mean-in-matthew-24-mark-13-and-luke-21/


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> ...how will Christianity respond?
> 
> How would you know it is Him and not a charlatan proclaiming to be Him (there could be many)?
> 
> ...



I think I’ll be headed His way before He heads mine.  If I get there and it’s not as majestic and awe inspiring as the woods in the Fall or as peaceful as drifting down a South Georgia river, I’ll know I made the wrong turn a while back.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Christianity has alot riding on what they claim will and wont happen upon His return.
> What would happen if He showed up and said "Hey just checking in. Gotta go now, catch you later".
> There might be some 'splainin to do.
> 
> And of course there is also the belief of some in Christianity that He has already returned.



Yeah, I’m pretty sure he could come back today and a great many Church goers would crucify him again because he didn’t fit their ‘profile.’  Doubtful?  Visit upstairs and see just how terribly  married some are to their dogma.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 29, 2021)

Wished @hobbs27 would weigh in. I don’t agree with the AD70 Doctrine but he makes a good case for his belief, which I can respect.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Wished @hobbs27 would weigh in. I don’t agree with the AD70 Doctrine but he makes a good case for his belief, which I can respect.


THATS who it was - hobbs. I was trying to remember. He does make a good case. 
Or at least he makes his case sound good.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Wished @hobbs27 would weigh in. I don’t agree with the AD70 Doctrine but he makes a good case for his belief, which I can respect.



Haven't seen him in a long time.  Musta got raptured.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 30, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Haven't seen him in a long time.  Musta got raptured.


? that would have caught his attention


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> ? that would have caught his attention



Yeah, but he would have argued about it with Christ.


----------



## buckdancer (Jun 22, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> And of course there is also the belief of some in Christianity that He has already returned.



This preterism is really interesting stuff. Thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> ...how will Christianity respond?
> 
> How would you know it is Him and not a charlatan proclaiming to be Him (there could be many)?
> 
> ...








> Do you think it is in the best interest of the church to have the Messiah return with all of the power and influence they have consolidated?



To my mind, that's a great question.

I worked with a professing atheist physician who nevertheless remained quite Jewish in his identity. A brilliant man and mind who skipped high school altogether and graduated college at 18. Then, Yale medical school and all. And I loved (and still love the guy) and, for as much as as superior/subordinate can bear of affection in the workplace (Dr/nurse) we had to ourselves a peculiar relationship. And I think he also knew it...

And man, but this guy loved his work. Even to the extent that I'd sometimes say "I do believe if all turned upside down and you had to pay to do this, you would" And he would smile...knowing. He'd go far more than the extra mile to try and secure a good outcome...not at risk to the patient...but willing to work past the place where others might have seen only futility.

Anyway, with that affection that is able to bear a frankness of quite differing opinions in certain matters (he knew well I professed faith in Messiah Jesus) I asked him one day...knowing that his being familiar with all his "Jewish roots" such could be worded to his understanding (for I often referred to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)

"Doc, if tonight you had a visitation from the angel of the Lord, and you knew beyond doubt it was a real visitation so convincing you...and the angel said 'Tomorrow when you awaken all sickness, malady, disease and physical disability will be gone'...

Would you be happy?"

Though his answer _was not_ definitive, I saw much in it.

"Y'know, I'd have to think about that"

I think I heard it in the movie Patton of his quoting something attributed to Robert E Lee


"It is well that _war is so terrible_, otherwise we should grow _too_ fond of it."

Even among our own residents this is known, being well phrased here recently by Gordon (in a reference to grace being in a sense "hard to handle")



> tricky for ill tempered lions who fight for the fight as a prize in itself



O! But we easily fall in love with the contests! Our places in it at times...the camaraderie, the "brothers in arms" sense of shared sufferings and endurance to a goal of triumph...and the O! too sweet sense of that "gotcha" when a seeming victory, that sound trouncing of opposition, is garnered.

And war...being even medical (how often I have laced up young residents in their gowns for their participation in surgery or a procedure saying "I am but your squire, helping you don your armor for your battle against morbidity and mortality"...to their smile or puzzlement)...this coming from a 60 something y.o. old fool to a twenty something filled with awe, trepidation and all the fresh eagerness that even doubts and fears cannot deter...all want their "shot at it".


Yes...it is so easy to fall in love with contests. (And their implicit hope of a victory)

But...what is left for those who have, and do fall so easily in love thus...and even in this world where such spoils as grand ministries, great cathedrals, (for me...smaller, but just as dear "soap boxes") names of either some fame or accomplishment (even if only in the smallish pond of "christianity")...suddenly and irretrievably are shown no longer of any use?

Do we really "want it to end"?



> Do you think it is in the best interest of the church to have the Messiah return with all of the power and influence they have consolidated?



What is our true "interest"?

Do we really want "The Prince of Peace?"

And I am fairly convinced by a passage in scripture that Jesus...knowing our true estate (often especially made clear to our very own selves in such exuberance as no forethought mediates...those "ecstatic utterances" from the heart)

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. (!)

(Hey this is too cool! Look at the power you give us!)

But Jesus reminds:

"Nevertheless, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”



> Do you think it is in the best interest of the church to have the Messiah return with all of the power and influence they have consolidated?



Excellent question.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2021)

Interesting to think about, but I once dreamed it happened that the dead got out of their graves and very lively they were and patient as they listed on their grave stones like soldiers wait before engagements-- waiting that someone find them and organize some kind of refugee facility-- with canteens.

I found them above a seashore and above a bay. Most had one hand behind their heads and were gazing out to sea-- in a waiting mode.  And it occurred to me it was a need for them to find shelters and sustenance and I soon realized that myself and my family  alone were not prepared to receive them all or even a small group. And so I panicked some before I figured out the cops might have emergency plans for all these new expectant immigrants. I though they will probably commandeer school buses, church kitchens, halls, motels, and yet occupied developments.

And then I woke up... wondering why I have dreams like this, that my worry is for our fathers and mothers and less so for theirs and our standing before Jesus and that this more or less takes care of itself--- but a place to shower, eat and rest, to do business, meet and greet and to start fresh is still in me. Its like human beings were made to be many and organic, even at Christ's next coming, is at ( for better or worse) the root of who I am.

Its like everyone including myself were busy wondering what they were going to do, not that works were required, but it was just who we are in our exchanges with everything else.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2021)

Israel. Do you think the Martha and Mary narrative will hold water next time? I mean what emphasis will  "and love others as your self" have in the next go around?

Lots of Atheists on our planet believe in reincarnation... like Buddhists for example. I suspect for them Martha will be the default reaction. But I have to wonder what the "redeemed" reaction will be considering the golden rule and other indications as in doing "for the least" yee be doing it for the Devine where the Divine declares he is mankind in need.???


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2021)

One might assume that with Christ's supposed return we will not need, having no sudden or other desires? Yet Adam before the fall was such a needy fellow that Eve comes out of him with Devine approbation. Seems man has a spirit or is of a consciousness which craves relationship with most things and possibly everything.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2021)

I know you are not trying to be funny at all, but I am sure provoked to laughter.

For me it kinda cuts right to the heart of the matter. No matter how I try to _deal_ with anything, address anything, think on the Lord, speak of the Lord, "do" in the Lord (as I may consider it)...it's the very sticking point on which all hangs...and I am not sure hang is not the precise word for it.

There's nothing else beyond it or before it anymore...no matter how seemingly far afield I go in thoughts, meditations, prayers, and any and all "doings".

"Lovest thou me?"

And I am now too far gone to pretend something else is the more necessary instruction, command, or even question.

And you hit it...squarely...with some other words that won't "leave me alone"...(Thanks be to God!)

The least. Oh, sure I think I love the Lord. Sure I am able to find those who, in their walk and kind patience, insight, understanding, obvious labors in the word past places of painful surrender, that to me "look (a little more) like Jesus". But, I don't think Jesus is saying that to me anymore in the sense I once embraced matters.

To me now it's more like "OK, but what about the ones that you don't think "look like me"...the ones who...even if knowing they are brothers you don't quite esteem as highly? And what about those who you think even "look least like me"...maybe even that devoutly professing atheist seemingly so opposed...is that, and if that is, the one that is to you "the least"...what's my (the Lord's) instruction? Do you think you can wiggle out of loving...just because you find some justification to? That ain't my (the Lord's) justification!

"As you love your brother, so you love me"...yeah, that too! Man but it's eye opening to see how much scorn the Lord allows himself from me! As much as I hate to see and put it in those terms...I am more skeered of lying before Him. Some are so exasperating "to me" Lord! Some even quite obviously think poorly "of me"...Lord...and say so! Some...Jesus...don't even like me!

(please take a laugh break)

And yes...that one you mention. "Love others as yourself"...well...after all these decades I'd think even the most backward, slow witted, dull of hearing, carnal/unspiritual self centered wretch would have made more progress...while instead I have only learned "wow Lord, I didn't know anyone could love themselves as much as I do, as is now so, and too plain!" And this thing you instruct/command is just so plainly beyond me...it's almost like you were "setting me up for something". My finger Lord...always goes on my side of the scales in everything...tilting (or trying to)..set the scales in my favor!

Yer killing me Jesus!


Yeah. Wife, kids, grand kids, great grand kids, brothers, friends, no matter...I'm always poised to throw someone else "under the bus" when provoked enough to seek to justify myself. I am so venal...such a small man. (and here I once thought I knew what it was to "need to" be saved!)


yet. I find mercy new every morning. There's simply no way I can deny it. I am being loved beyond all reason and can't deny it. And I get reminded of the most paradoxically weird thing that also abides beyond all reason.

"Love one another as I have loved you..." "Forgive as I have forgiven you..."

"But Lord...I am not much in favor of seeing how much mercy I have needed, y'know?" The things disclosed that show this...are very unpleasant to my eyes! Lord...I'd much prefer to sit in my easy chair and have you tell me what a "long way I have come!"

I'd like this portrait of Dorian Gray to be a little less ghoulish to me.

The answer then becomes too plain...and thanks be to God it does!

I can want a pretty...or nice...or pleasant picture of myself...or I can "look away to Jesus".

And there I laugh at how He has indeed "set me up" to do a thing I could never have pried my eyes open enough...to do.

And the "how" of His doing is perfect. Look at a thing whose only promise is to become even more ghastly in your sight...or...just believe me.

And I cannot find fault with any of His way...even if it show me reprobate.

Seeing Him. In whatever way, shape, or form that entails a "looking past" what seems at times the more obvious, plain...even "real" and repugnant...is worth all the enduring.

He's past...sin.

And so surpassingly past it. 
Even a man "like me"...can laugh with joy.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2021)

You have a very interesting consciousness Israel.


bullethead said:


> Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
> https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/know...tionq-mean-in-matthew-24-mark-13-and-luke-21/



I find reconciliation that the generation is the immediate biological generation a bit concerning because of this, " And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. "

The questioning about when will this happen starts with a statement that the beauty or grandeur of the Temple complex and Jesus is said to have said, it will be destroyed. To which  the question occurs" When will this happen?" Jesus seems to shift the response from brick and mortar happening to a greater spiritual happening. Therefore a greater time frame is required because we are not talking about piercing a temple wall or gate, we are talking about a dismantling of a spiritual reality with great complexity in the context Jesus is responding to and not so much in how roman fireballs breach defenses or beautiful edifice and to once again exile the Jews...

So "generation" seems to be according to Jesus' response a spiritual generation in my estimation and this spiritual generation is the one he is inaugurating.

I think Paul has it perhaps despite not understanding he does when he says:


"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

In other words it ain't about bricks and mortar or some Shock and Awe  adventures of Empires, or strange sky events, its about the long haul spiritual generations take to get where they are meant to go.

So using the idea of " to this generation Jesus will return" cannot be used to condemn Christianity  as fake because no Parousia happened within that witnessing or apostolic generation. ( If I'm right. I might not be on the money at all.)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> You have a very interesting consciousness Israel.
> 
> 
> I find reconciliation that the generation is the immediate biological generation a bit concerning because of this, " And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. "
> ...


I get it. Nobody admits that what is said in the Bible is how it was meant unless it suits. A god should be cryptic, metaphorical, talk in parables and have others write all those things for them. It really is the best way to keep the meanings as intended, without personal interpretations and does not allow the readers to make excuses for all the things that did not happen.  The way it is written does not allow for controversies,  misunderstandings or feuds over its authenticity or it's beyond human mindset and ways.
I fully understand why a god would not narrow things down to the exact date and time that all the pieces of the puzzle will come together so that the believers and non could marvel in the accuracy.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I get it. Nobody admits that what is said in the Bible is how it was meant unless it suits. A god should be cryptic, metaphorical, talk in parables and have others write all those things for them. It really is the best way to keep the meanings as intended, without personal interpretations and does not allow the readers to make excuses for all the things that did not happen.  The way it is written does not allow for controversies,  misunderstandings or feuds over its authenticity or it's beyond human mindset and ways.
> I fully understand why a god would not narrow things down to the exact date and time that all the pieces of the puzzle will come together so that the believers and non could marvel in the accuracy.


FUNNY!

Maybe the salvific importance of Jesus is not the Gospel narratives? Maybe it is something else? Maybe the purported born again experience can happen independent of scripture?  Maybe "God" is not the "that was me" that made the Miracle Mets win the  69 world series . Maybe he's not a Marvel super hero? Maybe telling were the game's fortune wheel will stop is just not that important? Maybe something else is more important?

Confusion?  The natural man is more than not confused as to fight or flight.  The spiritual man is somewhat less confused.  If you have noticed, and I know you have, things get confusing for people when they abandon relationships. I think this is one of the great lessons due spirituality or spiritual history. The fighting flighty get all late nite comedy sarcastic and forget about wisdom's limits and loves limitlessness. Maybe.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> FUNNY!
> 
> Maybe the salvific importance of Jesus is not the Gospel narratives? Maybe it is something else? Maybe the purported born again experience can happen independent of scripture?  Maybe "God" is not the "that was me" that made the Miracle Mets win the  69 world series . Maybe he's not a Marvel super hero? Maybe telling were the game's fortune wheel will stop is just not that important? Maybe something else is more important?
> 
> Confusion?  The natural man is more than not confused as to fight or flight.  The spiritual man is somewhat less confused.  If you have noticed, and I know you have, things get confusing for people when they abandon relationships. I think this is one of the great lessons due spirituality or spiritual history. The fighting flighty get all late nite comedy sarcastic and forget about wisdom's limits and loves limitlessness. Maybe.


The world is filled with spiritual people. Many owe it to the importance of different gods. Others can see the comedy in it.
None of the spirituality is evidence of or even points to a specific source.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> FUNNY!
> 
> Maybe the salvific importance of Jesus is not the Gospel narratives? Maybe it is something else? Maybe the purported born again experience can happen independent of scripture?  Maybe "God" is not the "that was me" that made the Miracle Mets win the  69 world series . Maybe he's not a Marvel super hero? Maybe telling were the game's fortune wheel will stop is just not that important? Maybe something else is more important?
> 
> Confusion?  The natural man is more than not confused as to fight or flight.  The spiritual man is somewhat less confused.  If you have noticed, and I know you have, things get confusing for people when they abandon relationships. I think this is one of the great lessons due spirituality or spiritual history. The fighting flighty get all late nite comedy sarcastic and forget about wisdom's limits and loves limitlessness. Maybe.


Gordon, you mentioned that the spiritual man is somewhat less confused...and that things get confusing for people when they abandon relationships...and that I have noticed such things. Can you elaborate on this more?

In my case I think it is intuition to be able to recognize when something does not make sense then I use an intellectual process to back up or refute what I initially felt. Confusion wouldn't be an accurate word to describe my ability to question some aspects of spirituality.


----------



## Israel (Jun 25, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> FUNNY!
> 
> Maybe the salvific importance of Jesus is not the Gospel narratives? Maybe it is something else? Maybe the purported born again experience can happen independent of scripture?  Maybe "God" is not the "that was me" that made the Miracle Mets win the  69 world series . Maybe he's not a Marvel super hero? Maybe telling were the game's fortune wheel will stop is just not that important? Maybe something else is more important?
> 
> Confusion?  The natural man is more than not confused as to fight or flight.  The spiritual man is somewhat less confused.  If you have noticed, and I know you have, things get confusing for people when they abandon relationships. I think this is one of the great lessons due spirituality or spiritual history. The fighting flighty get all late nite comedy sarcastic and forget about wisdom's limits and loves limitlessness. Maybe.




I love where you are headed.



> Maybe something else is more important?



And the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Gordon, you mentioned that the spiritual man is somewhat less confused...and that things get confusing for people when they abandon relationships...and that I have noticed such things. Can you elaborate on this more?
> 
> In my case I think it is intuition to be able to recognize when something does not make sense then I use an intellectual process to back up or refute what I initially felt. Confusion wouldn't be an accurate word to describe my ability to question some aspects of spirituality.




I suppose we might have things in common regards intuitions. Where you use you logic skills to back it up, I on the other hand, not really super handy with logic ( or I don't trust it)  I back up with the religious experience, mine and other's.

So I don't trust logic and you don't trust religious experience perhaps.

What we might have in common also is perhaps a wall at the outer limits of our consciousness where a human being stands against a spirit, with a big S, or a God, or some other discipline"s name for an entity outside and inside of nature, and we ask-- " Why God?"   and who created who? Is God the creator of man's spirit or is man the creator of spirit with a big S. We have different answers that's all.

Now in my case if I was looking for proof for God, I would not look as if there is evidences of some great candy bar-- say a Mars bar.  Or I would not look for evidences in the natural order of things. I would want some exceptional evidence, like some supernatural evidence, or like some personal revelation that I can understand as back up for the scripture verse that says, " God is a spirit."

And in my case that is what I did and I got a neat revelation which others have had also. And it is hard for me to back down from it. Hope you understand. I suspect you can't back down from some of your logical conclusion in the same fashion.

Never the less I'm puzzled that you seem to look for evidences as per science and I must admit very good logic...which you seem to trust. I trust science and some rules of logic, but they are not the measuring stick for spirituality or religion for me.

Nevertheless I think at the end of the day we just operate from different fuel cells. You updated when you got out of religion and God beliefs and I updated when I jumped in head first into religions and got born again as per a la Christian's. Funny how that works.  It is what it is.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 25, 2021)

Israel said:


> I love where you are headed.
> 
> 
> 
> And the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,




Yes. Paul's lesson for Timothy is not to dismiss as a rabbit trail- flight of idea- off the intended direction Paul thinks is important. I think it is THE intended direction and the only direction because not only it is the direction it is the destination to which the new cult finds itself in. The  old view of the universe has no purchasing power anymore, a new world order has been created according to the new sect and Get This: It has been created by God thru one individual called Jesus of Galilee and son of Mary said the Christ.

The new order they have from experience and not especially from logical smarts. I suggest that the experience of a universally new paradigm is what makes the new cult vibrant. The experience is not an empty one... and has changed the "rules" about everything. Somehow the cult's God delivered on the " and you will receive the Holy Spirit."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I suppose we might have things in common regards intuitions. Where you use you logic skills to back it up, I on the other hand, not really super handy with logic ( or I don't trust it)  I back up with the religious experience, mine and other's.
> 
> So I don't trust logic and you don't trust religious experience perhaps.
> 
> ...


If god is in fact everywhere, he should be easily found no matter where a person looks. Wouldn't that make sense?
If a god isn't everywhere and only exists in a spiritual realm and unexplainable events are credited to specific gods without specific evidence then it is a believers interpretation of what happened that supersedes a true explanation or a more accurate "I just don't know"  because the unexplainable is unexplainable. And if the god as described in the bible and or his believers cannot be found everywhere and in everything then the description of him isn't accurate.

I look for evidence where evidence should exist while others assert evidence to specific deities which are a part of realms that we do not operate in....except it seems when convenient.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If god is in fact everywhere, he should be easily found no matter where a person looks. Wouldn't that make sense?
> If a god isn't everywhere and only exists in a spiritual realm and unexplainable events are credited to specific gods without specific evidence then it is a believers interpretation of what happened that supersedes a true explanation or a more accurate "I just don't know"  because the unexplainable is unexplainable. And if the god as described in the bible and or his believers cannot be found everywhere and in everything then the description of him isn't accurate.
> 
> I look for evidence where evidence should exist while others assert evidence to specific deities which are a part of realms that we do not operate in....except it seems when convenient.




I don't think ( undertand) God is in everything. I never studied that God is everywhere so I can't comment. Also I not fast to come to conclusions just because I think I have a logical insight of scripture. And so if God is not in everything than  evidences can't be had where God is not--unless someone has forensic skill in where absence of evidence might indicate the evidence is therefore not everywhere and can point to where it might be found.

Some Christians probably have some doctrine that God is everywhere and run with this, but since I realized my mum's behaviors due PMS were so punishing for her, I can't run with this. Also  the people who lived in over 600 villages and towns in Belarus WW2 were exterminated by Nazi soldiers because they were an inferior people. If ever you half a hour and a half have a look at the movie Come and See. I don't think God is in everything and then in some sense He ain't everywhere. But hey I might be wrong, a heretic and just stupid..... however for now I like my view.

So in my book God might be everywhere but not in everything.  And evidence for God can't be easily found where God has been kicked to the curb and crazies get their way and go from loving behavior to just plain demonstrations of hate.

If God was everywhere than His promise of giving folk a heart of flesh vs one of stone and  the gift His spirit those promises were  dumb promises.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I don't think ( undertand) God is in everything. I never studied that God is everywhere so I can't comment. Also I not fast to come to conclusions just because I think I have a logical insight of scripture. And so if God is not in everything than  evidences can't be had where God is not--unless someone has forensic skill in where absence of evidence might indicate the evidence is therefore not everywhere and can point to where it might be found.
> 
> Some Christians probably have some doctrine that God is everywhere and run with this, but since I realized my mum's behaviors due PMS were so punishing for her, I can't run with this. Also  the people who lived in over 600 villages and towns in Belarus WW2 were exterminated by Nazi soldiers because they were an inferior people. If ever you half a hour and a half have a look at the movie Come and See. I don't think God is in everything and then in some sense He ain't everywhere. But hey I might be wrong, a heretic and just stupid..... however for not I like my view.
> 
> So in my book God might be everywhere but not in everything.  And evidence for God can't be easily found where God has been kicked to the curb and crazies get their way and go from loving behavior to just plain demonstrations of hate.


Scripture may help


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2021)

Omnipresent?
Jeremiah 23:24 
“Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord. Proverbs 15:3 
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. 1 Kings 8:27
 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! 
Acts 17:24
 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Colossians 1:17
 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Isaiah 57:15
 For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, “I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite. 
Hebrews 4:12
 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 
Psalm 139:3 
You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. 
Psalm 139:5
 You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Psalm 139:7-10 
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, read more. 
Isaiah 66:1
 Thus says the Lord, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? 
Jeremiah 23:23-24 
“Am I a God who is near,” declares the Lord, “And not a God far off? “Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord. 
Psalm 113:4-6 
The Lord is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens. Who is like the Lord our God, Who is enthroned on high, Who humbles Himself to behold The things that are in heaven and in the earth? 
Acts 17:27 
 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 
Matthew 6:6
 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 
Psalm 32:8
 I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I don't think ( undertand) God is in everything. I never studied that God is everywhere so I can't comment. Also I not fast to come to conclusions just because I think I have a logical insight of scripture. And so if God is not in everything than  evidences can't be had where God is not--unless someone has forensic skill in where absence of evidence might indicate the evidence is therefore not everywhere and can point to where it might be found.
> 
> Some Christians probably have some doctrine that God is everywhere and run with this, but since I realized my mum's behaviors due PMS were so punishing for her, I can't run with this. Also  the people who lived in over 600 villages and towns in Belarus WW2 were exterminated by Nazi soldiers because they were an inferior people. If ever you half a hour and a half have a look at the movie Come and See. I don't think God is in everything and then in some sense He ain't everywhere. But hey I might be wrong, a heretic and just stupid..... however for now I like my view.
> 
> ...





> I don't think ( undertand) God is in everything.
> So in my book God might be everywhere but not in everything.


I could go with that. Him being everywhere, and not being in the evil things out there. I mean he’s there, but those evil works aren’t his.


----------



## Israel (Jun 26, 2021)

God is only very hard/impossible to discover for the man to the same measure he believes his sin is so obscure and well hidden.

That's all.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 26, 2021)

Israel said:


> God is only very hard/impossible to discover for the man to the same measure he believes his sin is so obscure and well hidden.
> 
> That's all.




I find this hard. And the reason I do is that I don't consider Jonah's to be stubborn, or with the soul of an old goat with cat lives because his sin is obscure or hidden, not even from himself. I just think that maybe he wished God should stop teaching--- to him. Learning was for others. His plate was full. 

But Israel, that might not be all on it.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Omnipresent?
> Jeremiah 23:24
> “Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord. Proverbs 15:3
> The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. 1 Kings 8:27
> ...



In the spirit of Respect, I think if we are to make our logic generals want to fight, they need officer's boot camp.  As Machiavelli is to "War as politics for dummies", Augustine might be to " Reading scripture for dummies."


Scripture reading with understanding is a handful, no! two hands filled to overflowing on a good day to most any seeking meanings be they charged full by the Holy Spirit or the apologist using it to demonstrate contradiction within with the view that it contain unquestionable  merit  to disprove the claims of God believers or God knowers.

So with all Respect to some saints that lean to far with that the Holy Spirit is in them at the expense of fellowship and needing scripture alone to make their case and Respect to the man of logic seeing themselves as saints on their own accounts, I suggest this as a little exercise. Don't be stubborn to not read it... or even some of it.

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/ddc1.html


----------



## Israel (Jun 26, 2021)

It is no less the miraculous work of grace that a man know himself a sinner that he see who makes saints.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> In the spirit of Respect, I think if we are to make our logic generals want to fight, they need officer's boot camp.  As Machiavelli is to "War as politics for dummies", Augustine might be to " Reading scripture for dummies."
> 
> 
> Scripture reading with understanding is a handful, no! two hands filled to overflowing on a good day to most any seeking meanings be they charged full by the Holy Spirit or the apologist using it to demonstrate contradiction within with the view that it contain unquestionable  merit  to disprove the claims of God believers or God knowers.
> ...


Who would have thought that the word of god would need an instruction booklet and that one would not have been provided all those years ago if its creator had infinite knowledge?
Makes me wonder why the word of god,which he wants us to abide by, would be a handful to understand. Seems so human doesn't it?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I could go with that. Him being everywhere, and not being in the evil things out there. I mean he’s there, but those evil works aren’t his.



If as a believer someone would need to add to this or take away from it, try to pass off the words as meaning something else or just plain pretend it doesn't exist I can see why, but it literally is a clear as black and white.
_ Isaiah 45:7. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.”_


----------



## Israel (Jun 26, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I find this hard. And the reason I do is that I don't consider Jonah's to be stubborn, or with the soul of an old goat with cat lives because his sin is obscure or hidden, not even from himself. I just think that maybe he wished God should stop teaching--- to him. Learning was for others. His plate was full.
> 
> But Israel, that might not be all on it.



I find it hard, too. I'm not sure any man wouldn't...even beyond hard to the impossible.

And your view may be the kinder, better informed of grace than what you may think is that which St Pugnatious d'Umbriago is proposing.

But if I may be allowed to speak for him he might say he's learned (at least) some of the many ways a man may insert his disdain for a thing without coming right out to frankly say it. He's learned this in himself...that there is no difference between saying "I do not like your way or ways" and "I do not like the way you are". It is a distinction with no difference. At least as he has come to know his God that cannot be fooled by crafty word handling.

When confronted Jonah was honest enough to say how provoked of anger he was...to even die. Some of us may even find need of aspiring to this if we would see the one who is even greater than Jonah. The One willing to bear with Jonah though he be so vexed by the mercy and grace being shown the repentant upon whom he had never desired anything but destruction. Even a repentance he was so forced to have some participation in to that end of effecting the mercy of God to demonstration.

It could be this was his way of learning what Paul understood..."for we can do nothing against the truth, but only for it" Even the staunchest resistance is futile if believing it might effectively prevent the Lord's showing of mercy to whomever he so chooses.

That God did not cut him off...did not abandon him to his own bitterness but further communicated instruction and even explanation. Perhaps he (Jonah) even came to that place of wrestling with words that would be later inscribed pertaining to those who were neither hot nor cold.

The hearing of spitting out the lukewarm/tepid may seem reasonable, even understandable...but the "keeping" of the cold _along with the hot?_ (If hot be interpreted as those "on fire" in the Lord.) Could it be the Lord knows something better of those giving Him the cold shoulder...even to the extreme...that is to Him as equally valuable and of utility to "work with" as even the most fiery saint might not yet appreciate? Maybe Paul would come to mind. Maybe even every and any apostle so easily named as Peter (whose being chosen for endless sermons as being the one whose boldness to contradict the Lord showed only one thing ultimately [the both being the same]...that he neither knew himself nor the One speaking to him was the Lord of unbreakable word).

Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.”

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”
But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same.

It would appear those chosen to first preach the gospel of grace had to learn a very stark distinction. Of who they are as opposed to whom the Lord is. Any confusion of place and placement is dealt with. And so stark in truth, that no man can bear it without grace.

And that the only difference between life and death in any form of betrayal _so easily entered_ is this:

"But I have prayed for you that your faith fail not..."


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If as a believer someone would need to add to this or take away from it, try to pass off the words as meaning something else or just plain pretend it doesn't exist I can see why, but it literally is a clear as black and white.
> _ Isaiah 45:7. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.”_



White and black have many hues, shades, intensities. And so God does in fact make peace and evil... but is it necessarily directly in the case of peace and evil. That is given that man has free will as part of God's creation when he created man, it follows that freedom has responsibilities and self adjusting consequences if responsibility is abandoned.

So it is true God creates good and evil... but can it be really said that God (or the Divine Creator or philosophy's Absolute, or The Power That Be)  that said that creation was good according to scripture is the direct agent of evil? 

No! Not in my readings or understandings... to which I might be wrong however. But for now God does not do evil directly... The goobers that put a stick in the chariot spokes to chew up an enemy now they might be the cause of evil? Take the flood narrative for example. If people think it wise to build on flood plains... they can't blame God if the front porch is carried off.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> White and black have many hues, shades, intensities. And so God does in fact make peace and evil... but is it necessarily directly in the case of peace and evil. That is given that man has free will as part of God's creation when he created man, it follows that freedom has responsibilities and self adjusting consequences if responsibility is abandoned.
> 
> So it is true God creates good and evil... but can it be really said that God (or the Divine Creator or philosophy's Absolute, or The Power That Be)  that said that creation was good according to scripture is the direct agent of evil?
> 
> No! Not in my readings or understandings... to which I might be wrong however. But for now God does not do evil directly... The goobers that put a stick in the chariot spokes to chew up an enemy now they might be the cause of evil? Take the flood narrative for example. If people think it wise to build on flood plains... they can't blame God if the front porch is carried off.


Like I said about an individual having to make it into more than what it is so they can deal with it....what is said in the bible in that verse is clear. You have to introduce more hues to make it what you want it to say or need it to say.
The people who didn't live on the flood plain who were drowned may disagree with you on who is responsible. The responsible party made sure that the water was high enough to reach all but 8. If you do not think that was on purpose then you are adding more hues to get your desired shade.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If as a believer someone would need to add to this or take away from it, try to pass off the words as meaning something else or just plain pretend it doesn't exist I can see why, but it literally is a clear as black and white.
> _ Isaiah 45:7. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.”_


Which evil are you referring to?

In this case God rewards Israel for obedience and punishes Israel for disobedience. God rewards / God brings judgment.

The evil I get from Gordon are these pervs taking advantage of ladies, etc.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I get it. Nobody admits that what is said in the Bible is how it was meant unless it suits. A god should be cryptic, metaphorical, talk in parables and have others write all those things for them. It really is the best way to keep the meanings as intended, without personal interpretations and does not allow the readers to make excuses for all the things that did not happen.  The way it is written does not allow for controversies,  misunderstandings or feuds over its authenticity or it's beyond human mindset and ways.
> I fully understand why a god would not narrow things down to the exact date and time that all the pieces of the puzzle will come together so that the believers and non could marvel in the accuracy.


?You are really something.  You claim to want discussion but you prove time and again that all you want to listen to yourself talk and pat yourself on the back for how intelligent you think you are when you mock people’s faith.  What you really are is boring.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Like I said about an individual having to make it into more than what it is so they can deal with it....what is said in the bible in that verse is clear. You have to introduce more hues to make it what you want it to say or need it to say.
> The people who didn't live on the flood plain who were drowned may disagree with you on who is responsible. The responsible party made sure that the water was high enough to reach all but 8. If you do not think that was on purpose then you are adding more hues to get your desired shade.


God is in judgment, that’s Bible. Judgment can be evil, as in calamity, trouble and distress. The translated word “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Many different Bible translations use the word “calamity” or disaster instead of evil.
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm



God is not in moral evil as you know evil in the English language - the rapist, the adultery, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> ?You are really something.  You claim to want discussion but you prove time and again that all you want to listen to yourself talk and pat yourself on the back for how intelligent you think you are when you mock people’s faith.  What you really are is boring.


Hit and run is back, cherry picking one out of many of my discussion filled posts in order to make himself feel better.
You are full of suggestions about what you think others are and short on anything to do with this forum.
Discussion eludes you while bravado and self bragging takes center stage.
Stick to the political forum, you are more likeable there.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> God is in judgment, that’s Bible. Judgment can be evil, as in calamity, trouble and distress. The translated word “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Many different Bible translations use the word “calamity” or disaster instead of evil.
> https://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
> 
> 
> ...


Evil, morally or otherwise, is all of those things.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

http://learn-biblical-hebrew.com/2018/01/isaiah-457-cause-god-evil/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

I wish that I could have put it as precisely as this person, but this is a copy/paste with full credit going to the original author:
Cheekygadfly says:
September 17, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The existence of an “evil proper,” outside the plan of creation and will of God is inconsistent with the notion of Him being “El Shaddai.” To define evil as independent of divine design despite God’s omniscience and omnipotence suggests there were flaws God did not intend to create, but did occur.

A past time for Jewish Biblical scholars is to make the distinction between Christian and Jewish notion of Satan, who is considered an agent of God in the Jewish tradition.

In the book of Job, Satan had to ask permission to test Job’s faith. Nowhere in the book suggested Satan went beyond his received mandate from the Most High.

Even Evil or in this case, as Christians perceive it, rebellion against His will have its limits, as everything is under His will.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Gem, I knew that you would like that one!


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Evil, morally or otherwise, is all of those things.


40 years ago Gay meant happy when Johnny came marching……

The context that’s written and translated even in other Bibles has nothing to do with immoral acts. I can see God in judgment - evil.

I don’t see him in adultery - evil, he condemns that so it wouldn’t make sense to use that as judgment.

I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you unless you’re saying the “evil”, the immoral acts he condemned “God is in”.

Flood “evil” ok. Rape evil, no.
But the scripture setting you chose is nothing more than judgment for disobedience.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> 40 years ago Gay meant happy when Johnny came marching……
> 
> The context that’s written and translated even in other Bibles has nothing to do with immoral acts. I can see God in judgment - evil.
> 
> ...


If the stories of your god are true,
No evil of any level or magnitude would exist without it being created by god. God has knowledge of every act. God allows and is complicit in each and every single thing that takes place every millisecond of every day. You do not get to choose which evil is meant or what the current word means or what the former word meant. God owns the patents on both of those words and their meanings.
Much like my sig line for science, it fits for your god also...
What happens here is because god allows it. It is because he created it in the fist place or else it would not be. Evil in any form you choose would not exist if god did not first think it, then create it, then allow it. Since god is everywhere he is a part of it.
To suggest that something could arise without god's knowledge or doing is blasphemous.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> 40 years ago Gay meant happy when Johnny came marching……
> 
> The context that’s written and translated even in other Bibles has nothing to do with immoral acts. I can see God in judgment - evil.
> 
> ...


Read this Spot,
https://esotericagnosticismandfreemasonry.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/are-new-bibles-mistranslated/


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If the stories of your god are true,
> No evil of any level or magnitude would exist without it being created by god. God has knowledge of every act. God allows and is complicit in each and every single thing that takes place every millisecond of every day. You do not get to choose which evil is meant or what the current word means or what the former word meant. God owns the patents on both of those words and their meanings.
> Much like my sig line for science, it fits for your god also...
> What happens here is because god allows it. It is because he created it in the fist place or else it would not be. Evil in any form you choose would not exist if god did not first think it, then create it, then allow it. Since god is everywhere he is a part of it.
> To suggest that something could arise without god's knowledge or doing is blasphemous.


Ok, I follow you now.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Ok, I follow you now.


If I were to be a born again believer, I could absolutely get on board with gemcgrew


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If I were to be a born again believer, I could absolutely get on board with gemcgrew


At first I wasn’t “seeing the big picture”. You’re right in saying “God has knowledge of every act. God allows and is complicit in each and every single thing that takes place every millisecond of every day”

I was more focused on “there’s nothing Godly about adultery”.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> At first I wasn’t “seeing the big picture”. You’re right in saying “God has knowledge of every act. God allows and is complicit in each and every single thing that takes place every millisecond of every day”
> 
> I was more focused on “there’s nothing Godly about adultery”.


Bottom line is that god invented it. He would have a reason for it's purpose and will have created individuals to carry it out.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spot, what did you think about the links and c/p I provided explaining the translations of  the word "evil"?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spot, what did you think about the links and c/p I provided explaining the translations of  the word "evil"?



I’m still of the mindset that the word “evil” was translated from a Hebrew word in Isaiah. From that word we ended up with “evil” that includes the immoral acts. But in the context that the scripture is written it’s not the immoral evil as we know and I believe that was where Gordon was getting to with “God is not in everything” as in the adultery example I used. 

Although aware, allows, created - it’s a choice man makes and leaves God out of his decisions. 

I’m not the best at explaining myself but you actually hit the nail on the head with what I was thinking while having the inability to say it properly.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m still of the mindset that the word “evil” was translated from a Hebrew word in Isaiah. From that word we ended up with “evil” that includes the immoral acts. But in the context that the scripture is written it’s not the immoral evil as we know and I believe that was where Gordon was getting to with “God is not in everything” as in the adultery example I used.
> 
> Although aware, allows, created - it’s a choice man makes and leaves God out of his decisions.
> 
> I’m not the best at explaining myself but you actually hit the nail on the head with what I was thinking while having the inability to say it properly.


The last link showed that there is a Hebrew word for evil and it means evil in every meaning and form of the word. The translations went away from the word evil in many versions of the bible. Some kept it as it was originally intended.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The last link showed that there is a Hebrew word for evil and it means evil in every meaning and form of the word. The translations went away from the word evil in many versions of the bible. Some kept it as it was originally intended.


Maybe I’m overthinking. But Gordon is correct. God is not in everything - who’s the author of confusion? Works of the devil / flesh are not works of God.


----------



## Israel (Jun 27, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> ...how will Christianity respond?
> 
> How would you know it is Him and not a charlatan proclaiming to be Him (there could be many)?
> 
> ...



Thinking about this question in the broader terms than just



> Do you think it is in the best interest of the church to have the Messiah return with all of the power and influence they have consolidated?



as I'd previously keyed in on, do you think the whole of the matter, and all the considerations could be reduced to:

Is it to man's "best interests" for Jesus Christ _to be who He is_?

Or by extension (I find God is most willing to allow things reduced to the absurd for clarity)

Is it in man's best interests that God be who He is?

You see the absurdity of course. How the question is totally untenable?

How a "thing" that cannot be made dependent upon man's consideration of anything can seemingly be brought into some subjection to man's opinion of "it"; and that "thing" being the nature and disposition of God Himself. For man is the result of that, (God's disposition to "do") and cannot, despite all vanity that might speak otherwise, insert himself as prior to it to any effect.

But please understand I do not find your posing of the question to make you absurd in any way...or at least no more than myself. For God, that God who patiently allows...has so often allowed me to hear myself in my questions of, and about Him..and by such has helped me understand the vanity (to the absurd) of my "self".

As perfect a place as a womb is for gestation and growth to the point assigned for a particular thing, that thing holds no conscious knowing of its full term. In fact its best indicator of health is only vigorous kicking and full blown screaming when it comes.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe I’m overthinking. But Gordon is correct. God is not in everything - who’s the author of confusion? Works of the devil / flesh are not works of God.


God is in everything, by saying he is not you are going against scripture. It is all god's work, by saying it isn't you are going against scripture. God uses others to carry out his work at his will, by saying he doesn'tyou are going against scripture. I gave you and Gordon verses to back it up.
If you think that god uses people, angels and spirits to do his "good" work and deny that he uses the same to carry out his "evil" then the problem lies within your own mental filters. One does not exist without the other and each exist because god laid out the detailed blueprints for them both.
If you believe Satan exists then Satan is no more than an extension of god. No different than Jesus or the Holy Spirit, Angels or people.

Do you believe that your god would only make "light" evil without having any plan for where it turns into more evil? Do you think there are levels of evil?
Since you believe in Satan, do you think he does anything without your god not knowing about it and more importantly not allowing it to happen?
Satan couldn't think of it without god giving him the idea. At the very least he needs god's permission, at most he is carrying out god's commands.

Ephesians 1:11: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 27, 2021)

So Bullethead, God according to your reading of scripture is both good and evil.

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."

The above seems interesting. It is from scripture. To me the huge on it is that it is not about a tree or fruit.  Am I in error on this?

Maybe you need to return to your Catholic roots? Left to yourself scripture is a recipe book... at best.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> So Bullethead, God according to your reading of scripture is both good and evil.
> 
> "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."
> 
> The above seems interesting. It is from scripture. To me the huge on it is that it is not about a tree or fruit.  Am I in error on this?


I have come to believe that best way to understand a complex god is to take what is written at face value.
It is up to an individual on how much they want or need to muddy the waters.


----------



## hopper (Jun 27, 2021)

Sometimes I find things when I give up looking for them so hard??


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> So Bullethead, God according to your reading of scripture is both good and evil.
> 
> "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."
> 
> ...


Like I said, if I were to be a believer again, I would take what is written in the bible at face value. I don't need any organization to muddy the waters and tell me that they somehow understand a complex entity more than anyone else.

Then again, this seems pretty simple. Maybe I'll start raising goats.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-worshippers-climbed-volcano-throw-102122359.html

In your beliefs, when did Evil come to be? Who created it?
Which god said that he creates, not created evil?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m still of the mindset that the word “evil” was translated from a Hebrew word in Isaiah. From that word we ended up with “evil” that includes the immoral acts. But in the context that the scripture is written it’s not the immoral evil as we know and I believe that was where Gordon was getting to with “God is not in everything” as in the adultery example I used.
> 
> Although aware, allows, created - it’s a choice man makes and leaves God out of his decisions.
> 
> I’m not the best at explaining myself but you actually hit the nail on the head with what I was thinking while having the inability to say it properly.





> it’s a choice man makes and leaves God out of his decisions.


Makes me wonder how many times God has been given the credit for/taken the blame for things that are simply a result of man's choices.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Like I said, if I were to be a believer again, I would take what is written in the bible at face value. I don't need any organization to muddy the waters and tell me that they somehow understand a complex entity more than anyone else.
> 
> Then again, this seems pretty simple. Maybe I'll start raising goats.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-worshippers-climbed-volcano-throw-102122359.html
> ...





> the Hindu gods granted the couple 24 children after years of struggling to conceive but on the provision that their 25th child must be thrown into the volcano as a sacrifice.


Its interesting that all these "gods" seem to have a pretty twisted side. Floods, tossing babys into volcanos......


----------



## Israel (Jun 27, 2021)

God over all...judges both good and evil in his creation.

Man, knowing only that both good and evil "are" (the knowledge of good and evil) is totally ignorant of their discerning apart from Christ. And not only so, but is so under an influence to call evil...good.

Strong meat is reserved for those who by use of their senses have come to discern good from evil.

If the starting point is not seen nor held to all else will only be judged according to a man's own preferences, and his own pleasures and their fulfillment as the good, all opposing his own pleasures...as evil. Still relying upon his own sensibilities...and what _pleases them. _Thus man exalts (always) his _own sensibilities. _

This is how critics make a living. Vaunting their own sensibilities.

Thou art worthy, O Lord:
to receive glory and honour and power;
For Thou hast created all things:
and for Thy pleasure they are, and were created.

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now _are ye_ light in the Lord: walk as children of light:  (For the fruit of the Spirit _is_ in all goodness and righteousness and truth Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove _them_. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.


The LORD hath made all _things_ for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Like I said, if I were to be a believer again, I would take what is written in the bible at face value. I don't need any organization to muddy the waters and tell me that they somehow understand a complex entity more than anyone else.
> 
> Then again, this seems pretty simple. Maybe I'll start raising goats.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-worshippers-climbed-volcano-throw-102122359.html
> ...




Evil came to be when man was not responsible with his freedom. ( That is my "beliefs" in a nutshell. ( Nutshell here is not a real nutshell. I mean it as indicating the most short explanation to your question, : "When did Evil come to be?" Note that I was born Mid 20th century. I have know people from the 19th, 20th and 21 century. So my cultural time on earth might tint my answer. In other times I would probably have other nutshell words to your question.)

Evil was created by man and it is perfectly ok to say God created evil, because he is said to have created man. ( I might note that when God created the universe that we know now, it is said in scripture that God said, " It is good." or something like that. He did not say it is very good, extraordinarily good, super great-awesome, or I could of done better. It was good. All of it was good.


Adam comes along and gums up the goodness  for himself by himself in my book ( book here is not meant as book, to my mind might have been a better term to use) of hues, patinas and values. ( About books the Movie director Alfred  Hitchcock once said in an interview that if you could read there was no reason to view movies.  He said something to the effect that the imagination was a truer witness than a movie could be.) I might add that the mind's imagination ( my view) is a truer witness of what a book attemps to communicate than what is actually on the page--word--sentence--paragraph. The writer used the book to record what was on or in his mind due his assessments of reality. The closest I can get to his view is with my imagination or by abstractions.

So  all of creation is still all good. Man is not responsible enough presently to  be alive to all of it and this is the root of what we term evils. Maybe, perhaps, etc....


The Torah relates that God says he is the creator of good and evil. However this is not a simple statement as to meaning.--- see above.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 27, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Makes me wonder how many times God has been given the credit for/taken the blame for things that are simply a result of man's choices.


The pro God crowd gives him credit for the good, the anti God crowd gives him credit for the bad. 

People think because God is all knowing that removes man’s choice to obey. If that were the case there’d be no such thing as disobedience or a thing called sin. You can’t disobey if you acted as designed - where was the transgression?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Like I said, if I were to be a believer again, I would take what is written in the bible at face value. I don't need any organization to muddy the waters and tell me that they somehow understand a complex entity more than anyone else.
> 
> Then again, this seems pretty simple. Maybe I'll start raising goats.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-worshippers-climbed-volcano-throw-102122359.html
> ...





> Like I said, if I were to be a believer again, I would take what is written in the bible at face value. I don't need any organization to muddy the waters and tell me that they somehow understand a complex entity more than anyone else


There are many that take it face value and argue the point that God can’t be all knowing if this scripture is true  - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

That’s not the “lack of knowledge” of you, that’s a lack of a relationship with you.

A great many of us are not and have never been in the organizations that some of you were in that couldn’t find God. So we don’t have those organizations muddying the water for us. We’re told he can’t be found at the same time we’re “corrected” in scripture??


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> There are many that take it face value and argue the point that God can’t be all knowing if this scripture is true  - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 
> That’s not the “lack of knowledge” of you, that’s a lack of a relationship with you.
> 
> A great many of us are not and have never been in the organizations that some of you were in that couldn’t find God. So we don’t have those organizations muddying the water for us. We’re told he can’t be found at the same time we’re “corrected” in scripture??


I am discussing from a believers point of view/one type of denomination point of view and from that mindset is why I said about another organized denomination would be "muddying the waters". It was a reply to Gordon's suggestion that I return to my Catholic roots (I didnt have the heart to tell him I was raised Lutheran Protestant)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Evil came to be when man was not responsible with his freedom. ( That is my "beliefs" in a nutshell. ( Nutshell here is not a real nutshell. I mean it as indicating the most short explanation to your question, : "When did Evil come to be?" Note that I was born Mid 20th century. I have know people from the 19th, 20th and 21 century. So my cultural time on earth might tint my answer. In other times I would probably have other nutshell words to your question.)
> 
> Evil was created by man and it is perfectly ok to say God created evil, because he is said to have created man. ( I might note that when God created the universe that we know now, it is said in scripture that God said, " It is good." or something like that. He did not say it is very good, extraordinarily good, super great-awesome, or I could of done better. It was good. All of it was good.
> 
> ...


Did man create Satan ?
Is Satan evil?
You can see where I am going with this right?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am discussing from a believers point of view/one type of denomination point of view and from that mindset is why I said about another organized denomination would be "muddying the waters". It was a reply to Gordon's suggestion that I return to my Catholic roots (I didnt have the heart to tell him I was raised Lutheran Protestant)


Ahh I never knew that, I’ve seen you mention your catholic experience but not the Lutheran. I have an Uncle that’s Lutheran, don’t really know a lot about it because he doesn’t talk about it much. His wife converted from Catholic to Lutheran when they married. I’ve always found it interesting and strange at the same time when folks convert denominations - do they now “see the light” or settling to keep their spouse happy, or just still searching.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Ahh I never knew that, I’ve seen you mention your catholic experience but not the Lutheran. I have an Uncle that’s Lutheran, don’t really know a lot about it because he doesn’t talk about it much. His wife converted from Catholic to Lutheran when they married. I’ve always found it interesting and strange at the same time when folks convert denominations - do they now “see the light” or settling to keep their spouse happy, or just still searching.


In my case I was baptized Catholic. Parents divorced when I was 7, Mom was Lutheran so I went to Church, Sunday school, Confirmation etc there. I married a woman who is Catholic and got married in "her" Church (I never converted as IDK where I stand officially,lolol) 2/3 sons graduated from a Catholic High School.
I've got a lot of bases covered


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am discussing from a believers point of view/one type of denomination point of view and from that mindset is why I said about another organized denomination would be "muddying the waters". It was a reply to Gordon's suggestion that I return to my Catholic roots (I didnt have the heart to tell him I was raised Lutheran Protestant)




Lutherans are now as Catholics. They kissed and made up a few yrs back.


----------



## Israel (Jun 28, 2021)

Now I say, _That_ the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The pro God crowd gives him credit for the good, the anti God crowd gives him credit for the bad.
> 
> People think because God is all knowing that removes man’s choice to obey. If that were the case there’d be no such thing as disobedience or a thing called sin. You can’t disobey if you acted as designed - where was the transgression?


Please dont get offended but..... you would make a good A/A if it wasnt for that little detail that you believe in God


----------



## Israel (Jun 28, 2021)

Man experiences working backward to relationship.
While God works forward in it.


God is God and cannot suffer (and will not suffer) man's judgement for loving Jacob and hating Esau (before either _had done anything_) while at the same time being testified to as:

Then Peter opened _his_ mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 

He has laid claim to what is His through the One _who is His;_ in whom He has already shown all honor of respect in the resurrection.

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by _that_ man whom he hath ordained; _whereof_ he hath given assurance unto all _men_, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Did man create Satan ?
> Is Satan evil?
> You can see where I am going with this right?




Satan is a cranky messenger right? You can see where I am going with this right? That messenger if from man. In Eve's case the messenger was named  Satan, as a broad catch all, many many years after the actual message was given within Eve's makeup when she over stepped the responsibility that went with her freedom. Satan is the pickle Eve got herself in and its down the road consequences for the rest of us.

Flip Wilson's " The devil made me do it." is directly due to Eve's willingness to entertain life with two minds.

So man created Satan yes. Plain and simple. Satan is evil...except when it's not because it's a deceiver, a trickster etc... Being of two minds is usually a tricky project.

I don't think Jesus personified Satan and devils. They were possessions at best like when they got out of an unfortunate man and were let go into swine and they all got themselves drownedded.

In any case... I am of the view that like many other spirits man has created for himself... Satan and his devils is one.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Please dont get offended but..... you would make a good A/A if it wasnt for that little detail that you believe in God


Lol no worries 

If I ever start getting offended, I don’t need to be here.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> In my case I was baptized Catholic. Parents divorced when I was 7, Mom was Lutheran so I went to Church, Sunday school, Confirmation etc there. I married a woman who is Catholic and got married in "her" Church (I never converted as IDK where I stand officially,lolol) 2/3 sons graduated from a Catholic High School.
> I've got a lot of bases covered




Add to this that your a barber and the fact that really good barbers are standup entertainers makes you a super great AA. The barber's feet are on a stage.  The patron sees the actor perform in the mirror. If the actor has charisma the scissors are secondary to the flow of dialogues as they sway the actor's body--his performance. And so the patron walks out entertained and with a new do or sometimes a new face even...for his own stage,  for his very own acting.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Satan is a cranky messenger right? You can see where I am going with this right? That messenger if from man. In Eve's case the messenger was named  Satan, as a broad catch all, many many years after the actual message was given within Eve's makeup when she over stepped the responsibility that went with her freedom. Satan is the pickle Eve got herself in and its down the road consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Flip Wilson's " The devil made me do it." is directly due to Eve's willingness to entertain life with two minds.
> 
> ...


It seems you are a maverick Christian. You follow some teachings in the bible and form your own opinions to what suits you despite what the bible says on others.
I am just trying to gauge your thought process so I know how to converse.
Did god create the Heavens and the Earth?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Add to this that your a barber and the fact that really good barbers are standup entertainers makes you a super great AA. The barber's feet are on a stage.  The patron sees the actor perform in the mirror. If the actor has charisma the scissors are secondary to the flow of dialogues as they sway the actor's body--his performance. And so the patron walks out entertained and with a new do or sometimes a new face even...for his own stage,  for his very own acting.


If a Barber has to put on an act it is to cover up for a lack of talent and skill. Being genuine makes for satisfied customers more than acting does.
A good show does not compensate for a bad haircut.
Early in the start my career an Old Timer sat in my chair and said "I don't care how you cut it or what it looks like, but I will tell everyone where I got it when they ask"
His head was my advertisement to either promote my skill and ability or lose potential customers if I was more concerned with acting rather than giving a good haircut.
Like a Bartender with all that shaking of drinks and flipping and spinning of bottles....if the drink tastes awful no amount of show will keep the stools full.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You can’t disobey if you acted as designed - where was the transgression?


Or you were designed to disobey, therefor the transgression.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Did god create the Heavens and the Earth?


What day did that happen ?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or you were designed to disobey, therefor the transgression.


And that’s a just God to punish you for that “transgression”? What about “whosoever will”? They getting a chance to “whosever will”.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2021)

kmckinnie said:


> What day did that happen ?


Heavens sounds like day 1


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Heavens sounds like day 1


It would have to be that way it seems. Gave him a place to put earth. ?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2021)

kmckinnie said:


> It would have to be that way it seems. Gave him a place to put earth. ?


Then he said we will make man in our likeness, so I am thinking that god had to be talking to someone else. Other gods or at least the angels...so it seems he already created others in the heavens.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Then he said we will make man in our likeness, so I am thinking that god had to be talking to someone else. Other gods or at least the angels...so it seems he already created others in the heavens.


That would make sence. So you think thier language was English ?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

kmckinnie said:


> That would make sence. So you think thier language was English ?


No
Hebrew


----------



## Israel (Jun 29, 2021)

A man is brought into an interesting place in regards to his "self" when he encounters Jesus Christ. He finds out about it. Suddenly what he "was" prior...himself...he is now able to see as his "self". 

Now outwardly to all other men (and especially unbelievers) he remains himself a unit of person...but inwardly he is quite aware he has been brought to see a self that is in every way superior to his own, to himself...and he begins to experience the truth of himself revealed, disclosed...that there is a something with which he had/has identified, and now can see more clearly is all of inferior to this "other" now given him also to see. 

Where he once thought of himself as a pure consistency all of himself...regardless of whether he approved of himself, or thought he did or even _perhaps_ did not...he becomes acutely aware, though it may not be in these terms...of faults...fracture lines between matters of identity and running all through his being. There is no consistency...no purity "_of being" found in himself_...and he sees the hope of its ever being accomplished by "himself"...manifestly being demolished.

What has happened is that he has met _the consistent man _who, by His very consistency...reveals all inconsistency. In the same way that a clean windshield or pair of glasses shows how much murkiness we have been tolerating as normal. Just "working with". Or a perfectly straight line reveals a crooked...or even the most slightly bent one...it is of no matter the extent of deviation. There is straight...and "not straight"...period. 

How acutely aware of this, and its time of understanding is not his to determine nor control. God may wish to show in a man, and through a man the perfection of His patience with what is His own to a thoroughness beyond doubt. 

The apostles were quite devoted to encouraging, being the first chosen by Jesus Christ and then given "in" the church to experience this working in themselves. The "seeing to it" as they endured it in themselves along with a prevailing encouragement, ministering the same comforts toward others who would follow...to not be dismayed to the point of either despair nor surrendering the hope to which their calling is set. We should "read" these men.

Paul surely understood.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, _is_ therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Oh! but that place! Do we think Paul just "imagined it"? Sat with a pen to write things like an automatic writer? Or, did Paul _know it? _Had Paul come to a place in his following in faith where seeing in such light of Christ _he was almost thrust into despair_ at what he saw of himself in that light? He knew the temptation..."blame the light"! Blame the light as the cause of it! 

God forbid!

God establishing unequivocally such perfect difference (were God to give no hope) between what man is and Who He is...is all the place of overwhelming despair. And such so that the man, if not encouraged by another, must quit this following that brings him to see what he otherwise (without hope) cannot bear to see.

The only "reason" a man can see this...is the presence of that light...Christ! The very thing one is tempted to blame...is the very "thing" of salvation giving such light to see! The dwelling of Christ in a place where the man is finally brought to a surrender to grace, and an embrace of mercy he knows now he could never have made his by choice...even if at one time he celebrated his own choices...for in this place of seeing he knows..."no man could choose to see this of himself"...and no man would. Just as now the only encouragement and comfort must come "from another" to bear this knowing...even the coming to this place was initiated...totally...by another.

"Do not be amazed" another apostle wrote of those things you are experiencing tempting to despair and confusion...or even being tempted to "get out of". Peter knew where his only comfort had come (and that not of himself thinking "I will never deny you!)...when such of his "choosing of how to see himself" was shown so utterly foolish and duplicitous.

Oh, but it sounds like someone is trying to "diminish" these giants of our faith! God forbid. They wrote from their own smallness revealed to themselves...that despite all vexations experienced in the "way of Christ" (that they themselves once would have never understood...nor "wanted")...the trueness of His faithfulness is unshakable.
So they could write "when our own hearts condemn us"...He remains GREATER than our hearts...for He will not deny Himself.

When a man is brought to see how much pride he garners to himself by having made the right "choice"...(Man, am I sure glad I bought Microsoft at 4$ a share! Or whatever...)...how he delights in his own "backing a winner"...but then...through God's work gets a taste of the true flavor of that pride...(and even how "being in Christ doesn't always "feel" like being a winner)...he will be very glad at being kept from the despair of that foolishness's right judgment of both pride and despair (fainting) before God..."Don't worry, you have not chosen me...but I have chosen you..." And one is there forgiven for trying to take that glory to ones self...or blame God for the despair...

Oh, but you steal too much from man!

As we begin to see what Christ "stole" as just deserts for sin...as we come to appreciate salvation is far more than once we believed or entertained; and is by the gift of God's very nature to us through His Son...we become aware of the dangers of "shortchanging".

Any and all _true relationship..._must eventually be understood in terms of "one" and "another"...otherwise _only usurpation is present. _The great outworking of this glorious mystery to which we are called in Christ and by Christ is to that glorious place where we are finally able...and made free to truly identify "with another" without seeking to replace them...with ourselves or our imaginations of "how they should be".

Would God have us have no illusions as to whom and how He is? Or is Christ...teasing? (And I am almost ashamed of that question...except that I have found mercy myself for wondering all sorts of things about "that man"...and that He might just be "like any other")

He is the caller. He is the initiator. He is who He is...and though He has responded to my despair, my need, my burning desire to "know a winner"...none of these things "created " Him to be who He is. I don't make Jesus "Lord of my life"...at the very best a man is allowed, given, graced, blessed, caused... to see "life"...and whom the Lord of it is...and such life...is not "my own".

But He's covered "my own"...which remains all, and only...of debt. But He won't, and hasn't... despite what little I may have even ever seen of it...ever "throw it up in my face" and abandon me to wear it. Instead He allows me (for His purposes) to see the horror of it...the utter terribleness of it...worn by Him, borne by Him...as the only "safe" place of viewing...where even that terror of it is so far outstripped and eclipsed by that glory in Him, of Him...who is "the resurrection and the life".

It's the only safe place to view.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> And that’s a just God to punish you for that “transgression”?


Paul already addressed your objection.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed _it_, Why hast thou made me thus?



Spotlite said:


> What about “whosoever will”?


Whosoever will transgress? You mean us? Did you imagine this to be about us?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Paul already addressed your objection.
> 
> Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed _it_, Why hast thou made me thus?
> 
> Whosoever will transgress? You mean us? Did you imagine this to be about us?


Paul is speaking to Christianity here. Not those that haven’t found God. IF you seek me you will find me. If you keep my commandments. If you if you if you over and over.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart repeatedly before God stepped in to make that hardening permanent. If you deny me. If fail to repent. If you if you if you over and over again - God will turn you over to a reprobate mind. God will turn a deaf ear.

Further, you can’t transgress  / disobey if you acted as programmed to fail. You did exactly as programmed.


----------



## Israel (Jun 29, 2021)

"Lord, it sure felt like I did something."

"I know"

"No, but really Lord, it really feels like I did something; and even something good when I chose you"

"I know"

"And Lord, it really feels like you are contradicting me when you say it is all your doing and none of my own, like I had no part in it...that salvation is yours alone."

"I know."


"I mean Lord, C'mon, don't I get credit for doing anything?"


"Oh, you get credit...and more than you can possibly yet know. But if you want the deserts for _your doing..._should we bring out the whole of the ledger? You know...take a good look at all of your doings...and what they merit?"


"Um, uh..."


Has anyone else been there and gotten the T shirt?

Y'know...that thing that fits you to a T.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Paul already addressed your objection.
> 
> Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed _it_, Why hast thou made me thus?
> 
> Whosoever will transgress? You mean us? Did you imagine this to be about us?



Another view - do you think we can transgress?

If a man doesn’t have a choice - what’s his motives to attend services, strive to be like God and even obey his commandments?  
Why not just go and do as you please, you either have a ticket in or you don’t?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> "Lord, it sure felt like I did something."
> 
> "I know"
> 
> ...


Short answer - I didn’t earn salvation, I did have to accept the gift by opening up and dedicating my life to him. I could have said no, too - or at least, almost persuaded.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Paul is speaking to Christianity here. Not those that haven’t found God.



Is not God revealing to His People through Paul the same as He revealed to His People through Isaiah (29:16, 45:9, 64:8)


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Satan is a cranky messenger right? You can see where I am going with this right? That messenger if from man. In Eve's case the messenger was named  Satan, as a broad catch all, many many years after the actual message was given within Eve's makeup when she over stepped the responsibility that went with her freedom. Satan is the pickle Eve got herself in and its down the road consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Flip Wilson's " The devil made me do it." is directly due to Eve's willingness to entertain life with two minds.
> 
> ...


Maybe Im weird but seeing Flip Wilson and Eve in the same sentence about Satan made me chuckle.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Is not God revealing to His People through Paul the same as He revealed to His People through Isaiah (29:16, 45:9, 64:8)


Yes.. After God reveals……, man has a choice to accept / believe or deny / disbelieve.

That’s what I was wanting to point out.

But people tend to use Paul’s teachings and corrections to the churches and Gus answering of their questions and apply that to those that have never known Jesus. Throwing strong meat at them before they can drink milk. But the choice is my thoughts.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It seems you are a maverick Christian. You follow some teachings in the bible and form your own opinions to what suits you despite what the bible says on others.
> I am just trying to gauge your thought process so I know how to converse.
> Did god create the Heavens and the Earth?




According to scripture He did. As to my thought process... I try to push it past a 10th  grader's consciousness regards Christianity and try to keep in mind the thought process of Christians past the tenth grade. ( In some cases I do well to get my thoughts in order past the 5th grade, I know. That's about it.

Besides this, scripture for me is very organic. I read history in it when I find it. I read poetry in it when I find it. I read analogy in it when I find it. I don't try to get in the minds of the scripture writers. I try to get into the of consciousness who they are of what they are talking about. Note that for me scripture is the inspired word of God. That is they are the words of men and women who are inspired of God to such an extent that their own words are as God's. I understand that God is much more than the words in scripture.

God communicates with people in other ways than scripture and for me interpretations of what scripture states must accord with the other ways of God. That the bible interprets itself is not good enough for me. All the experiences people have had inside and outside the church permit me to say a lot of things which others  might find maverick that limit faith' expressions and dialogues to the neighborhoods of  scripture. If the people and schools who wrote what we call scripture had limited their thoughts, thinking and expression to conform to  known scripture alone... we would not have any scripture at all, I suspect.

For me it is the spiritual experiences, the pilgrimages, the lives of the saints, and  the witness of God in their lives that inform my thought processes when I'm inbound on some scripture. If scripture seems to contradict itself for some, and traditional  interpretations and meanings seem nebulous ( because they are)  it is more than not that people have chosen limiting life boxes or have never consider larger formats in their spiritual lives.

Also someone recently mentioned  Isaiah here a few posts up. Isaiah himself or his school was no run of the mill blogger. Isaiah in expression seem to come from a broad and multifaceted assessment of both scripture, religion, history and  the human experience.

I don't limit my interpretations of scripture with scripture because those who wrote it did not. The subjects were complex and not at all in the larger contexts about scripture.  Like I said you might what to consider your Catholic roots... it might explain why I seem a maverick right now, but not at all a maverick in the grand scheme of things...regards thought process and spirituality.

Besides this there is one thing that helps me keep things between the lines when in my thought process and expressions. It is not the Christ of scripture... rather it is the eternal life experience.  " Eternal life" comes to my mind as a word group  from scripture. I have added experience from my experiences to it and the experiences of others  all to my mind as well.  And it is that the life experience outside of scripture makes scripture meaningful to my "mind".

 Terra firma  for me is therefore life with God through Jesus Christ which began much as with anyone else, but I maintain the relation, been up and down, but because the other party touched me we are inseparable. Now this might sound exceptional, eccentric, odd, wacked- out- nuttery etc... but I know it as the experience of countless others who like me call themselves Christians.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> According to scripture He did. As to my thought process... I try to push it past a 10th  grader's consciousness regards Christianity and try to keep in mind the thought process of Christians past the tenth grade. ( In some cases I do well to get my thoughts in order past the 5th grade, I know. That's about it.
> 
> Besides this, scripture for me is very organic. I read history in it when I find it. I read poetry in it when I find it. I read analogy in it when I find it. I don't try to get in the minds of the scripture writers. I try to get into the of consciousness who they are of what they are talking about. Note that for me scripture is the inspired word of God. That is they are the words of men and women who are inspired of God to such an extent that their own words are as God's. I understand that God is much more than the words in scripture.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the time you took to share that with us.
But bottom line is that man does not create Angels. Lucifer was/is an Angel. God created him. Call him the devil or satan (el satan =  Hebrew word for adversary) and he, along with evil was around before man.


----------



## Israel (Jun 29, 2021)

so then...wouldn't _all be owed to the revelation?_

We're not talking hamburger vs steak...or even manure vs steak...or even...broken razor blades vs steak...

What man would stand then upon his choice...and not rather (if he does have any revelation of "this or that") be only consumed with gratitude that...finally being brought to the place of "Hey, it's no choice!"...for being allowed to see what he could never have known as alternative? "You mean there's something besides broken razorblades?!"

If the work of God is indeed as Jesus says "This is the work of God _that you believe upon the One whom He has sent"_.."...what man claiming to know Him would stand before Him and attribute anything to his own choosing?

Do we get "credit" for believing? Yes, and God is very much devoted to revealing this. How that deliverance from imputation of sin is only found in occupation of that place (a person)...who never took credit for His choosing...or His own doing.

To see this is to see how man is "let off the hook" as Paul described "so it is not me, but sin in me..."  but never mistaking that the imputation of the righteousness that saves from being eternally united in identity to "the man of sin" is _only in that place of another imputation._ 

NO good thing. If a man would be spiritual...he cannot escape the knowing of the jailed carnal mind.

How does Jesus describe (what seems so ignored) in what could only be said to be the "perfect" disciple? Somehow Jesus parables remain veiled...as they have to me till made known...and yet to many calling themselves of Christ.

But this is to a glorious end of "work"...the disciples call to "labor" in asking seeking, knocking...always...

"What do_ you mean_, Jesus?" 

Which in other terms is equally expressed  "what is _your significance_ Lord?"

O! to learn this!

But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.


How else would one describe a perfect/mature/grown disciple in terms other than one who might be given to know this description:

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, 

What is to be the response? Really...what could be the _only_ response? Will one be speaking of "their"...Jesus speaks only of their coming to see the only right duty. The only thing _to do._

As men there is not a one of us who does not understand the deepest inclination to earn. Whether it be (even in this calling by Christ) some form of our need to contribute that we not appear to ourselves thieves. But when it is finally settled in the heart...that is all I have ever been...a thief, liar, con man, manipulator, treacherously clever in seeking to _steal a glory_......merely using work and works only as some cover for my thievery...then...

But, that is only me. Thief, liar, with absolutely no hope _of himself_ for anything...and must be constantly reminded of a propensity to steal glory. In even the cleverest ways he can conceal his hand.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

For anyone wanting to participate:
Were the Angels created on day 1 along with the heavens, or did they exist prior to creation (which if god created anything prior to day 1 as described in the bible, THAT is the start of creation)?
How long have the angels existed before god created the heavens?
Is the literal story of the creation timeline in Genesis accurate?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes.. After God reveals……, man has a choice to accept / believe or deny / disbelieve.
> 
> That’s what I was wanting to point out.
> 
> But people tend to use Paul’s teachings and corrections to the churches and Gus answering of their questions and apply that to those that have never known Jesus. Throwing strong meat at them before they can drink milk. But the choice is my thoughts.



If "the choice is my thoughts" refers to to the "choice" of your first sentence, it surely must be correct, because the scripture under consideration directly opposes that choice.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I appreciate the time you took to share that with us.
> But bottom line is that man does not create Angels. Lucifer was/is an Angel. God created him. Call him the devil or satan (el satan =  Hebrew word for adversary) and he, along with evil was around before man.



Ok be like that. But I guess you forgot the good lesson we all learned from the pervious admin of the spiritual forums that Angel is just another word for messenger.

If you what to check it out Paul says in some of his letters that he told "carriers" to give his letters to the angels of the churches. And if I recall the messengers ( angels) of the churches were the leaders or in present context pastors.  

So if according to Paul human beings can be angels... human beings can create angels. Bottom line. Human being create spirits... and some of these spirits are messengers or angels. Think of it in the contest of culture where the patriotic or national spirit has its messages and messengers. These and the over all spirit was created by the people with boots on the ground. Within the greater national context of a culture there are regional spirits with their own individual messages and messengers. Some of these spirits are conflicted others are not. They can come against or  in accord with each other for both good and evil.

Paul:


" For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> For anyone wanting to participate:
> Were the Angels created on day 1 along with the heavens, or did they exist prior to creation (which if god created anything prior to day 1 as described in the bible, THAT is the start of creation)?
> How long have the angels existed before god created the heavens?
> Is the literal story of the creation timeline in Genesis accurate?



John says in the beginning was the "Word". The medium is the message I guess. As soon as God was to man, the angels were because man got the message that God was. Much more than this... is probably overreach or a poem about angels that is really about something else.

Your logic is locked up by a culture of bible alone.  There is alot outside of the bible that will make the bible make sense.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Ok be like that. But I guess you forgot the good lesson we all learned from the pervious admin of the spiritual forums that Angel is just another word for messenger.
> 
> If you what to check it out Paul says in some of his letters that he told "carriers" to give his letters to the angels of the churches. And if I recall the messengers ( angels) of the churches were the leaders or in present context pastors.
> 
> ...


Was Paul around at creation or did he show up a few thousand years later?

I see what you are saying but you are taking Pauls writings which came about thousands of years after Genesis and are using them to somehow refute what was said in Genesis. There were no humans in existence when god created the Angels/Lucifer aka satan.
You must do what you must do in order for you to live with it in your mind.
I am just trying to figure out how you go about it


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> John says in the beginning was the "Word". The medium is the message I guess. As soon as God was to man, the angels were because man got the message that God was. Much more than this... is probably overreach or a poem about angels that is really about something else.
> 
> Your logic is locked up by a culture of bible alone.  There is alot outside of the bible that will make the bible make sense.


I figured God's word shouldn't need help. When I had to leave the bible in order to make sense of the bible I got the feeling no god was involved.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Was Paul around at creation or did he show up a few thousand years later?
> 
> I see what you are saying but you are taking Pauls writings which came about thousands of years after Genesis and are using them to somehow refute what was said in Genesis. There were no humans in existence when god created the Angels/Lucifer aka satan.
> You must do what you must do in order for you to live with it in your mind.
> I am just trying to figure out how you go about it




Simple really. God for me is not what god is for you perhaps.  If angels did in fact exist before man, than they were with God. I'd have to go check on the angel revolt narratives to see exactly what is going on but I'm betting it comes from the need to explain how evil comes into existence in the life of man. It is probably a " spiritual myth on good and evil." I'd have to check on the origin of the angel revolts in scripture and in myth .


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Simple really. God for me is not what god is for you perhaps.  If angels did in fact exist before man, than they were with God. I'd have to go check on the angel revolt narratives to see exactly what is going on but I'm betting it comes from the need to explain how evil comes into existence in the life of man. It is probably a " spiritual myth on good and evil." I'd have to check on the origin of the angel revolts in scripture and in myth .


Well, yeah obviously. 
It does not seem that God for either one of us is anyone else's version of god either. I'd wager that if you get 7 billion people to read the bible no two understandings and interpretations will be alike either.
And again, is that the best a god can do?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I figured God's word shouldn't need help. When I had to leave the bible in order to make sense of the bible I got the feeling no god was involved.




I understand you. You make very good sense. Tons of people saints and non believers think as you do. Tons don't. But I understand.

Maybe think of it this way language and words change meanings with time. Some languages are said dead... they are not used in human commerce except when meaning is not to change or mutate. The people who wrote scripture were not using dead languages.

On the other hand the affectionate relationships which influence meanings that we have in societies are pretty much universal through out history and cultures. So the human experience is a better way to make sense of the bible than visa versa. Part of that human experience is the spiritual experience. God is involved in-with life where some of that life has its own inherent administrations. It's just that way.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Well, yeah obviously.
> It does not seem that God for either one of us is anyone else's version of god either. I'd wager that if you get 7 billion people to read the bible no two understandings and interpretations will be alike either.
> And again, is that the best a god can do?




So God would not be your first round pick for a god.  Ok. I get it. The difference between you and me is that perhaps when parents divorce I don't have the brain reach to get that there is no god because this would not happen. Rather in my case I'd say that God is not the reason divorce happens, I know the blame is elsewhere, so God is not cancelled out because of this great unfortunate event especially in the lives ( emotional and spiritual) of children but also in the lives of parents.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Another view - do you think we can transgress?


 Transgressing is what a transgressor does.



Spotlite said:


> If a man doesn’t have a choice - what’s his motives to attend services, strive to be like God and even obey his commandments?
> Why not just go and do as you please, you either have a ticket in or you don’t?


In my youth, I attended services because of a particular girl that also attended services. You couldn't have paid me to miss a service.
Choice is not relevant. I didn't choose to be attracted to her.

We will have been married 32 years this November.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> If "the choice is my thoughts" refers to to the "choice" of your first sentence, it surely must be correct, because the scripture under consideration directly opposes that choice.



The “choice” was mine - “chose you this day who you will serve”.

Did he make them with the “intention” to honor / dishonor, or make both that honored / dishonored?

Why are Gods laws written in man’s hearts so that he’s without excuse?

Paul is answering imagined questions. No one deserves grace.

Do I think folks are programmed to do bad if it somehow will give glory to God in an area or overall assist in his plans? I do. Do I think those folks are still at some point given an opportunity to salvation / heaven / hope in him? I do.

Do I think Judas could have simply repented? I do.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Transgressing is what a transgressor does.
> 
> 
> In my youth, I attended services because of a particular girl that also attended services. You couldn't have paid me to miss a service.
> ...


Congratulations on that, that’s awesome this day and time. We are in our 27th year of marriage.

You could have still said no at the alter


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> So God would not be your first round pick for a god.  Ok. I get it. The difference between you and me is that perhaps when parents divorce I don't have the brain reach to get that there is no god because this would not happen. Rather in my case I'd say that God is not the reason divorce happens, I know the blame is elsewhere, so God is not cancelled out because of this great unfortunate event especially in the lives ( emotional and spiritual) of children but also in the lives of parents.


Look at it this way,
Parents divorcing has nothing to do with a manufacturer that writes an instruction manual that nobody can understand universally and then holds the consumer accountable for not assembling the products correctly when the final assembled products all look differently because the consumers had to guess what pieces go where.
You and I do not hold that manufacturer accountable for the parents problems, we hold them accountable for the crappy instructions. 

You are introducing something into the conversation like parental divorce to deflect away from the point at hand. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other in regards to understanding the supposed works/instructions of a god.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> If "the choice is my thoughts" refers to to the "choice" of your first sentence, it surely must be correct, because the scripture under consideration directly opposes that choice.


Just like as with Pharaoh….

2 Timothy 2:22
“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work”

So God endured those vessels of wrath, these were people that would never change and never accept God’s plan and then He would accomplish His plan with them.

God takes those evil persons that there was absolutely no intent to receive God’s plan into their lives and molds them as instruments to accomplish His plan whether they can see it or not.

Therefore, they had a choice until they went too far?

BTW - I don’t mind being wrong, but I do like to know why. My questions aren’t meant to be argumentative.


----------



## Israel (Jun 29, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Transgressing is what a transgressor does.
> 
> 
> In my youth, I attended services because of a particular girl that also attended services. You couldn't have paid me to miss a service.
> ...



That's interesting/funny/lovely/ and particularly provoking of memories I have...not dissimilar in some ways...except the subsequent history that did not lead to marriage at all, let alone 32 years of it.

But I won't get into that (do I hear a sigh of relief?).

But as to another conversation taking place and the matter of chronologies and principalities in creation...Jesus spoke of the one who was a "murderer from the beginning" only speaking lies from himself.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

For me the significance of "for there is no truth in him" is of particular note because it would take truth "in him" to reveal to him his estate. It becomes for me quite plain how this influence to think well of one's self..."All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes" originates in that "nice guy" spirit...which is not at all of Christ.

And I am convinced the devil does not gleefully and maliciously rub his hands together, instead thinking himself...quite nice. The (to himself) ultimate victim...but "bearing up".

(and I am not immune to such thinking...and must often be reproved of it)

The same sort of nice guys the Nazi's imagined themselves to be because they loved their dogs. Or celebrated xmas, or were sure their affections were pure because of the strength of them (Goebbels and his wife poisoning their children and then bullets for themselves when it became plain of the Fuhrer's defeat and his intent to suicide...for they did not want to consider a life without him)

Any indicator of "goodness" _works for the natural man_...except of course, the Lord's.

Hitler and his beloved dog Blondi.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Look at it this way,
> Parents divorcing has nothing to do with a manufacturer that writes an instruction manual that nobody can understand universally and then holds the consumer accountable for not assembling the products correctly when the final assembled products all look differently because the consumers had to guess what pieces go where.
> You and I do not hold that manufacturer accountable for the parents problems, we hold them accountable for the crappy instructions.
> 
> You are introducing something into the conversation like parental divorce to deflect away from the point at hand. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other in regards to understanding the supposed works/instructions of a god.




I think you are probably right about my deflection. Sorry about my something outside of the conversation. ( I mean it.)

The bible is not an instruction book however. If people use it exclusively as instruction the bible is contradictory.

Lets say the Ten Commandments are instructions. Lets say we know that no one can follow them to the letter. But lets say God is not after sacrifice to the law but what is wanted is a spirit, a godly spirit, a heavenly spirit, a state valued over the Ten Commandments. ( This is that man would understand that the Ten Commandments are wise law or wisdom and to want to follow them in society is logical and beneficial in every way.) But the bible indicates beyond this that something else  is more important than instructions ( especially that man imperfectly follows instructions.

The bible also indicates that man can have  a nature that naturally follows ways of being that are beneficial to himself without the need to follow the Ten Commandments  from their letter as law or ordinance. Or, man can follow the commands without them being written in stone or having no need of the commands at all.

Moses said follow the law. God said follow the law, but if it is a sacrifice to follow the law, following the law is useless. So we can't hope that by following the bible as a road map if it is the map of wisdom, because wisdom is said not the way, we will benefit on bit. What is wanted is not this way( sacrifice to the law) of being which mischaracterizes  God.

God is not about  follow the recipe, but rather about life in general and for Christians this must be a life from the born again experience.

I know this is not well said. However... I hope you get the drift... even if you by nature or presently cannot agree to any or part of what I said.

Again sorry about getting off topic...or outside of converstation.


----------



## Waddams (Jun 29, 2021)

Late to the party - just seeing and skimming through this. Wanted to go back and respond to my best understanding of the answer to the original question.



> ...how will Christianity respond?
> 
> How would you know it is Him and not a charlatan proclaiming to be Him (there could be many)?
> 
> Do you think it is in the best interest of the church to have the Messiah return with all of the power and influence they have consolidated?



So first, as I said my best understanding is there are actually 2 events to look forward to. The first being the first resurrection, or the rapture as it's called (that term isn't used in the Bible that I've found). The second being the actual Second Coming.

The first resurrection is when Jesus meets the resurrected believers, believers still alive, and resurrected other humans counted as righteous (such as Abraham, Lot, other Patriarchs who are recorded as being counted righteous before God) in the air and takes them to Heaven. Jesus doesn't actually land, he stays airborne, he's come to "reap the harvest" and take it (ie - the population of humans both living and resurrected that are counted righteous before God) back to heaven. He's not actually returning to the Earth in this event. 

As to how a living believer would know? Respond? Know it his him? Know the event is really happening? It takes a long study and explanation to get there, but my best understanding right now is we won't need to see him to know _because we will be changed ourselves_.  After his resurrection, Jesus wasn't recognized at first by his followers. He looked different. He was resurrected into what we call a glorified body. It's a pre-fall version of a physical body. Grown to maturity, not affected by age, uncorrupted, perfect version - what God intended when he created Adam and Eve, before the Fall. Still living believers will be physically changed to this perfect vision as they are glorified, the dead counted as righteous will be resurrected to this perfect version the same as Jesus was (there's a reason Jesus was called the "First Fruits" - he was the first human to be restored in this manner). _The still living believer won't need to see Jesus personally to know this event is happening, they will be changed themselves to the glorified, perfected version of a human originally intended, they will know right away they've been changed, and they will know what it means._ 

The still living believer today can know that until they themselves are glorified and transformed into a perfect version of a human, anyone claiming to be Jesus returned is a charlatan and liar because they and nobody else have been changed. To me, it seems pretty simple.

As for is it in the church's interest for Jesus to come back, I am quite certain there will be many church members that will not be included in this "harvest". The remaining church members that miss out on this - I'm sure they'll react as fallen people always have - sinfully. It is in the best interest of genuine believers for Jesus to return. It is clearly not in the best interest of non-genuine church members and leaders for Jesus to return. I'm personally in the camp the rapture will happen mid-trib, it's described as a 3 1/2 year first period, then a 3 1/2 year worse period. I think the rapture, all those people disappearing, the world seeing happen, it will result in a massive level of chaos and destruction for those left.

For the Second Coming, it doesn't actually happen until the Battle of Armageddon. Jesus doesn't actually set foot on and return to Earth to stay again until the tribulation has played out and reached it's climax at Armageddon. He's described as blazing in glory, just as he did on the Mount of Transfiguration only moreso (that will be a clue in the rapture, those being raptured will be transfigured like he was - when you start glowing with the glory of God running through you, it will be pretty obvious) leading Heaven's hosts. Pretty unmistakable.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

Guys... did you ever consider that if we did not have bullethead to talk to, someone who is not tired our our prejudices, doctrinarian approaches and biases we would generally be a spent force in the rest of the spiritual forum-- like we have noting to learn from each other?

This fellowshipping with an atheist is a blessing in some ways... so far.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I think you are probably right about my deflection. Sorry about my something outside of the conversation. ( I mean it.)
> 
> The bible is not an instruction book however. If people use it exclusively as instruction the bible is contradictory.
> 
> ...


No need for apologies. At times we all know what we want to say but take round about ways, offshoots and unblazed trails to get there sometimes.


You, me, we constantly have to include maybes, what ifs, possibly's, our own interpretations and best guesses in order to be able to allow what is written in the bible to make sense for us.
None of that is our fault. It is the fault of the original author if a god is involved OR multitude of authors if it is human.

If The Word is to be followed who is to say by how much or how little except what is commanded in itself?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The “choice” was mine - “chose you this day who you will serve”.



Yes, but you did not make the choice available, nor did you establish the circumstances which dictated the response.



> Did he make them with the “intention” to honor / dishonor, or make both that honored / dishonored?



The text answers the question.



> Why are Gods laws written in man’s hearts so that he’s without excuse?



"so that he is without excuse!"



> Paul is answering imagined questions. No one deserves grace.



Paul is teaching to those with ears.



> Do I think folks are programmed to do bad if it somehow will give glory to God in an area or overall assist in his plans? I do. Do I think those folks are still at some point given an opportunity to salvation / heaven / hope in him? I do.



God knows, I don't. (Salvation is of the Lord)



> Do I think Judas could have simply repented? I do.



I don't think that we are getting anywhere.

Do you realize that most of the things you are advocating require that the thing affected is also the cause.  I can't make that work, nor have I found anyone who can successfully argue for a self-caused effect.  The thing can not give what it does not have, nor can it receive that which it has.

God is never effected; He is always cause.

Perfect contingency is not possible, it's like infinitely small, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> 1. Yes, but you did not make the choice available…..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Agreed. I never said I made the choice available, I was given an opportunity to choose.

2. By becoming one those “if any man will come after me let him deny himself”……people.

Some folks are confused thinking that denying yourself, accepting the call of God, and following his commandments, etc. are “works” that places one in a category of saving themselves or earning salvation - hence (Salvation is of the Lord)

We will have to figure out why it’s “if any man” instead of only those already picked, and ask why is there is a need to deny yourself - the ticket is in the mail there’s nothing to deny.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> "so that he is without excuse!".


Exactly. And it would be useless if msn didn’t have a choice, he doesn’t need an excuse at that point.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> No need for apologies. At times we all know what we want to say but take round about ways, offshoots and unblazed trails to get there sometimes.
> 
> 
> You, me, we constantly have to include maybes, what ifs, possibly's, our own interpretations and best guesses in order to be able to allow what is written in the bible to make sense for us.
> ...




 The Gospel's account of Jesus in his dialogues with the Pharisees is a good example how the cut the cake too much and too little. And not only the Pharisees... But you might not be interested in it. But I answer your questions two ways... Jesus had answers to your questioning and I'm born again so I know where the oats are ground down to make bread so to speak.  I know this sounds or reads as foolishness but God's love when it stings you good you ain't never be the same again. You know when folk read to much or too little in scripture and especially when they use it to try to understand God like he was before Eve made Reizling with the apples--thinking they are clear headed enough to do so without God's help...


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You could have still said no at the alter


Not even a possibility of it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> We will have to figure out why it’s “if any man” instead of only those already picked, and ask why is there is a need to deny yourself - the ticket is in the mail there’s nothing to deny.


You will never consider the "why" when you are fighting for the "if".


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 29, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> God is never effected; He is always cause.
> 
> Perfect contingency is not possible, it's like infinitely small, it doesn't exist.


And when a man's life is not his own, neither are his choices free.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> The Gospel's account of Jesus in his dialogues with the Pharisees is a good example how the cut the cake too much and too little. And not only the Pharisees... But you might not be interested in it. But I answer your questions two ways... Jesus had answers to your questioning and I'm born again so I know where the oats are ground down to make bread so to speak.  I know this sounds or reads as foolishness but God's love when it stings you good you ain't never be the same again. You know when folk read to much or too little in scripture and especially when they use it to try to understand God like he was before Eve made Reizling with the apples--thinking they are clear headed enough to do so without God's help...


Gordon, I don't think what you say is or sounds foolish. I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me how and why you see/believe/experience things as you do.
I would whole heartedly buy into much of what I am told by Christians and any other religion if what was being told to me was exclusive to one religion and no others could come close to having similar experiences, feelings,  etc.


----------



## Israel (Jun 29, 2021)

Jesus conceded to not know all things. Even to conceding He was dependent totally upon the Father for both sight and hearing and sight and hearing for the doing. Even saying He (Jesus) _would be_ shown more _and greater things._

For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

He knew no man could come to Him unless the Father who sent Him draw them...therefore it follows that "if any man come to me"...it is, and could only be the Father's work and such He would not cast out. So the man hearing this would be encouraged to come not fearing disdain...even if and though (at that particular point) he was still under the illusion this attraction was of himself.

Now, of course until we have our eyes opened we conclude all things are "of ourselves"...even an attraction to Jesus Christ. We think, "O, there is something in me, about me..."of me" that is able to recognize the good in Christ."

It is a very short trip from there to "of myself I am, and must therefore be special"... (But we are not foolish enough to not know that being "chosen" can also, if not seen in Christ...lead to a self aggrandizement. Man will make of most any hay a source of pride.)

Now also, Jesus did not at the very first say..."you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"...seeing there was a point at which this had now to be addressed and to be "set straight" (I believe).

Jesus doesn't do this to humiliate us...but secure us in the truth that only what God has begun...and because it is only He who begins (it) He will finish...and that "good work" of Christ in us is _all of God. _

There comes a point for every disciple where any hope of standing upon "themselves" is utterly humiliated (to the end of salvation). Otherwise Peter has little to help us with. God forbid!


We find the apostles not shy about emphasizing this.

The cross remains effective for removing all that takes its stand upon "itself"...yet no man enduring it for the joy set before him would ever think he could have chosen this as "the way"...despite the glory revealed there. Even precisely for the glory revealed there. Such honor to be joined to the Lord there is simply beyond any man's capacity to grasp at it.

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Where only God...and it is far more than enough that it be God...who "really" sees what is going on there. Not a man who has earned reviling and humiliation...but a man who who has been made to _not submit_ to anything but the will of God's good pleasure.

And He knows this is God's work...only.

"What shall I say then? Father, save me from this hour? But it is for this very hour I have come. Glorify YOUR name!" (By me and mine being reduced to as nothing)

There is nothing "in man" to do this...except God place Him (the Christ) in the depths of the earth. The very heart of it.


Do we still believe God (through the apostles) is talking about a planet...there?

The first man is of the earth...earthy.

No man should confuse Adam's estate, Adam's being, Adam's nature, Adam's position, Adam's purpose of and for expression (and here we speak especially of what could be called pre-fall) with that of Christ. If comparison need be made _by any man _he would do well to know it is already done and that the apostle(s) do not lie about it...but see.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam _was made_ a quickening spirit. Howbeit that _was_ not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man _is_ of the earth, earthy: the second man _is_ the Lord from heaven. As _is_ the earthy, such _are_ they also that are earthy: and as _is_ the heavenly, such _are_ they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

(Red letters obviously mine)

All "natural man" seeks _at best_ to make his way back into the garden.
But there is another garden man must pass through in and with the Lord to see...where seeing all is his to have by one word (even that "first garden")...but the thing above _that is, is _what and where He knows He is from and for.

Those 12 legions of angels stood by...and ready to "see" what that chosen One would do.

(There's a salvation they long to look into)



But that is, and always has been the plan and purpose fulfilled (in the _fullness of time_)...placing a treasure in (a) vessel(s) of clay.

Adam had no ability, nor was Adam created to accomplish it.

There's only One delivery man...the One made willing to appear no more than a messenger boy to be despised.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Gordon, I don't think what you say is or sounds foolish. I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me how and why you see/believe/experience things as you do.
> I would whole heartedly buy into much of what I am told by Christians and any other religion if what was being told to me was exclusive to one religion and no others could come close to having similar experiences, feelings,  etc.



Sounds reasonable:

But what makes you think that similar experiences and feelings are not in some cases due God? Or due Jesus even. If disciples who had known Jesus in some cases could not identify or recognize him as Jesus even when he was in their presence or near them what makes you understand that someone who had never met Jesus, who does not know who Jesus  is even or who he is "supposed to be"  is not ministered to by the same author  for which  experiences and feeling are similar to those of Christians?

Nevertheless, the genuine Christian experience is not an awakening to ancient insights with experiences and feelings that follow. It is being genuinely present to God and the life that follows . So I doubt you will find this in other religions. Most other religions are after levels of enlightenment. In other religions God is still behind the curtains or not essential. ( I do not mean disrespect to other religious groups by saying this.)

Yet, I don't pretend to know or understand everything. The witness God gave me, He might witness  just the same to someone from an other belief tradition. But Christ as the creator, as God,  because his life gives life and light to man is very unique to Christianity, I suspect. And the experiences and feelings for this are not similar to others.


----------



## Israel (Jun 30, 2021)

Man either sees Christ through Adam and Adam's view...or sees Adam through Christ and Christ's view.

Jesus knew He "owed" nothing to the natural and the clay. There is/was "no life in it" of eternal nature (for impartation) and by the willing sacrifice of it (His own clay, though there be no sin in it, at all) there was the release of God's life giving merciful spirit to what God has ordained to eternal life.

Do we despise Adam? God forbid!

For had God not begun this work in and of the Adam of dust there's not a one of us who could see what was/is all of God's good pleasure fulfilled in seeing His Christ...the end of "Let us make man in our image and in our likeness".

The potter, throwing a lump of clay upon his board declares "this is good"...for the beginning of his work. But we dare not confuse the perfection of work to follow as being somehow owed to that lump of clay to make itself into what would and could only be shown as the Master's hand in such skill and patience upon it to reveal what "might be done with a lump of clay".

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

The life giving spirit to fill the vessel now perfectly prepared for it to show the exceeding greatness of this work _once started_ in Adam.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

In burnt offerings and _sacrifices_ for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

In the volume of the book it is written of me...


Man was given to see what he never could in, nor through, Adam.

Adam...who threw Eve...under the bus...and God no less.

Christ...throwing Himself under the bus. (I only do what I see the father doing) 



But there is no seeing of the last Adam apart from (by God's work alone) seeing one's self as the first.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> 1. Agreed. I never said I made the choice available, I was given an opportunity to choose.
> 
> 2. By becoming one those “if any man will come after me let him deny himself”……people.
> 
> ...





Spotlite said:


> Exactly. And it would be useless if msn didn’t have a choice, he doesn’t need an excuse at that point.



The selectivity of your responses are telling, or they seem so to me, thanks.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 30, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> You will never consider the "why" when you are fighting for the "if".



Hierarchy.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 30, 2021)

Israel said:


> Man either sees Christ through Adam and Adam's view...or sees Adam through Christ and Christ's view.
> 
> Jesus knew He "owed" nothing to the natural and the clay. There is/was "no life in it" of eternal nature (for impartation) and by the willing sacrifice of it (His own clay, though there be no sin in it, at all) there was the release of God's life giving merciful spirit to what God has ordained to eternal life.
> 
> ...



Ya got it Pontiac. Now  This creation in ( within) His image is very difficult for Christians let alone people who have cause to question and deny the Spirit that provides the image.

( Someday we should explore that Jesus is the Creator and see what we can come up with.)

So ya you got it Pontiac. When man gets his cues to live by from inanimate things and ideas ( and makes them idols) he is out of "the essential picture". And  also his assessment skills are compromised.

I sure hope brother Bullethead is not exhausted and put off, even irritated,  by the bifurcations off from the origin topic idea and the banter of doctrinarians.  So far Bullethead is more patient than some Christians can be and in this regard I'm thinking of the flustering for off topic posts ever since the birth of these here forums. There is something righteous about the man. I cannot accuse him of blasphemy ever. I can't put my finger on it, but good and Bullethead don't seem separate so far in this sub forum at least. And I have no cause to prop myself up with anyone in saying this. I just say it.

Quote:

Man either sees Christ through Adam and Adam's view...or sees Adam through Christ and Christ's view.

End quote.


----------



## Israel (Jun 30, 2021)

> We will have to figure out why it’s “if any man” instead of only those already picked, and ask why is there is a need to deny yourself - the ticket is in the mail there’s nothing to deny.





> the ticket is in the mail there’s nothing to deny



That seems logical...doesn't it?

And it's surely not a logic I dare casually deny for I don't find it far from Paul's (finding Paul a faithful elder brother) in his hope and assessing of matters relative to "if by any means I might attain to the resurrection from the dead"

There seems a striving. A call to a _working toward. _An end _yet to be _accomplished_. _

_Or is it seen?_

But regardless, the whole "ticket is in the mail" seems seems more like a bucket with holes in it than a sound way of viewing.

Now...wouldn't it be entirely different if "your ticket is in the mail" was really "check your mail, the ticket is in it!"



But I think, probably like you, that the seeing of Christ...(and His accomplishments in obedience on our behalf and to the glory of God)...as a "ticket", diminishes it in some uncomfortable way. 

Despite any sensing I might have that some could indeed view "it" and Him that way, nevertheless our encouragement and instruction do not come from those with such a view. Our apostles are consumed with (if we are and have been instructed by them) a knowing of Him, a deep abiding hunger and thirst for Him, not merely to the end of "getting to a place" (though Paul does not deny it)...but to see Him as He is. To know Him in such intimacy they are united with Him in His sufferings and resurrection, and manifestly so.

This matter of the cross and denial of self then becomes (as only made possible through God's Christ)...not a burden for accomplishment but a gift in aid of removing those things which tend to obscure the seeing of _that man. _And as deep as the desire is to see, is to the same measure of appreciation for that gift (the cross) as aid in removing what hinders sight.

Don't misunderstand my position in this as one of any accomplishment. It has only been, as it remains for me, counting the Lord's patience toward me as salvation...for I too well know the man who saw the cross entirely and most exclusively as something that would make "everything better"...but only _if others _would obey!...and take up theirs. 

Little did I know what a gift I was myself spurning. Making it a thing to do...rather than the high place called to where in union with our Lord, O! so many things are seen above the fog. Where gratitude obscures even obligations.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 30, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> The selectivity of your responses are telling, or they seem so to me, thanks.


Well I was hoping for an explanation of why I’m looking at this wrong. But I respect your comments so I won’t dwell on this. But, one last thing - I know salvation is of the Lord, I’m not talking about saving yourself or working to earn salvation. I’m taking about the choice a man can make to hear his voice or continue on his path. And, I’ve heard the choice isn’t free, agreed but the cost of the choice isn’t in question.

I’m not debating, I’m saying if I’m looking at it wrong, tell me why because my goal is to make it and certainly not continue giving wrong information to others. 

Man refusing God’s calling and knowledge -

“Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;”

“But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof”


Man doing his own Will and did not retain God in their knowledge -

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”


And, then this -

“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.”

“For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Sounds reasonable:
> 
> But what makes you think that similar experiences and feelings are not in some cases due God? Or due Jesus even. If disciples who had known Jesus in some cases could not identify or recognize him as Jesus even when he was in their presence or near them what makes you understand that someone who had never met Jesus, who does not know who Jesus  is even or who he is "supposed to be"  is not ministered to by the same author  for which  experiences and feeling are similar to those of Christians?
> 
> ...


I think those other similar experiences are not due to your god for the same reason(s) you do not think your experiences are due to their god(s).
You, they, them ALL think that the others are incorrect while as individuals you each have found and experienced the god(s) of your desires and then to top it off, some of you (insert from whatever religion here) admit that even if someone from another religion or beliefs does have similar experiences that it is probably due to YOUR gods involvement. 
Then you take it further in saying that those others wouldn't recognize Jesus (but obviously you would right?) because even people who knew Jesus didn't recognize him ( and again..somehow though, You can recognize him better than his disciples) so a possible answer is their experiences are again due to your god but they think he is someone else.
Consider this since you also believe in satan's existence...has he fooled you into thinking that you know someone who has been dead for 1988 years? Have you allowed him(since he is a product of man) to fill the void you seek with false experiences? Or are you just another one of those lucky people( billions) who can understand the workings of a complex god who has chosen you to reap the benefits, recognize the unrecognizable, and everyone else just doesn't get it?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Ya got it Pontiac. Now  This creation in ( within) His image is very difficult for Christians let alone people who have cause to question and deny the Spirit that provides the image.
> 
> ( Someday we should explore that Jesus is the Creator and see what we can come up with.)
> 
> ...



Never put off or exhausted. Thanks for your thoughts towards me.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think those other similar experiences are not due to your god for the same reason(s) you do not think your experiences are due to their god(s).
> You, they, them ALL think that the others are incorrect while as individuals you each have found and experienced the god(s) of your desires and then to top it off, some of you (insert from whatever religion here) admit that even if someone from another religion or beliefs does have similar experiences that it is probably due to YOUR gods involvement.
> Then you take it further in saying that those others wouldn't recognize Jesus (but obviously you would right?) because even people who knew Jesus didn't recognize him ( and again..somehow though, You can recognize him better than his disciples) so a possible answer is their experiences are again due to your god but they think he is someone else.
> Consider this since you also believe in satan's existence...has he fooled you into thinking that you know someone who has been dead for 1988 years? Have you allowed him(since he is a product of man) to fill the void you seek with false experiences? Or are you just another one of those lucky people( billions) who can understand the workings of a complex god who has chosen you to reap the benefits, recognize the unrecognizable, and everyone else just doesn't get it?




You assume too much.  A Marine is not hypnotized into being a Marine as a Christian is not hypnotized into being a Christian. Marines will go right through the gates of He!! to get to at the enemy so it is said. Jesus showed Christian individuals how to get to the old crank a Cease and Desist.  But I've been fooled a few times... yes.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> You assume too much.  A Marine is not hypnotized into being a Marine as a Christian is not hypnotized into being a Christian. Marines will go right through the gates of He!! to get to at the enemy so it is said. Jesus showed Christian individuals how to get to the old crank a Cease and Desist.  But I've been fooled a few times... yes.


I am giving you another angle to look at things from.
A believer in another god may same the same things you say, tell you that your experiences are the result of his gods doing. Is he wrong and you are right? Are you wring and he is right? Are you both possibly wrong?
That's what I am saying.

Marines now?
What about Divorced Marine parents? Can we introduce them into the discussion also? ( just busting your potatoes a little)


----------



## Danuwoa (Jun 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Hit and run is back, cherry picking one out of many of my discussion filled posts in order to make himself feel better.
> You are full of suggestions about what you think others are and short on anything to do with this forum.
> Discussion eludes you while bravado and self bragging takes center stage.
> Stick to the political forum, you are more likeable there.


Zzzzzzzzz?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Zzzzzzzzz?


Lights out is spot on


----------



## Danuwoa (Jun 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Lights out is spot on


I want to respond with the seriousness this deser...Zzzzzzzzz.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I want to respond with the seriousness this deser...Zzzzzzzzz.


Epic religious insight, thoughts, apologetic skills and discussion. Really, you are good.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jun 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Epic religious insight, thoughts, apologetic skills and discussion. Really, you are good.


Your “discussion” has this effect on Zzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Your “discussion” has this effect on Zzzzzzzzzzz.


Seems to only have that effect on you. I understand why now.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

Apologies to the other participants for the new distraction.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m taking about the choice a man can make to hear his voice or continue on his path. And, I’ve heard the choice isn’t free, agreed but the cost of the choice isn’t in question.


When I refer to "free choice", I am not addressing the cost of it, although that can be very significant. I am talking about man's freedom to choose, without any external influence.

We make choices, but the choice we make is the effect of God's prior choice.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 30, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> When I refer to "free choice", I am not addressing the cost of it, although that can be very significant. I am talking about man's freedom to choose, without any external influence.
> 
> We make choices, but the choice we make is the effect of God's prior choice.


Ok gotcha. Now I’m understanding a little more of what you two are getting at.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jun 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Apologies to the other participants for the new distraction.


Jeez what an ego.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Jeez what an ego.


Lighten up Francis
Your self awarded Hall Monitor badge doesn't mean anything here.
If you have a problem with me PM me and stop wasting these other guys time.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jun 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Lighten up Francis
> Your self awarded Hall Monitor badge doesn't mean anything here.
> If you have a problem with me PM me and stop wasting these other guys time.


I don’t need to pm you.  I was real plain about it.  And this isn’t your forum so you don’t get to give me directives or speak for anyone.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I don’t need to pm you.  I was real plain about it.  And this isn’t your forum so you don’t get to give me directives or speak for anyone.


Then by all means keep on Trolling.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I don’t need to pm you.  I was real plain about it.  And this isn’t your forum so you don’t get to give me directives or speak for anyone.


While trying to remain neutral, the rest of us would like to keep this place mostly self moderated. If you have a personal issue with bullet, a PM is the best way to clear that up. You may not realize this but your post appear to call him out intentionally - personally


----------



## Danuwoa (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> While trying to remain neutral, the rest of us would like to keep this place mostly self moderated. If you have a personal issue with bullet, a PM is the best way to clear that up. You may not realize this but your post appear to call him out intentionally - personally


Ten four.  He rubs me the wrong way with the way he acts like this  is his forum and the nonsensical posturing about wanting discussion.  It turns into the same thing every time with him propping himself up as the resident intellectual and arbiter of what is allowed and not allowed all while throwing in a good dose of condescension and sarcasm.  It’s tedious.  But if others enjoy it it’s not my place to disrupt it.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am giving you another angle to look at things from.
> A believer in another god may same the same things you say, tell you that your experiences are the result of his gods doing. Is he wrong and you are right? Are you wring and he is right? Are you both possibly wrong?
> That's what I am saying.
> 
> ...




Yes what you say is true. But if truly the believer cleave to another god it could be that the spirit of their false god ( idol) might be at work on me.

On the other hand, it would be natural for all who are believers in the God of Abraham see something from their understanding of God in my spiritual makeup-belief and practice-- but theirs' is not another god.

Note that I understand that what I would term "the spirituality of primitive cultures" is not about another god. In most cases the god of primitive cultures is the same God I cleave to.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Ten four.  He rubs me the wrong way with the way he acts like this  is his forum and the nonsensical posturing about wanting discussion.  It turns into the same thing every time with him propping himself up as the resident intellectual and arbiter of what is allowed and not allowed all while throwing in a good dose of condescension and sarcasm.  It’s tedious.  But if others enjoy it it’s not my place to disrupt it.


Understood. Here, along with the PF it’s almost expected to get rubbed the wrong way. No harm meant by throwing up a caution light


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes what you say is true. But if truly the believer cleave to another god it could be that the spirit of their false god ( idol) might be at work on me.
> 
> On the other hand, it would be natural for all who are believers in the God of Abraham see something from their understanding of God in my spiritual makeup-belief and practice-- but theirs' is not another god.
> 
> Note that I understand that what I would term "the spirituality of primitive cultures" is not about another god. In most cases the god of primitive cultures is the same God I cleave to.


Which primitive cultures would you be referring to?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Which primitive cultures would you be referring to?



First nation culture(s) of North America I'm a bit ( somewhat) familiar with-- in that they claim a Creator God and their spiritual universe has elements that are sophisticated and understandable.

I don't mean that modern North American first nations who maintain their traditional spiritual beliefs are primitive as people or cultures. I mean that their spiritual belief and traditions are those of people who migrated from Asia to North America and were hunter-gatherers--fishers and farmers...


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Well I was hoping for an explanation of why I’m looking at this wrong. But I respect your comments so I won’t dwell on this. But, one last thing - I know salvation is of the Lord, I’m not talking about saving yourself or working to earn salvation. I’m taking about the choice a man can make to hear his voice or continue on his path. And, I’ve heard the choice isn’t free, agreed but the cost of the choice isn’t in question.
> 
> I’m not debating, I’m saying if I’m looking at it wrong, tell me why because my goal is to make it and certainly not continue giving wrong information to others.
> 
> ...



Did you look back at that to which you did not respond:



> nor did you establish the circumstances which dictated the response.


and


> Do you realize that most of the things you are advocating require that the thing affected is also the cause. I can't make that work, nor have I found anyone who can successfully argue for a self-caused effect. The thing can not give what it does not have, nor can it receive that which it has.



which, if considered, would show that your choice is not "free" but influenced, and dependent upon, many prior factors. which are dependent on other prior factors, etc. (infinite reduction, which is generally considered logically unsatisfactory).  The solution to that unsatisfactory conclusion, I believe, is found in Scripture, beginning to end, when viewed from a totally Theocentric perspective.

Although it's been many years since I read them, and I'm sure there are other good sources, I found Daniel Whitby's "On the Five Points" (not the original title) as responded to by Jonathan Edwards "Freedom of the Will" to be a thorough discussion of the subject.  However, it is Scripture and Spirit, that is truly convincing.

Anecdotally, I once heard R.C. Sproul tell this story:
A man once said to Sproul "Once I saw it (God as the cause of everything) it was right there on every page of the Bible", to which Sproul commented "He might have been exaggerating, it might be only every other page."


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> While trying to remain neutral, the rest of us would like to keep this place mostly self moderated. If you have a personal issue with bullet, a PM is the best way to clear that up. You may not realize this but your post appear to call him out intentionally - personally


We need one of these in here for the occasional spat  -


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> We need one of these in here for the occasional spat  -


? ? true


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Did you look back at that to which you did not respond:
> 
> 
> and
> ...


I’m slow sometimes hummer. It takes me few swipes to grasp what others are saying sometimes lol


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m slow sometimes hummer. It takes me few swipes to grasp what others are saying sometimes lol



As are we all.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> We need one of these in here for the occasional spat  -


One thing I’ve learned the hard way is a man believes what he believes because that’s where the “T’s” cross and the “i’s” all dot for him. No different than politics - you’re not taking that away from that man until he sees for himself the fallacy in what he believes is truth.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Ten four.  He rubs me the wrong way with the way he acts like this  is his forum and the nonsensical posturing about wanting discussion.  It turns into the same thing every time with him propping himself up as the resident intellectual and arbiter of what is allowed and not allowed all while throwing in a good dose of condescension and sarcasm.  It’s tedious.  But if others enjoy it it’s not my place to disrupt it.


Danuwoa, 
If you take a step back and look objectively, you are the one asserting the propping on my end.
I never claimed this was anyone's forum and it is especially not my forum. I along with the others (just like in most of the other forums) enjoy the conversations here. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate. If someone pops in and without adding to the topics at hand and their contribution is to troll a regular here something is usually said about it. If I am the target I have no problem saying something about it but then don't accuse me for defending myself and instead trying to make it look like I have nothing better to do than attack you and tell you to leave. I wasn't in here running my mouth about you and inserting my like or dislike for you while discussing the topic at hand. I don't feel the need to pop in the PF to post my thoughts about you. If I did it would not be tolerated same as it is not tolerated here. When I contribute in the PF, like here, it is on topic and is conversation. You don't troll me there because I am a gun toting, staunch 2nd Amendment supporting,  Constitution loving, Republican voting, liberal hating Hunter who reloads his own ammo. 
My self confidence and arrogance in here is no different than yours in the PF. You don't elaborate on policy or go in depth on political procedure but instead make "I do what I want, the Gov't doesn't control me, let em try to get me, I don't comply" posts. Difference between us is You just disagree with me in here.
"The usuals" in here always welcome participants and are always looking for someone who can add to the discussions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to vent your frustrations about me as your only and occasional posts to the AAA threads but don't accuse me of not wanting discussions when those are your only contributions and I am here as much as you are in the PF.  
You can always hit the Ignore button if I bother you that much that you can't handle it.
Or, live and let live.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> First nation culture(s) of North America I'm a bit ( somewhat) familiar with-- in that they claim a Creator God and their spiritual universe has elements that are sophisticated and understandable.
> 
> I don't mean that modern North American first nations who maintain their traditional spiritual beliefs are primitive as people or cultures. I mean that their spiritual belief and traditions are those of people who migrated from Asia to North America and were hunter-gatherers--fishers and farmers...


Are you familiar with the Sumerian religion? Hinduism?


----------



## Danuwoa (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Danuwoa,
> If you take a step back and look objectively, you are the one asserting the propping on my end.
> I never claimed this was anyone's forum and it is especially not my forum. I along with the others (just like in most of the other forums) enjoy the conversations here. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate. If someone pops in and without adding to the topics at hand and their contribution is to troll a regular here something is usually said about it. If I am the target I have no problem saying something about it but then don't accuse me for defending myself and instead trying to make it look like I have nothing better to do than attack you and tell you to leave. I wasn't in here running my mouth about you and inserting my like or dislike for you while discussing the topic at hand. I don't feel the need to pop in the PF to post my thoughts about you. If I did it would not be tolerated same as it is not tolerated here. When I contribute in the PF, like here, it is on topic and is conversation. You don't troll me there because I am a gun toting, staunch 2nd Amendment supporting,  Constitution loving, Republican voting, liberal hating Hunter who reloads his own ammo.
> My self confidence and arrogance in here is no different than yours in the PF. You don't elaborate on policy or go in depth on political procedure but instead make "I do what I want, the Gov't doesn't control me, let em try to get me, I don't comply" posts. Difference between us is You just disagree with me in here.
> ...



I was gonna make one post back there but you kept making follow up posts.  I could have let it drop but in the beginning I was gonna make the original post saying what I wanted to say and that was that.  Then you had to try and convince me how smart you are.  I dont see where my political posts are a whole lot different from those of most people but unlike some I tend to realize most of the problems discussed there are pretty complicated and none of us really know how to solve them.  I’m just willing to admit it and mostly just don’t want to be bossed around. 

As for this part of the board, like you say, I rarely post here.  You’re the main reason why.  And that’s because you say one thing and do another and act like everyone should be thankful for getting to read what you have to say.  That’s really about all there is to it.  There is no need to respond to this.  I do t see you the way you see you.  There’s no reason to try to convince me.  Enjoy your forum.  Nothing here that is interesting or useful to me.

And for the record, you don’t seem to understand what trolling is.  Telling somebody where you think they’re jacked up isn’t trolling.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I was gonna make one post back there but you kept making follow up posts.  I could have let it drop but in the beginning I was gonna make the original post saying what I wanted to say and that was that.  Then you had to try and convince me how smart you are.  I dont see where my political posts are a whole lot different from those of most people but unlike some I tend to realize most of the problems discussed there are pretty complicated and none of us really know how to solve them.  I’m just willing to admit it and mostly just don’t want to be bossed around.
> 
> As for this part of the board, like you say, I rarely post here.  You’re the main reason why.  And that’s because you say one thing and do another and act like everyone should be thankful for getting to read what you have to say.  That’s really about all there is to it.  There is no need to respond to this.  I do t see you the way you see you.  There’s no reason to try to convince me.  Enjoy your forum.  Nothing here that is interesting or useful to me.
> 
> And for the record, you don’t seem to understand what trolling is.  Telling somebody where you think they’re jacked up isn’t trolling.



There is a need for me to respond. 
You claim that you were going to make one post back there...and it was to incite a reaction from me, then you act shocked that I defend myself.

*Trolling *- What does *trolling *mean? What does *trolling *mean? A term that stands for the act of posting offensive or inflammatory comments to invoke some kind of reaction; often includes statements that are false yet sneaky so that people believe them.
the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone:
Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> There is a need for me to respond.
> 
> *Trolling *- What does *trolling *mean? What does *trolling *mean? A term that stands for the act of posting offensive or inflammatory comments to invoke some kind of reaction; often includes statements that are false yet sneaky so that people believe them.
> the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone:
> Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument.


Trolling is the process of making people unwitting performers for your own amusement.  See Kaufman, Andy.  Also, Malice, Michael.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Trolling is the process of making people unwitting performers for your own amusement.  See Kaufman, Andy.  Also, Malice, Michael.


You'll have to inform Cambridge that they have it wrong
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trolling


----------



## Danuwoa (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You'll have to inform Cambridge that they have it wrong
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trolling


Pass it on for me next time you’re hanging out with them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> It takes me few swipes to grasp what others are saying sometimes lol


Gemcgrew is looking in Israel's general direction...


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Are you familiar with the Sumerian religion? Hinduism?


Hinduism vaguely... Sumerian vaguely. Sumerians aligned themselves to be  spiritually headed under their native prophet. Hinduism is all over the place or somewhere in their great Mandala--at the same time.

Why?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Hinduism vaguely... Sumerian vaguely. Sumerians aligned themselves to be  spiritually headed under their native prophet. Hinduism is all over the place or somewhere in their great Mandala.


When you get time,  check into the Sumerian stories, beliefs and practices that were incorporated into Judaism and then later Christianity.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> When you get time,  check into the Sumerian stories, beliefs and practices that were incorporated into Judaism and then later Christianity.




Ah yes I know what your getting at. Never the less I will look into it sometime when I have time. I know that there are many similarities in the biblical accounts with those of other traditions and that the significance has been debated and positions taken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Ah yes I know what your getting at. Never the less I will look into it sometime when I have time. I know that there are many similarities in the biblical accounts with those of other traditions and that the significance has been debated and positions taken.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity


There are many things told in Sumerian religious stories that happened to them which were written a thousand+ years before it "happened" in the Bible.
It doesn't seem possible or logical that it could happen for the first time twice. 
It is more logical and probable that other people  borrowed stories that had already existed previously and incorporated them into their tales as they became a culture. As people gravitated out of the Sumerian areas and expanded into their own the tales came with them and were adapted to fit.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> There are many things told in Sumerian religious stories that happened to them which were written a thousand+ years before it "happened" in the Bible.
> It doesn't seem possible or logical that it could happen for the first time twice.
> It is more logical and probable that other people  borrowed stories that had already existed previously and incorporated them into their tales as they became a culture. As people gravitated out of the Sumerian areas and expanded into their own the tales came with them and were adapted to fit.


Interestingly, I’ve been reading a little about the different accounts of the “flood”, last glacial maximum and the sea levels. Pretty interesting stuff.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> There are many things told in Sumerian religious stories that happened to them which were written a thousand+ years before it "happened" in the Bible.
> It doesn't seem possible or logical that it could happen for the first time twice.
> It is more logical and probable that other people  borrowed stories that had already existed previously and incorporated them into their tales as they became a culture. As people gravitated out of the Sumerian areas and expanded into their own the tales came with them and were adapted to fit.



Any links? This would be very interesting. Can you give examples of things that had happened thuosand of your before it "happened " in the bible?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 1, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Did you look back at that to which you did not respond:
> 
> 
> and
> ...





> which, if considered, would show that your choice is not "free" but influenced, and dependent upon, many prior factors. which are dependent on other prior factors, etc.


Seems like that ^ is just basic human psychology? Or falls under the "Thats just how the human brain works" category?
Every choice our noggins make is influenced by SOMETHING. Whether we realize what that something is or not.
To deny that psychology, if thats your criteria, would literally make "free choice" a human impossibility.
No?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 1, 2021)

Oh Bullet I just broke in and responded to hummer's post without getting your prior approval. Sorry about that and it wont happen again. 
I truly feel blessed to participate in your forum.
Peace be with you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh Bullet I just broke in and responded to hummer's post without getting your prior approval. Sorry about that and it wont happen again.
> I truly feel blessed to participate in your forum.
> Peace be with you.


I will allow it, now be gone and leave me to my throne.


Wife just looked at me for cracking up out loud.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like that ^ is just basic human psychology? Or falls under the "Thats just how the human brain works" category?
> Every choice our noggins make is influenced by SOMETHING. Whether we realize what that something is or not.
> To deny that psychology, if thats your criteria, would literally make "free choice" a human impossibility.
> No?


I’m good with the power of choice isn’t free, but not so inclined to bite on the “no choice” biscuit. Mainly, I’m not really following it where makes sense to me.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I will allow it, now be gone and leave me to my throne.
> 
> 
> Wife just looked at me for cracking up out loud.


You’re busted now lol


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Any links? This would be very interesting. Can you give examples of things that had happened thuosand of your before it "happened " in the bible?


The Epic of Gilgamesh was written about 1000 years before the Hebrew Bible
The story talks about a world wide flood caused by a god because he was displeased with the humans for keeping him awake.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You’re busted now lol


I really laughed when she said
"GON again?"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Any links? This would be very interesting. Can you give examples of things that had happened thuosand of your before it "happened " in the bible?


This will give you some things to research further.
http://moreesemadu.com/ancient-texts-before-the-bible/

Creation of man
https://www.ancient-origins.net/new...-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2021)

More for you Gordon, I am trying to find links that talk about more than one example 
https://www.bibleandscience.com/history/sumerians.htm


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m good with the power of choice isn’t free, but not so inclined to bite on the “no choice” biscuit. Mainly, I’m not really following it where makes sense to me.


Nobody, to my knowledge, is advocating "no choice".


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Nobody, to my knowledge, is advocating "no choice".


Maybe not here, I’m just saying in general there are those that do. I think I finally wrapped my head around the thoughts of your, Israel and humners comments.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe not here, I’m just saying in general there are those that do.


I do in certain conversations. An example would be "I was not first consulted in the matter of existing in the first place. I had no choice in the matter".


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 1, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I do in certain conversations. An example would be "I was not first consulted in the matter of existing in the first place. I had no choice in the matter".


Lol well, in that case……


----------



## Israel (Jul 2, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I do in certain conversations. An example would be "I was not first consulted in the matter of existing in the first place. I had no choice in the matter".




Haireses, from which we get the word heresies,  is an interesting word.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 2, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like that ^ is just basic human psychology? Or falls under the "Thats just how the human brain works" category?
> Every choice our noggins make is influenced by SOMETHING. Whether we realize what that something is or not.
> To deny that psychology, if thats your criteria, would literally make "free choice" a human impossibility.
> No?



Sounds right to me, with emphasis on the word "basic".  It relates to the foundations of what we commonly call psychology/psychiatry.

Most would agree that we are influenced "but" ...; and the but will then include what they themselves (the big *"I"*) have power over.  Then comes the infinite reduction, etc.


----------



## Israel (Jul 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Sounds right to me, with emphasis on the word "basic".  It relates to the foundations of what we commonly call psychology/psychiatry.
> 
> Most would agree that we are influenced "but" ...; and the but will then include what they themselves (the big *"I"*) have power over.  Then comes the infinite reduction, etc.


And if reduced do you imagine (believe? think?) somewhere along the way of that reduction their sovereignty "of themselves" will eventually be revealed as the worm riddled basis for which they cannot but help utter every lie that makes their lips move?

For we do not wrestle with flesh and blood...


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 2, 2021)

Israel said:


> And if reduced do you imagine (believe? think?) somewhere along the way of that reduction their sovereignty "of themselves" will eventually be revealed as the worm riddled basis for which they cannot but help utter every lie that makes their lips move?
> 
> For we do not wrestle with flesh and blood...



I think you may very well be on to something.


----------



## Israel (Jul 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I think you may very well be on to something.


Your first observation and comments show me you were well on to it way before any occasion of my commenting.

But it is interesting how it works...this most serious perversion of a truth.

"Let God be true and every man a liar" is curiously twisted to

''I am true and every _other man_ is a liar"

A most perverse insertion of status imagined.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 2, 2021)

Israel said:


> Your first observation and comments show me you were well on to it way before any occasion of my commenting.
> 
> But it is interesting how it works...this most serious perversion of a truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 2, 2021)

"Allow perseverance to finish its work, so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."


" ... get rid of all moral filth and every expression of evil, and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save your souls. "

"Be doers of the word, and not hearers only."
---------------------------


It seems to me that one has the ability to sell out and so having a choice in that hearing and accepting the word in me, I might yet find or have all kinds of excuses to not do. It seems that having the word of evil in me I can have the choice to not do, and having the word (Christ) in me I have the choice to not do.

So I have devils on one shoulder and the heavenly host on the other. Being Adam before the fall, within the image of God, and to Adam after the fall out of the image of God,  I can name left and right? Who am (I)? Who is (I)?


----------



## Israel (Jul 3, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> The bible does talk about signs of his coming, not him here, as if he's taken residence. Jesus will not return until after the antichrist has taken his position in the roles portrayed by the bible. Only after the antichrist has set himself up as the christ, in this position of imposter, will Jesus return. Some might think that it's not time when viewed this way. But.... apply that a belief system is already in place of that hypothetical false, imposter christ.... is already alive and well. Hmmm, but not until after the ten horns have given authority to the head. LOL, I pointed out once that CARM discussion had the perfect display. They used to have subforms of beliefs under different headings. Discussion for which ever faith you wanted. Trinitarian belief had 10 sub forums... Baptist, methodist, Catholics, etc. Added up to 10. CARM added a few such as "home church" after I pointed this out in a debate
> ,


If I hear you at all with any like understanding, while many are saying things like "the (material/physical) Temple must be rebuilt first before the Lord's appearing" thus setting a chronology of comfort...or imposing as it were a limit of allowance upon the Lord's coming as saying "this cannot happen until _we see_ this happen..." are themselves deceiving themselves?

Just as the fullness of time in which Christ has come in the flesh (as revealed to His apostle(s)...) all must be revealed lest a man be fooled/deceived in his own believing as to "how" He must come. Even as He was found unacceptable in form when "coming to His own". Even though...yes, even though precisely "their own" prophets spoke of such. Those upon whom they believed they took their stand even boasting "we are Abraham's seed"...and "had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets"...but Jesus pointed out their folly in their identity. And Abraham's rejoicing in the day of Christ.

What does it profit a man to say "I (or we) believe Paul (and/or the whole of the Bible for that matter) and our fellowship is solely around the truth of the scriptures" (so to speak) laying claim to being "Bible based"...yet...not receiving Paul's testimony of His revelation that "ye are the Temple..." (even preceded by "know ye not?)...so that men, to whatever measure ignoring this...are still claiming God must have respect in His "timeline" to the reconstruction of a material temple. Or whatever matters they lay claim to as necessity_ to their seeing_ first...in so limiting God's plan and purpose as dependent upon their understanding.

Paul knew there was an _operation already at work_ in "his time" that must surely follow upon the delivery of the gospel in truth. Jesus spoke plainly of it...and Paul came to understand. "Satan cometh immediately..." And as Paul said "grievous wolves should arise from among their very own selves" after his departure. While some (many?) men still say " but _we must see_ a great falling away first"...not knowing; by making the Lord _subject to their seeing. _And not (yet) coming to submit their sight to Christ alone.

"This is the work of God, that you believe upon Him whom He has sent" and the patience shown therein toward those of His to believe is so great that that apostle, Paul was not too timid to say (as according to Peter, also) "Account the patience/longsuffering of God as salvation". It is not "like salvation"...but salvation itself...to begin to see this.

Had Jesus spoken in much yes and no and left us to fend for ourselves as orphans not continuing in His appearing (to those who have loved it and Him)...again even as Paul spoke...we know no man could come to the conviction of His being _all of truth._
Just as a man discovers "If I say you will all abandon me...you surely will...despite any and all protests of your own faithfulness to excess". (The Lord even bearing such contradiction...but not without response)

So, we begin to see things...even things we may not once have wanted to possibly imagine might pertain to us...simply because the Lord (and only because the Lord) has said them. This setting/settling of matters to their course is no "maybe" any more than "maybe" light might come to be after the Lord has said "let there be light"...for if we know who speaks through the frame of Jesus Christ _in His authority. _

In that way...even the mentioned above "Satan cometh immediately" is a course set to that work...all principalities and powers no less subject to the Lord's word than every molecule being kept in place in the farthest (even unseen) nebulae.

All ground a man might hope in for standing other than mercy has a curious in/outworking in the man in its removal. There is suffering in seeing the once precious reduced to a defiling. There is a great reluctance (ha!...that doesn't begin to describe it!) to know the man who so needs mercy. For the necessity of it speaks to his estate; not a drop of righteousness/rightness of his own to present...and what man could endure such...except he be supported by a stronger hand? Who is able to deliver from the he11ish "quid pro quo" upon which all attempts to ascend are owed to dust?

But that is the "how" of how it is.

This winnowing away of all things temporal and corruptible no matter how firmly their pillars seem planted in our earth "What things were once advantage to me" is testified to by men esteemed...as either fools, liars, or worthy guides. But none of them testifies of any disappointment in being brought to see the Lord's righteousness...even as their own is made to be seen as offal in their own sight. Gladly abandoned as the once trusted ballast but now only seen mere weights.

Paul understood. "Who is equal to such a task?"

To the one _we are_ the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who _is_ sufficient for these things?

and another finished and said...

"Little children keep yourselves from idols..."


There is nothing hidden except to be revealed.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> This will give you some things to research further.
> http://moreesemadu.com/ancient-texts-before-the-bible/
> 
> Creation of man
> https://www.ancient-origins.net/new...-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065




Regards the Mo'reese madu list of ancient texts--narratives and laws---... note that Moses was an Egyptian. Personally it is my understanding that the genius of his ( Moses') narratives is not their origin, but rather his ( Moses') monotheism. Where did Moses get his single God from? After all he was of a culture where the number of gods changed with the change of administrations. I suspect that Moses ( a sophisticated and cultured man) was introduced or the God of the *Bedouin ( less worldly sophisticated people than him but of dynamic spiritual culture) * introduced himself to Moses when he was on the run for murdering an Egyptian man. I suspect he would have had the same psychology as any man who had murdered and possibly this with his spiritual nature made him understand and do as we know him today. Add also to this the possible conflicts  between Egyptian and Bedouin neighbors as a source of Moses' actions.

I suspect that had Moses been to the 21th century he would have seen in the Native American spiritual texts or accounts his single powerful creator God.

The Sumerian text is very interesting... basically it is similar to the Garden of Eden account. Again I would say it is not important where or from what people the account comes from and that it would be the basis for parts of Genesis.

The spiritual stories of our ancestors are subject to their human experiences from which their relationship to God (gods-man)  can be gathered. For someone like Moses they supply a scaffolding, sometimes material as in material expressions for his purposes.  What makes Moses' use valid are the meanings his accounts contain ( the truths of man's collective experience) and not so much where he got his material to build the edifice which is the footing of scripture as we know it.

So Moses was an Egyptian and the tent that guides day and night the Hebrews in the desert is basically the Pharaoh's war tent but occupied by God. To understand Moses' and his God it is useful to know this. What the war tent meant to the Pharaohs says alot about the relationship God had with Moses the Egyptian and possibly Moses the Bedouin. The God of the Bedouin gets into an Egyptian war tent and well... you know the rest of the story....

Today the temple God occupies is different someone recently said. Same God however, different times.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Regards the Mo'reese madu list of ancient texts--narratives and laws---... note that Moses was an Egyptian. Personally it is my understanding that the genius of his ( Moses') narratives is not their origin, but rather his ( Moses') monotheism. Where did Moses get his single God from? After all he was of a culture where the number of gods changed with the change of administrations. I suspect that Moses ( a sophisticated and cultured man) was introduced or the God of the *Bedouin ( less worldly sophisticated people than him but of dynamic spiritual culture) * introduced himself to Moses when he was on the run for murdering an Egyptian man. I suspect he would have had the same psychology as any man who had murdered and possibly this with his spiritual nature made him understand and do as we know him today.
> 
> I suspect that had Moses been to the 21th century he would have seen in the Native American spiritual texts or accounts his single powerful creator God.
> 
> ...


Moses is a remake tale of a tale that was told previously which was adapted to fit the new audience.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Moses is a remake tale of a tale that was told previously which was adapted to fit the new audience.




Yes... " to fit new audience".  Right. But don't forget for a believer the tales contain constants which are not mere tales, but these ( constants) are the also important sources for their telling. The meaning is in the message is what is important to the believer.  The remake is refined by the source or purpose of the origin for an account as man's ability to assessments is dispersed by time. They ( accounts) are not accounts for their own sakes or for entertaining. They are accounts of man's cleaving to hear and understand his spiritual nature and within man's spiritual nature.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 3, 2021)

In regards to your question, "some believe in the literal word and others read between the lines", I would break this down even more. Some read the book like a devotional. They generally are looking for righteous inspiration, very good people trying to live a righteous life that would please God. They rarely know anything about the bible other than what they have heard from a modern day preacher. Their content knowledge comes from the latest and greatest bible socalled expert. 

I myself believe that the bible is inspired... yet tainted by mankinds influence, probably not a surprise to God.  Jesus spoke in parables. If salvation was for all, [ I should point out right there to look at salvation differently. Salvation from death, not he1l. ] then why did Jesus speak in parables? Why were their things Paul was not  permitted to say? Why did Jesus speak of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear? The word "all" and "whosoever" is used incorrectly in the bible. Jesus said only those who come to me, those my Father has given me... Just as God  chose the Israelite's out of slavery to reveal himself to, he chooses whom he will reveal himself to. He gives the keys of the kingdom to whom he chooses. We don't get to decide. We don't get to "open anyone's eyes" or pass out keys. Jesus preached as if they were not his to give either. This belief, that the Holy Spirit is our teacher, that we need no man to say "know the Lord" makes people very uncomfortable. This belief is a quiet belief that waits patiently for the Lord to do his work in our given lifetime but was once a target of a witch hunt where the church hunted for and flushed out for the kill anyone they deemed as "knostic". Later the word Knostic took on a new meaning as the church blamed everything on them. It's not like they went around saying "I know more than you". 

Another way is how you look at the bible. 98% of people claim "the patience of Job". How blind religion is. Here it is and you won't find this anywhere else if you google for days. Job has nothing to do with patience. Job was a good man. Job did do good things however Job had to have his mindset fixed if he were to enter the gates of heaven one day. Good people don't deserve anything from God. God owes us nothing. Chapter after chapter we see Job try to justify himself to God. On and on and on. And on. Eventually job gives up his self righteousness as justification and admits that he is not deserving of God's favor. Only after he gives it up did God restore a life to him. 

Solomon's writings... people take pride in quoting the wisdom displayed by Solomon. Solomon is a picture of who we would become if God gave us everything we desired. Solomon had fame, power, wealth, women, etc. And supposedly had wisdom. We all like to think we are wise. Solomon wrote about love. Solomon knew nothing about love. Nothing. He had hundreds of wives. Solomon wrote about being a good father. He knew nothing about being a good father. He likely had hundreds of kids that he knew not their names. As Solomon turned over every rock in this world looking for something to make him happy [ LOL, 100 wives were  not enough... he kept looking] he eventually showed himself to be a poor wretched old man whom in the end was envious of the man with the love of one wife with a less than average job. 

Thus my point, The bible is interpreted from different view points


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2021)

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx


gordon 2 said:


> Yes... " to fit new audience".  Right. But don't forget for a believer the tales contain constants which are not mere tales, but these ( constants) are the also important sources for their telling. The meaning is in the message is what is important to the believer.  The remake is refined by the source or purpose of the origin for an account as man's ability to assessments is dispersed by time. They ( accounts) are not accounts for their own sakes or for entertaining. They are accounts of man's cleaving to hear and understand his and within man's spiritual nature.


Accounts of man, told by men , changed to suit over centuries. While spiritual in nature they do not come from a God and are not a literal historical account of how the Jewish people came to be. 
Whether or not someone (a believer) believes it does not make it true, believing in it allows the evolving tales to perpetuate until they ultimately change to suit again.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx
> 
> Accounts of man, told by men , changed to suit over centuries. While spiritual in nature they do not come from a God and are not a literal historical account of how the Jewish people came to be.
> Whether or not someone (a believer) believes it does not make it true, believing in it allows the evolving tales to perpetuate until they ultimately change to suit again.


I will give a Erhman type of answer, although not from Erhman, basically, whether you believe it or not is beside the point, just conversing about the book and it's contents.  The underlying implied context of the early bible is that there was a God. One God. Yet lots of beliefs about this God or multiple Gods. Possibly... many writings of such, dating back to who knows how far.  Much speculation about this topic of God. God then chose a group to reveal "the one true God" to. 

End response on that topic, random thoughts continue






Much like it is today. And likely a picture of today to be applied for today.  So, this one God decided to reveal himself, not to the world, but rather to chose a lowly, humble group. He did not set out to reveal himself to all. Only the Jews. He did not set out to reveal himself in a day. He was like a blank check. "I will be who I will be". In other words, you will not know me by a visual, somebody you met at the water hole. You will know me by what I do.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2021)

Something to consider:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/shavuot-and-moses-0013786

https://grahamhancock.com/moses-akhenaten-same-person-osman/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Something to consider:
> 
> https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/shavuot-and-moses-0013786
> 
> https://grahamhancock.com/moses-akhenaten-same-person-osman/


Interesting reading however a sign that something was generated and inserted back into antiquity is often revealed by the amount of  info. Or to complete. As with Jesus, very little was written about him in his own day. It was years later that it went from word of mouth to paper. This piece presented is suspect because it's to complete, as if someone created it. I suppose I should allow room for someone to fill in any gaps to make it more readable, however, I would not expect it to have the potential for much more detail than our early bible writings? Just thinking out loud. But as a believer in the bible, naturally one could predict that I would assume as much. So.... here I respond with little to no opposing proof. I guess that's why we call it a discussion forum


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 3, 2021)

If the Lord comes back, there's probably gonna be a lot of very surprised people who think they've got him all figured out.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting reading however a sign that something was generated and inserted back into antiquity is often revealed by the amount of  info. Or to complete. As with Jesus, very little was written about him in his own day. It was years later that it went from word of mouth to paper. This piece presented is suspect because it's to complete, as if someone created it. I suppose I should allow room for someone to fill in any gaps to make it more readable, however, I would not expect it to have the potential for much more detail than our early bible writings? Just thinking out loud. But as a believer in the bible, naturally one could predict that I would assume as much. So.... here I respond with little to no opposing proof. I guess that's why we call it a discussion forum


Seems as though the Egyptians inserted him into contemporary history.
https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bib...khenaten-habiru-abiru-hebrews-1404-1340bc.htm


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 3, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> If the Lord comes back, there's probably gonna be a lot of very surprised people who think they've got him all figured out.


I might substitute "when", or add "within the time frame of our current socio-cultural and ecclesiastical climate"; but I would definitely suggest removing "probably" from your statement (which I like very much).


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx
> 
> Accounts of man, told by men , changed to suit over centuries. While spiritual in nature they do not come from a God and are not a literal historical account of how the Jewish people came to be.
> Whether or not someone (a believer) believes it does not make it true, believing in it allows the evolving tales to perpetuate until they ultimately change to suit again.



I'm a bit saddened you see it this way. As an example, at least some of the First Nations of North America say that their important and serious stories change on purpose so that they can be relevant to a changing people. I understand that the essential to their stories are not lost, but the features are changed, because the environments and people change and the needs can be different.


Spiritually I need more than the literal historical account of how the Jewish people came to be. ( For me, the spiritual nature of a people account for alot in who they are and in who they are going to be.) History will only have a glancing comment about this generally.

And  that the inspiration to write or put down or relate such stories is not from God is just your opinion. You have no prof for this, you have opinion?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I'm a bit saddened you see it this way. As an example, at least some of the First Nations of North America say that their important and serious stories change on purpose so that they can be relevant to a changing people. I understand that the essential to their stories are not lost, but the features are changed, because the environments and people change and the needs can be different.
> 
> 
> Spiritually I need more than the literal historical account of how the Jewish people came to be. ( For me, the spiritual nature of a people account for alot in who they are and in who they are going to be.) History will only have a glancing comment about this generally.
> ...


I think gods inspired many writings. I never said they did not. Writings, songs, movies, daily life is inspired by many things.
Inspiration is not  participation.
The results of inspiration often have no involvement of who did the inspiring. 

We all know, including you, that god or Jesus never wrote a thing down. We know that the contents of the bible was written, independently, over a span of 1500+ years by mostly anonymous authors and it was assembled. That is not my opinion.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think gods inspired many writings. I never said they did not. Writings, songs, movies, daily life is inspired by many things.
> Inspiration is not  participation.
> The results of inspiration often have no involvement of who did the inspiring.
> 
> We all know, including you, that god or Jesus never wrote a thing down. We know that the contents of the bible was written, independently, over a span of 1500+ years by mostly anonymous authors and it was assembled. That is not my opinion.


Having a relationship is more than reading those stories. I think that’s where some non believers are misguided - we don’t believe because what’s written, we believe because we’ve actually experienced and can personally relate to some of what’s written, so there’s “participation”.

Stories written after the fact aren’t much different than preachers today preaching what “God gave them” from the pulpit.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think gods inspired many writings. I never said they did not. Writings, songs, movies, daily life is inspired by many things.
> Inspiration is not  participation.
> The results of inspiration often have no involvement of who did the inspiring.
> 
> We all know, including you, that god or Jesus never wrote a thing down. We know that the contents of the bible was written, independently, over a span of 1500+ years by mostly anonymous authors and it was assembled. That is not my opinion.




"The results of inspiration often have no involvement of who did the inspiring." Can you explain this a bit more?

I would agree with what you are saying for the most part. The writings time span is about as you say. They were assembled. I have to disagree that God did not participate in their writing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> "The results of inspiration often have no involvement of who did the inspiring." Can you explain this a bit more?
> 
> I would agree with what you are saying for the most part. The writings time span is about as you say. They were assembled. I have to disagree that God did not participate in their writing.


A person goes for a hike, they happen across a beautiful scenic sunset over a lake.
They are inspired to paint that scene or sketch it.
The sunset did not give that person magical powers that allows them to paint or draw all of a sudden. They have always had that talent, they used their talent to paint a scene that inspired them.

A guy frequents a diner. He thinks a waitress is cute. They talk a lot and he finds out she is single. It inspires him to want to work out and get in better shape so maybe he has a better chance at getting a date.
She inspired him to work out but did not command him to work out. She did not give him a workout schedule. She didn't control his legs on the treadmill.

Much as believing in a god would do. A man like Israel could write novels about Jesus. He has the ability to eloquently piece things together. He regularly in here tells us what Jesus thinks, how Jesus feels now. He is able to put in writing a conversation Jesus had or may have. I do not think Jesus is whispering to him in an earpiece what to write .  I am pretty sure Jesus isn't mailing him copies and telling Izzy to put his name on them. I really have my doubts that Israel is sitting there and they keys are being typed by Jesus.
What I would say is happening is that Israel's love of Jesus inspires him. His talent allows it to flow as only he can. I see Israel as biblical author quality.
We all know that there are many other believers but no matter how inspired they are can't put their feelings into words or make up a story and continue it for hundreds of pages.
I am lucky that I can spell my own name. I type a lot of blabber in what could be said better in 4 sentences. I am not a novel capable person.
1500+ years 40+ mostly anonymous authors (these guys were not without writing talent) and what was written out of untold amounts was assembled to tell the tale wanted told. It has been written, translated, translated again, translated again and times that by all the different languages it is in now.
If a god was in fact guiding the quill, if a god in fact chose the authors, if a god in fact can forsee the mistakes due to translation, human error, scientific error, historical inaccuracies, contradictions etc etc etc he/she/it did not do a very good job.
Man is capable of tremendous things. 
Literature in many forms has been tremendous. 
The bible is a tremendous collection of works especially for the times.
But it is not god quality, which, even tremendous does not come close to approaching.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Having a relationship is more than reading those stories. I think that’s where some non believers are misguided - we don’t believe because what’s written, we believe because we’ve actually experienced and can personally relate to some of what’s written, so there’s “participation”.
> 
> Stories written after the fact aren’t much different than preachers today preaching what “God gave them” from the pulpit.


If what you say is credible criteria then believers in many religions all over the world are on as equal footing as you are.

Last week some villagers were throwing grain offerings into a volcano to keep their god happy. They KNOW what he is like when he is not pleased. They have a relationship. They have experiences. They can relate.

I am not convinced that it is the non believer who is misguided.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I'm a bit saddened you see it this way. As an example, at least some of the First Nations of North America say that their important and serious stories change on purpose so that they can be relevant to a changing people. I understand that the essential to their stories are not lost, but the features are changed, because the environments and people change and the needs can be different.


What are their claims about the stories? Do they say that their stories are the infallible inerrant words of GOD? Does it say anywhere in the bible that these stories are designed to be altered to suit?




gordon 2 said:


> Spiritually I need more than the literal historical account of how the Jewish people came to be. ( For me, the spiritual nature of a people account for alot in who they are and in who they are going to be.) History will only have a glancing comment about this generally.


Spiritually seems to mean "Suspend reality, ignore facts, and do not accept evidence that shows what really happened(or did not happen) does not match the stories of my religion"



gordon 2 said:


> And  that the inspiration to write or put down or relate such stories is not from God is just your opinion. You have no prof for this, you have opinion?


I have higher expectations of your god than you do.
I deal in "more likely than not " scenarios.
I cannot prove something for which there is no evidence of no more than you can. That does not make the initial outlandish claim true though.

Can you prove Bigfoot is not "god" and that the Exalted King Bigfoot of High is not the inspiration for the bible?

Of course you can't,  but you will shake your head at such a ridiculous statement. It is so ridiculous that it is not worth even trying to explain why it is unbelievable let alone hold a conversation about it. Yet still for the life of you there is nothing that you could come up with as proof that it is wrong.
Yet that is what you expect of non believers when outlandish assertions are made that exist in the mind of a believer.


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> In regards to your question, "some believe in the literal word and others read between the lines", I would break this down even more. Some read the book like a devotional. They generally are looking for righteous inspiration, very good people trying to live a righteous life that would please God. They rarely know anything about the bible other than what they have heard from a modern day preacher. Their content knowledge comes from the latest and greatest bible socalled expert.
> 
> I myself believe that the bible is inspired... yet tainted by mankinds influence, probably not a surprise to God.  Jesus spoke in parables. If salvation was for all, [ I should point out right there to look at salvation differently. Salvation from death, not he1l. ] then why did Jesus speak in parables? Why were their things Paul was not  permitted to say? Why did Jesus speak of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear? The word "all" and "whosoever" is used incorrectly in the bible. Jesus said only those who come to me, those my Father has given me... Just as God  chose the Israelite's out of slavery to reveal himself to, he chooses whom he will reveal himself to. He gives the keys of the kingdom to whom he chooses. We don't get to decide. We don't get to "open anyone's eyes" or pass out keys. Jesus preached as if they were not his to give either. This belief, that the Holy Spirit is our teacher, that we need no man to say "know the Lord" makes people very uncomfortable. This belief is a quiet belief that waits patiently for the Lord to do his work in our given lifetime but was once a target of a witch hunt where the church hunted for and flushed out for the kill anyone they deemed as "knostic". Later the word Knostic took on a new meaning as the church blamed everything on them. It's not like they went around saying "I know more than you".
> 
> ...



Yes, the matter of perspective is essential.


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2021)

The gospel is no more difficult to believe than for a man to know he is the most desperately wicked of sinners despite his own comforting comparisons to others.

Wretched beyond his own ability to see to utter despair of himself. 

Till then Christ remains an optional accessory.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> The gospel is no more difficult to believe than for a man to know he is the most desperately wicked of sinners despite his own comforting comparisons to others.
> 
> Wretched beyond his own ability to see to utter despair of himself.
> 
> Till then Christ remains an optional accessory.


If that was true this forum wouldn't exist


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2021)

The question of how much does God see and know is never far from how blind can a man be.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> The question of how much does God see and know is never far from how blind can a man be.


The question of how much wood can a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood is never far from how toothless can a woodchuck be.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night.


bullethead said:


> A person goes for a hike, they happen across a beautiful scenic sunset over a lake.
> They are inspired to paint that scene or sketch it.
> The sunset did not give that person magical powers that allows them to paint or draw all of a sudden. They have always had that talent, they used their talent to paint a scene that inspired them.
> 
> ...



When we try to understand someone we not only understand due to what they convey but we also ask who they are. What is their purpose? what is their motivation. We ask what authority and skill do they have to share the information they put forward? And how do they arrange the information? What is the format? But most importantly what is the origin for the message.

The origin of the messages in scripture is so universal to the individual and also international that  scripture has  communicated through time to many different people(s) as to culture and habit basically the same messages. If the origin for the communications is God and if the relationship between people (s) and God is what is talked about in the messages then  God who has been the origin for scripture is very successful. 

About control and God. 

"Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night."

I think that sometimes folks see God from different sides of a mountain... and that mountain is time. Sometimes times means the centuries, but sometimes time means the time we decided who God is and have not moved much from there.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The question of how much wood can a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood is never far from how toothless can a woodchuck be.


Which differs from how sharp can a woodchuck's teeth be in perspective only.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night.


God has regrets?




gordon 2 said:


> When we try to understand someone we not only understand due to what they convey but we also ask who they are. What is their purpose? what is their motivation. We ask what authority and skill do they have to share the information they put forward? And how do they arrange the information? What is the format? But most importantly what is the origin for the message.


Where do you get those answers from?
What do you understand about me?
If you've read Hemingway, did his writing allow you to understand that he was a suicidal drunk, bad father, unfaithful husband and an egomaniac? Or did his talent hide that from his work?



gordon 2 said:


> The origin of the messages in scripture is so universal to the individual and also international that  scripture has  communicated through time to many different people(s) as to culture and habit basically the same messages. If the origin for the communications is God and if the relationship between people (s) and God is what is talked about in the messages then  God who has been the origin for scripture is very successful.


So universal? Universal like EVERYONE understands it UNIVERSALLY? Or while it has been widely distributed even believers in here disagree about what it means?  That does not sound successful.



gordon 2 said:


> About control and God.


Most definitely,  but I think we come to that for different reasons.



gordon 2 said:


> "Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night."
> 
> I think that sometimes folks see God from different sides of a mountain... and that mountain is time. Sometimes times means the centuries, but sometimes time means the time we decided who God is and have not moved much from there.


Lots of thoughts about God and gods nothing is ever shown to be more accurate than another regarding the details


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Which differs from how sharp can a woodchuck's teeth be in perspective only.


Truth


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night.


bullethead said:


> What are their claims about the stories? Do they say that their stories are the infallible inerrant words of GOD? Does it say anywhere in the bible that these stories are designed to be altered to suit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like the way you think. You have excellent or outstanding thinking skills. Your a natural. To me what your getting at is understandable because it asks natural proofs for supernatural phenomenon because believe that supernatural phenomenon does not exist or is superstition.  

On the other hand by believing in the supernatural I ( Gordon 2) can have a reasoning and beliefs that explain both the natural and supernatural and that in both their are profs available for the other and that this is in fact natural to man.

So to my mind I can prove that Big Foot is not the god of the bible. When I'm desperate for example or when I'm overjoyed for example it is not the spirit of Big foot that comes to mind, nor would have been to the Hebrews, as the answer to my/our desperations or the causes for joy-happiness-thankfulness.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> God has regrets?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




About Hemingway. He was a World War one combatant and as such was of the lost generation.

Let me tell you something about his generation that they at the time probably did not know about themselves:

They had collective PTSD. And Christendom was blown apart. What was left to do for crazy artists trying to steady themselves? Rum? Mistresses ( young mistresses)? Fights and fighting to survive? Adventures... going someplace else where the colors might overwhelm what one fought so hard to forget and  not to feel.


I was lucky to have been a deep sea sport fishing guide for that generation of famous people. I learned from these Hemingways how two world wars and the new economic entity of the corporation had shaped them in their relationships. They were the people of Life Magazine: Photographs. There was a fault line in them, like people who had or have everything but their pasts which would be a hard thing to ever bring up.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If what you say is credible criteria then believers in many religions all over the world are on as equal footing as you are.
> 
> Last week some villagers were throwing grain offerings into a volcano to keep their god happy. They KNOW what he is like when he is not pleased. They have a relationship. They have experiences. They can relate.
> 
> I am not convinced that it is the non believer who is misguided.


I’m sure their gods serve them well.

If I was a non believer and knew the Bible story I’d know exactly what that statement means. - in his heart Lucifer said “I will be like the Most High”.

The intent of my statement “Having a relationship is more than reading those stories. I think that’s where some non believers are misguided” is to say that some non believers are misguided in the idea that they have what I’m experiencing all figured out. Has nothing to do with considering everything else equally.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, "in your mind" is what I have been saying all along.
And again, these stories did not originate with the Hebrews, which is where this part of the conversation started. 
If we connect the two above, In your mind you (due to your faith) choose to disconnect worldly evidence in favor of the make beleive because those things are what you want to Make yourself believe despite the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> About Hemingway. He was a World War one combatant and as such was of the lost generation.
> 
> Let me tell you something about his generation that they at the time probably did not know about themselves:
> 
> ...


Did you get that information from his writings?
What do you know about the anonymous authors in the bible? What can you know when you don't even know their names?

I don't disagree with you on your assessment and I cannot agree more strongly that the WW1 and WW2 Generation of men and women are 2nd to none.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m sure their gods serve them well.
> 
> If I was a non believer and knew the Bible story I’d know exactly what that statement means. - in his heart Lucifer said “I will be like the Most High”.
> 
> The intent of my statement “Having a relationship is more than reading those stories. I think that’s where some non believers are misguided” is to say that some non believers are misguided in the idea that they have what I’m experiencing all figured out. Has nothing to do with considering everything else equally.


Those non believers have you figured out equally as well as you have another believer of another religion figured out.

Sayinging a non believer who reads the bible would know exactly what a statement about the devil means is sooo Christian. Well not the Christians that do not believe in the devil who also read the same Bible... but.....


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

My mind, my consciousness is formed of things seen and unseen. It also has an element where abstractions are elemental to communications ie. in communication and understanding. When I look at scripture, into scripture I look for the abstractions because the things at first seen can often mask what is being said. So I read between the line, or read in the abstractions... to see if they conform to what I know about other abstractions.

So the devil might be indeed in the details and the Divine in the abstractions. So proofs of the reality of the Divine cannot come from detail. They can only be entertained as from that part of consciousness which is the element of abstraction or imagery. The aspect of consciousness which cleaves to abstractions is most likely where we would fine a cause for our spiritual nature. Maybe.


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2021)

I'm persuaded only One God serves man well.

Who _is_ like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,

Who humbleth _himself_ to behold _the things that are_ in heaven, and in the earth!

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, _and_ lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;

That he may set _him_ with princes, _even_ with the princes of his people.

He maketh the barren woman to keep house, _and to be_ a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Did you get that information from his writings?
> What do you know about the anonymous authors in the bible? What can you know when you don't even know their names?
> 
> I don't disagree with you on your assessment and I cannot agree more strongly that the WW1 and WW2 Generation of men and women are 2nd to none.




I got the information from many authors from his generation who had the same themes or subjects-- if not the same styles of expressions.

When I read Genesis I make a metal note the Moses was an Egyptian on the run.

It is possible to know a lot about someone ( who they are, their social situations and what times they are from) from their lamentations. Ask any nurse.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Did you get that information from his writings?
> What do you know about the anonymous authors in the bible? What can you know when you don't even know their names?
> 
> I don't disagree with you on your assessment and I cannot agree more strongly that the WW1 and WW2 Generation of men and women are 2nd to none.




Ghee! You understood that that generation was second to none? Alot of people of that generation were walking around with hollowed out, shell shocked and sick insides. They were a generation of split personalities. There was Valium to help them with symptoms at the end of the 50s. early 60s. Before this there was horse medicines and rum, morphine... ice cold baths at the sanitorium with their side effects.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> I'm persuaded only One God serves man well.
> 
> Who _is_ like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,
> 
> ...




This is the God I was introduced to by my parents. It is the God of my childhood, which has never left  me wonder off very far. Suppose that my parents had introduced me to another aspect of God... not so much a doer but a personality most strict?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> My mind, my consciousness is formed of things seen and unseen. It also has an element where abstractions are elemental to communications ie. in communication and understanding. When I look at scripture, into scripture I look for the abstractions because the things at first seen can often mask what is being said. So I read between the line, or read in the abstractions... to see if they conform to what I know about other abstractions.


That is how the human mind works. It is why we can enjoy fiction. Think of Superheroes. Discuss the unbelievable as if it existed. For goodness sake, there is a talk show that premieres after The Walking Dead for the purpose of discussing what took place on a fictional tv show, about made up characters that live in a world ruled by Zombies. The guests and viewers discuss,  sometimes argue about what a fictional character thinks, loves, likes, hates, their moral makeup and even try to figure out "who" a zombie was Pre Zombie.
Yes Gordon, I have zero doubt that conciousness is formed of things seen and unseen in a persons mind



gordon 2 said:


> So the devil might be indeed in the details and the Divine in the abstractions. So proofs of the reality of the Divine cannot come from detail. They can only be entertained as from that part of consciousness which is the element of abstraction or imagery. The aspect of consciousness which cleaves to abstractions is most likely where we would fine a cause for our spiritual nature. Maybe.


I can agree along those points except that proof under those circumstances are uniquely individual.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Ghee! You understood that that generation was second to none? Alot of people of that generation were walking around with hollowed out, shell shocked and sick insides. They were a generation of split personalities. There was Valium to help them with symptoms at the end of the 50s. early 60s. Before this there was horse medicines and rum, morphine... ice cold baths at the sanitorium with their side effects.


I cut hair for 25 years in a business setting. I was privileged to meet and get to know many men from the WW2 generation.  Heck, they were my Grandfather's too. And many times unfortunately after their passing did I only learn from quite an outstanding obituary just what a brave and heroic man many of them were in their younger years. One was also my neighbor. Quiet, unassuming, small in stature,  probably 5'6" and never more than 140lbs the entire time I'd known him. I knew he was an outdoorsman,  liked to shoot, worked for Atlas powder Company for 40 years. Drove simple cars.
Only after he died did I find out that he was in Patton's battalion. His tanks were hit twice and both times he pulled his crew members out before they perished. It listed the campaigns he was in, numerous engagements  etc etc etc.
That generation is incredible. 
Many lied about their age to join the services. Served in whatever capacity they were assigned to. They came out with scars both physically and mentally,  got jobs, raised families,spent entire careers at one company,were pillars of their communities and more often than not never mentioned a thing about what they went through.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Those non believers have you figured out equally as well as you have another believer of another religion figured out.
> 
> Sayinging a non believer who reads the bible would know exactly what a statement about the devil means is sooo Christian. Well not the Christians that do not believe in the devil who also read the same Bible... but.....


I don’t have them figured out. All I can say is their god isn’t the God I know.

My statement -  “If I was a non believer and knew the Bible story I’d know exactly what that statement means” means nothing but deception exist. Regardless if Satan is real or not the labels of Satan are associated with deception. From my eyes you and them are deceived, from their eyes you and I are deceived. From your eyes everyone believing in anything is deceived.

And yes, anyone who says they understand the Bible story knows the story itself claims deception is there. It’s written in it.

Believing / disbelieving the legitimacy of the story isn’t in question.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> This is the God I was introduced to by my parents. It is the God of my childhood, which has never left  me wonder off very far. Suppose that my parents had introduced me to another aspect of God... not so much a doer but a personality most strict?


Or suppose they introduced you to another different god entirely.....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t have them figured out. All I can say is their god isn’t the God I know.
> 
> My statement -  “If I was a non believer and knew the Bible story I’d know exactly what that statement means” means nothing but deception exist. Regardless if Satan is real or not the labels of Satan are associated with deception. From my eyes you and them are deceived, from their eyes you and I are deceived. From your eyes everyone believing in anything is deceived.
> 
> ...


Most religious texts speak of deception. That is part of the assurance which helps believers stay true to their particular religion.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

I'll be off for a while today. Enjoy your holiday men.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> That is how the human mind works. It is why we can enjoy fiction. Think of Superheroes. Discuss the unbelievable as if it existed. For goodness sake, there is a talk show that premieres after The Walking Dead for the purpose of discussing what took place on a fictional tv show, about made up characters that live in a world ruled by Zombies. The guests and viewers discuss,  sometimes argue about what a fictional character thinks, loves, likes, hates, their moral makeup and even try to figure out "who" a zombie was Pre Zombie.
> Yes Gordon, I have zero doubt that conciousness is formed of things seen and unseen in a persons mind
> 
> 
> I can agree along those points except that proof under those circumstances are uniquely individual.




They are individual until they are not. What makes Christianity so interesting for me is the change in a person brought about by  the "born again experience" unlike any other spiritual experience that I'm aware and that this experience is not unique to the individual-- but that many, many believers have this experience. Not just a few rare birds so to speak and not only super spiritual individuals on a path to the face of God.

It is rather a common experience, indifferent to who the pilgrim is or his efforts and  because it is reported through out all times since Pentecost within Christianity it is very interesting to me. It is also common to all denominations and all peoples within Christianity where people report that they were "changed" supernaturally by God's personal witness to them individually. The experience is named differently, but generally the experience provides that God was a keeper of his promise to change the hearts of his people in only a way He could. To me that is just Wow! Wow! Wow!  The excitements I have for most anything else pale in comparison.


So God is not a fiction that provides man with fictitious promises or prophecies... when the promises become true. When you get to add up the ways of God as above in other matters you start to get a picture ( witness and witnesses) one cannot deny as chance let alone fictional and without evidence. But all this is discerned mostly within the spiritual realm, where the concrete will of a more carnal mind be mostly blind to evidences from the realities there. ( Note I don't hold that a carnal mind is by definition sinful.)


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I'll be off for a while today. Enjoy your holiday men.


Enjoy your day. Bout to hit the fishing hole myself for a few shell cracker.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> They are individual until they are not. What makes Christianity so interesting for me is the change in a person brought about by  the "born again experience" unlike any other spiritual experience that I'm aware and that this experience is not unique to the individual-- but that many, many believers have this experience. Not just a few rare birds so to speak and not only super spiritual individuals on a path to the face of God.
> 
> It is rather a common experience, indifferent to who the pilgrim is or his efforts and  because it is reported through out all times since Pentecost within Christianity it is very interesting to me. It is also common to all denominations and all peoples within Christianity where people report that they were "changed" supernaturally by God's personal witness to them individually. The experience is named differently, but generally the experience provides that God was a keeper of his promise to change the hearts of his people in only a way He could. To me that is just Wow! Wow! Wow!  The excitements I have for most anything else pale in comparison.
> 
> ...


Allah provides that to his faithful too.
Same god?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Allah provides that to his faithful too.
> Same god?


 I am not convinced this to be the case.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> They are individual until they are not. What makes Christianity so interesting for me is the change in a person brought about by  the "born again experience" unlike any other spiritual experience that I'm aware and that this experience is not unique to the individual-- but that many, many believers have this experience. Not just a few rare birds so to speak and not only super spiritual individuals on a path to the face of God.
> 
> It is rather a common experience, indifferent to who the pilgrim is or his efforts and  because it is reported through out all times since Pentecost within Christianity it is very interesting to me. It is also common to all denominations and all peoples within Christianity where people report that they were "changed" supernaturally by God's personal witness to them individually. The experience is named differently, but generally the experience provides that God was a keeper of his promise to change the hearts of his people in only a way He could. To me that is just Wow! Wow! Wow!  The excitements I have for most anything else pale in comparison.
> 
> ...


I have to wonder whether Christianity is as awed with the "born again experience" as you are.
The fact that the game plan includes indoctrinating children as soon as possible doesnt show much confidence in it to me.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I am not convinced this to be the case.


A Muslim thinks the same about you.
It really is that simple.
Had you been born in Iran your faith would be different.
Or, along with and are you saying Allah and the God of Abraham are different?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I have to wonder whether Christianity is as awed with the "born again experience" as you are.
> The fact that the game plan includes indoctrinating children as soon as possible doesnt show much confidence in it to me.


There’s a fine line between indoctrination (teaching) and brainwashing (pressuring to accept) - not familiar with the Catholic Church, but those I am familiar with, retention rates are low, their form of “indoctrination” works exactly as designed - teach, and allow them to choose. No different than your responsibility to teach them how to hunt / fish legally. Answer their questions, provide them resources and give them room to fly.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Or suppose they introduced you to another different god entirely.....




Then I might of ended up an atheist.  I guess I was lucky...


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> A Muslim thinks the same about you.
> It really is that simple.
> Had you been born in Iran your faith would be different.
> Or, along with and are you saying Allah and the God of Abraham are different?




It is true that my understanding of faith would have been very different had I had Iranian Muslim parents as  the originator of my faith ( Christian faith)  is due a prophet like theirs-- nothing more.

I claim no faith a prophet can shore up.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I have to wonder whether Christianity is as awed with the "born again experience" as you are.
> The fact that the game plan includes indoctrinating children as soon as possible doesnt show much confidence in it to me.



There are elements of indoctrination in some denominations. But not mine.   My bias might be that tradition plays a greater part in God's plan than others who hold that the bible plays the essential.  

Basically children are though on "the way" but it is up to them to chose to get in the way of Jesus when he goes by or to take their spirituality seriously when they are able to assume this...in a mature way. They are led to chose to knock if the are so inclined.

The majority of Christianity is awed by people who know "the glory" or know " extraordinary Saints" or Seers etc. They include those who have had the experience and those who have not. So Christians are awed by people who because they were " born again" changed their lives as if they are no longer the same person they once were and their lives takes on a totally new existence. These people can be the cause of others exploring their faith or spirituality seriously.  Christians in general are awed by people who  gather themselves in the supernatural to enrich the natural with greater substance, meaning and purpose.

It is my understanding that this experience is generally rare and reserved to a few in other faiths--which is not the case for Christianity. But my understanding might be wrong or faulty. What do you think?


----------



## Israel (Jul 5, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> There are elements of indoctrination in some denominations. But not mine.   My bias might be that tradition plays a greater part in God's plan than others who hold that the bible plays the essential.
> 
> Basically children are though on "the way" but it is up to them to chose to get in the way of Jesus when he goes by or to take their spirituality seriously when they are able to assume this...in a mature way. They are led to chose to knock if the are so inclined.
> 
> ...





> What do you think?



I think that no one could tell you what/how/who you would be if born in a different place (Iran), or to different parents, or in a different time for that matter.

First, that you would not be you to even be spoken of by another man who's power to displace/remove/change your circumstance _of being_ is any greater than your own. But it is telling in the ways a man views himself by his ability to suppose interventions to change _matters of being._

Secondly, one's being is either owed to God as Paul says "I am what I am by the grace of God" and can say it without fear of contradiction by himself or any other, or he still supposes his own estate is dependent upon a something else.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2021)

Israel said:


> I think that no one could tell you what/how/who you would be if born in a different place (Iran), or to different parents, or in a different time for that matter.
> 
> First, that you would not be you to even be spoken of by another man who's power to displace/remove/change your circumstance _of being_ is any greater than your own. But it is telling in the ways a man views himself by his ability to suppose interventions to change _matters of being._
> 
> Secondly, one's being is either owed to God as Paul says "I am what I am by the grace of God" and can say it without fear of contradiction by himself or any other, or he still supposes his own estate is dependent upon a something else.


Interesting and yet odd to hear coming from a man who continually tells us what a dead guy thinks, feels, wants, needs, and would say.


----------



## Israel (Jul 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Interesting and yet odd to hear coming from a man who continually tells us what a dead guy thinks, feels, wants, needs, and would say.


He would say this to you:

You would tell Gordon what he would be if he were born or resided somewhere else.
But now you have made yourself subject to the same matter of which you accuse others as beyond their being. That "they couldn't possibly know".

But, the Lord knows you. And He knows your structure and substance. And He knows that were you in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Indonesia etc. that the derision and presumption you reserve here for Jesus Christ you would not dare utter there in regards to either Allah or Mohammed. 

Pusillanimity and presumptuousness have never been desirable character traits and it would be better for any man to learn the way this can be safely exposed in a person, and to a person in the safety of grace. And who accomplishes it to salvation and not despair.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 5, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> There are elements of indoctrination in some denominations. But not mine.   My bias might be that tradition plays a greater part in God's plan than others who hold that the bible plays the essential.
> 
> Basically children are though on "the way" but it is up to them to chose to get in the way of Jesus when he goes by or to take their spirituality seriously when they are able to assume this...in a mature way. They are led to chose to knock if the are so inclined.
> 
> ...





> What do you think?


First, I want to be clear that I dont consider "indoctrination" to be a "dirty word". Everybody has been indoctrinated in way or another on a multitude of subjects. Its a huge part of how we exist as humans.


> Basically children are though on "the way" but it is up to them to chose to get in the way of Jesus when he goes by or to take their spirituality seriously when they are able to assume this...in a mature way. They are led to chose to knock if the are so inclined.


I think that ^ sounds great..... but not realistic.


> but it is up to them to chose to get in the way of Jesus


The religion was chosen for the child.
The denomination was chosen for the child.
The deity was chosen for the child.
The childs participation was chosen for the child.
The child is indoctrinated in what the correct choice is.
The child is indoctrinated in what will or wont happen to them if they dont make the correct choice.
NOW they get to choose. How honorable of us.


> to take their spirituality seriously when they are able to assume this...in a mature way.


By that ^ time, they've been indoctrinated. That was the whole game plan. Certainly werent going to depend on them having a come to Jesus experience.


> The majority of Christianity is awed by people who know "the glory" or know " extraordinary Saints" or Seers etc. They include those who have had the experience and those who have not. So Christians are awed by people who because they were " born again"


Yes, the desire to "be like them" is a powerful thing. Produces all kinds of psychological actions/responses.
On this subject -


> people who because they were " born again" changed their lives as if they are no longer the same person they once were and their lives takes on a totally new existence.


I think there is absolutely no question this ^ has and does happen.
There is also absolutely no question that people of other religions and no religion have accomplished the same thing.


> It is my understanding that this experience is generally rare and reserved to a few in other faiths--which is not the case for Christianity.


What I get out of that ^ is that people of other of other faiths have "come to deity" experiences. Which isnt suprising. The common denominator is people.
The amounts of people in each faith that this happens to is secondary to me.
I belong to the Right Handed peoples club. Our club is bigger than the Left Handed peoples club.
Pretty useless info other than one club is bigger than the other.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2021)

Israel said:


> He would say this to you:
> 
> You would tell Gordon what he would be if he were born or resided somewhere else.
> But now you have made yourself subject to the same matter of which you accuse others as beyond their being. That "they couldn't possibly know".
> ...


Isreal, for all that you pretend to remember you ALWAYS forget one of my constants which is...
More Likely Than Not

You make me the subject matter of your own assertion. 

Pusillanimity....not in my fibers
Presumptiousness....see your reply to me above.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 5, 2021)

Walt your views of religious "indoctrination" are not realistic in my estimation.

If anything children today are "indoctrinated" like you that there are many religions and beliefs. The Gospel is shared with children along with the ways of worship of their parents' particular sect. As when the Gospel is shared to adults the Cross will make sense to them or not and latter as they learn that their are different  ways of worship  these ( some)  will make sense or not.

If all the religions have the same "born again experience" to the degree Christians claim and experience, then there was never a need for Jesus and Christianity and the old time religions were good enough.

I like your description of the born again experience as a "come to deity" experience as I understand in fact that one is born again at baptism and the "come to deity" or ' "Deity to come" will shock the new heart of a baptised person to sure and felt rhythm.

I use the term " born again" because it has become a generic term for when someone is individually touched by the glory of God. It is easy to think that this experience is universal to the religious world wide and to non believers. But the spirits behind or which proceed would deny this universal experience.


Some world religions don't believe in God, but in being awakened. Some understand that God commands man to love and be charitable. Christianity is a world religion about eternal life according to the definitions in scripture and that this life is not a possibility for just a few in the religion--but rather available to all individually! All are empowered to live within eternal life.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Isreal, for all that you pretend to remember you ALWAYS forget one of my constants which is...
> More Likely Than Not
> 
> You make me the subject matter of your own assertion.
> ...



Today is a good day to not snipe are each other, especially that both of you would go on a fishing adventure somewhere exotic together like it was a no brainer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 5, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Walt your views of religious "indoctrination" are not realistic in my estimation.
> 
> If anything children today are "indoctrinated" like you that there are many religions and beliefs. The Gospel is shared with children along with the ways of worship of their parents' particular sect. As when the Gospel is shared to adults the Cross will make sense to them or not and latter as they learn that their are different  ways of worship  these ( some)  will make sense or not.
> 
> ...


Maybe an odd question for you but I'm interested in your opinion/views....


> born again at baptism


I was "officially" baptised.
Am I member of the "born again" club? Did my membership get revoked? Was the Holy Water out of date so I never really was?
If being born again hinges on baptism and I was baptised, yet sit here as an A/A, is being born again really all that and a bag of chips?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 5, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Walt your views of religious "indoctrination" are not realistic in my estimation.
> 
> If anything children today are "indoctrinated" like you that there are many religions and beliefs. The Gospel is shared with children along with the ways of worship of their parents' particular sect. As when the Gospel is shared to adults the Cross will make sense to them or not and latter as they learn that their are different  ways of worship  these ( some)  will make sense or not.
> 
> ...





> Walt your views of religious "indoctrination" are not realistic in my estimation.


Feel free to point out what you find unrealistic.
I'll give it some thought if you do. 
I probably wont agree with you but I'll give it some thought


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 5, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Today is a good day to not snipe are each other, especially that both of you would go on a fishing adventure somewhere exotic together like it was a no brainer.


I think you are right Gordon, they would go on an exotic fishing trip together.
I just wonder which one of them would end up as chum.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe an odd question for you but I'm interested in your opinion/views....
> 
> I was "officially" baptised.
> Am I member of the "born again" club? Did my membership get revoked? Was the Holy Water out of date so I never really was?
> If being born again hinges on baptism and I was baptised, yet sit here as an A/A, is being born again really all that and a bag of chips?


 

Basically your part of the Church and you chose to be hysterical. Hope it passes.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are right Gordon, they would go on an exotic fishing trip together.
> I just wonder which one of them would end up as chum.


  Puns are fun, ain't they.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Feel free to point out what you find unrealistic.
> I'll give it some thought if you do.
> I probably wont agree with you but I'll give it some thought


 

 I will, but I'm busy trying to put some deer mounts together for customers... right now... and can you tell me how you high light quotes so that the whole text of a post
does not come up--- like you do?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 5, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I will, but I'm busy trying to put some deer mounts together for customers... right now... and can you tell me how you high light quotes so that the whole text of a post
> does not come up--- like you do?






> can you tell me how you high light quotes so that the whole text of a post
> does not come up--- like you do?


A few methods but try copy and paste. Copy and paste the word “QUOTE” and make sure the Open bracket [ is in front of “QUOTE” and the Closed bracket ] is at the end of the word, no spaces. Then copy and paste the language from the section of the post you’re wanting to highlight. Then repeat copying and pasting the word “/QUOTE” with the Open and Closed brackets. Attached is an example. Notice all this  ="gordon 2, post: 12897674, member: 161" is missing in the highlight portion.

You can dissect and highlight as much or as many sentences as you want.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 6, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Basically your part of the Church and you chose to be hysterical. Hope it passes.


Pretty simple view. Even I can understand it. I appreciate that 
Is it seriously a basically pretty accurate representation of your view?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Pretty simple view. Even I can understand it. I appreciate that
> Is it seriously a basically pretty accurate representation of your view?




Pretty much yes. ( Except hysterical is not the right word... it was an exaggeration and I was trying to be funny.)

Last time I checked into what you claimed to be you were an agnostic. From there there is room to move to the left and to the right and come back again a few times...seriously.  If the god of a Christian believer sometimes needs patience with the believer there is no reason why patience would be denied to you.  Seriously. Its not like you've sold out to the dark side to try to be genuine and honest with yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2021)

Patience is a human virtue. An eternal and infinite god would be consumed by patience.


----------



## Israel (Jul 7, 2021)

Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Pretty much yes. ( Except hysterical is not the right word... it was an exaggeration and I was trying to be funny.)
> 
> Last time I checked into what you claimed to be you were an agnostic. From there there is room to move to the left and to the right and come back again a few times...seriously.  If the god of a Christian believer sometimes needs patience with the believer there is no reason why patience would be denied to you.  Seriously. Its not like you've sold out to the dark side to try to be genuine and honest with yourself.





> Pretty much yes. ( Except hysterical is not the right word... it was an exaggeration and I was trying to be funny.)


I got a good chuckle out of your use of "hysterical" actually.


> Last time I checked into what you claimed to be you were an agnostic.


Thats the label I choose because it seems to most align with my views.
I dont care much for these labels though. People's views within these labels can vary widely.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Patience is a human virtue. An eternal and infinite god would be consumed by patience.


Why would a God need patience anyway?
He only has to wait as long as He wants to


----------



## Israel (Jul 7, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Why would a God need patience anyway?
> He only has to wait as long as He wants to



God's being patient does not testify to His need of it.

All He is He is without having any need to be anything.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 7, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Why would a God need patience anyway?
> He only has to wait as long as He wants to





> Why would a God need patience anyway?


My view is that a God doesn’t. We humans are the ones that need him to be patient with us - merciful. I see patience in a deity as mercy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> My view is that a God doesn’t. We humans are the ones that need him to be patient with us - merciful. I see patience in a deity as mercy.


I would have to wait and see what he does after he decides he's been patient enough before I could deem him merciful.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 7, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I would have to wait and see what he does after he decides he's been patient enough before I could deem him merciful.


 True. I assume his mercy depends on our obedience. My Dad would tell me once, twice and sometimes 3………the next time there was no talk, it was that belt lol


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> True. I assume his mercy depends on our obedience. My Dad would tell me once, twice and sometimes 3………the next time there was no talk, it was that belt lol


Again, that makes sense if you are implying God doesn't already know what a person will do and when they will do it.
In reality you can change your mind 1000 times and god would know what you are doing before you thought about it. He knows your obedience a million years+ before your birth. If god has to wait for your decisions to influence his he really isn't Omniscient.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Again, that makes sense if you are implying God doesn't already know what a person will do and when they will do it.
> In reality you can change your mind 1000 times and god would know what you are doing before you thought about it. He knows your obedience a million years+ before your birth. If god has to wait for your decisions to influence his he really isn't Omniscient.


The Lord told David that if he stayed in the city of Keilah the people of that city would hand him over to Saul. David did not stay in Keilah and Saul did not capture him.

Jesus said that the cities of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they had seen Jesus' miracles. He knew what would have happened if the miracles would have been performed in those cities.

In each of these instances God showed his knowledge of potential events. Although these events did not happen they would have happened had circumstances been different.

I don’t think he’s waiting on us to influence his decisions. He already knows the outcome of each situation -  he knew both outcomes of David staying or leaving.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The Lord told David that if he stayed in the city of Keilah the people of that city would hand him over to Saul. David did not stay in Keilah and Saul did not capture him.
> 
> Jesus said that the cities of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they had seen Jesus' miracles. He knew what would have happened if the miracles would have been performed in those cities.
> 
> ...


I agree, and then wonder why a god would punish anyone for displeasing the god after the fact when that god already knows it will be displeased.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I agree, and then wonder why a god would punish anyone for displeasing the god after the fact when that god already knows it will be displeased.


You arent supposed to wonder. Look where wondering got me and you


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I agree, and then wonder why a god would punish anyone for displeasing the god after the fact when that god already knows it will be displeased.


There are those parents that have little Johnny’s that they just know without a doubt that if that kid gets a ride to town he’s getting into a bird nest he can’t get out of, but if he will just stay home……

As a parent, what would you do? I’m not lenient, there’s going to be some punishment.

On a side note, an all knowing God knowing the outcome of any road you take sort of kills the argument that man has no choices.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> There are those parents that have little Johnny’s that they just know without a doubt that if that kid gets a ride to town he’s getting into a bird nest he can’t get out of, but if he will just stay home……
> 
> As a parent, what would you do? I’m not lenient, there’s going to be some punishment.
> 
> On a side note, an all knowing God knowing the outcome of any road you take sort of kills the argument that man has no choices.


As a parent I absolutely give my opinion, interject suggestions and allow certain things to continue even though I know that it won't work out their way. I know that because my parents had the same routine for me. "Birds nests" are cake. Punishment absolute. Learn from the mistakes is part of life.
The difference is that I am not all knowing.
Even though I am 99.9% sure that something very foreseeable will not work as planned I cannot know the unknown. I cannot know something awful that was going to take place that has nothing to do with the initial situation. Examples could include a car accident, a robbery, a fatality of any scenario. And a hundred more beyond awful scenarios in which I would absolutely stop them from happening if I knew about them ahead of time.
If a god is no more human than humans what makes it god?

The contradictory verses in the bible sort of kills the argument that man does have choices. The bible is loaded with Predestination and Choice.
I don't know any parents that plan for awful things to happen(pre-d)to their children or allow the awful things that can be stopped to happen(free-c). I know that humans are capable of that and some do...but I don't know any of them.
Do either and especially both seem godlike?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> As a parent I absolutely give my opinion, interject suggestions and allow certain things to continue even though I know that it won't work out their way. I know that because my parents had the same routine for me. "Birds nests" are cake. Punishment absolute. Learn from the mistakes is part of life.
> The difference is that I am not all knowing.
> Even though I am 99.9% sure that something very foreseeable will not work as planned I cannot know the unknown. I cannot know something awful that was going to take place that has nothing to do with the initial situation. Examples could include a car accident, a robbery, a fatality of any scenario. And a hundred more beyond awful scenarios in which I would absolutely stop them from happening if I knew about them ahead of time.
> If a god is no more human than humans what makes it god?
> ...


We are predestined and chosen to serve him - that never should be mistaken of “no choice” or “already picked”. Whosever will, there’s nothing contradictory about it.

He died for ALL.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> We are predestined and chosen to serve him - that never should be mistaken of “no choice” or “already picked”. Whosever will, there’s nothing contradictory about it.


So the Predestination is reserved only for serving god?
Are People Predestination to never serve god?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So the Predestination is reserved only for serving god?
> Are People Predestination to never serve god?






> So the Predestination is reserved only for serving god?



Not what I said. It’s NOT God’s Will that any perish. Man was designed (predestined / chosen) to serve God.  Every man is given the measure of faith. Not some, “every”. Men fall because of their unrighteousness. 


> Are People Predestination to never serve god?


1 Timothy 2 rejects this idea.

Just like pharaoh, God permanently hardened his heart after pharaoh hardened his own heart.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Not what I said. It’s NOT God’s Will that any perish. Man was designed (predestined / chosen) to serve God.  Every man is given the measure of faith. Not some, “every”. Men fall because of their unrighteousness.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2 rejects this idea.
> 
> Just like pharaoh, God permanently hardened his heart after pharaoh hardened his own heart.



Ephesians 1:11: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” 
Proverbs 16:4: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
Jude 4: “Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God.”
2 Peter 2:3: “And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”
Romans 9:11: Jacob and Esau “were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad — in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls — she was told” — this is before they were born or had done anything good or evil — “‘the older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” That is a quote from Malachi 1:2–3, which ought to be read in context where the text makes clear that God is sovereignly before they were born choosing Jacob over Esau, but showing that Esau’s wickedness was real and blameworthy and he was responsible for it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Ephesians 1:11: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
> Proverbs 16:4: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
> Jude 4: “Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God.”
> 2 Peter 2:3: “And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”
> Romans 9:11: Jacob and Esau “were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad — in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls — she was told” — this is before they were born or had done anything good or evil — “‘the older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” That is a quote from Malachi 1:2–3, which ought to be read in context where the text makes clear that God is sovereignly before they were born choosing Jacob over Esau, but showing that Esau’s wickedness was real and blameworthy and he was responsible for it.


No explanation? Your post actually backs up what I’ve said all along - see below. As far as the elect, even you were chosen based on what I said below. Just because you took a path similar to Pharaoh doesn’t mean that God didn’t want you, didn’t love you, didn’t die for you, didn’t desire for you to be saved nor designed you to perish. 

“Just like pharaoh, God permanently hardened his heart after pharaoh hardened his own heart.”



 “It’s NOT God’s Will that any perish. Man was designed (predestined / chosen) to serve God. Every man is given the measure of faith. Not some, “every”. Men fall because of their unrighteousness.”

And - 

“2 Timothy 2:22
“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work”

So God endured those vessels of wrath, these were people that would never change and never accept God’s plan and then He would accomplish His plan with them.

God takes those evil persons that there was absolutely no intent to receive God’s plan into their lives and molds them as instruments to accomplish His plan whether they can see it or not.”


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> No explanation? Your post actually backs up what I’ve said all along - see below. As far as the elect, even you were chosen based on what I said below. Just because you took a path similar to Pharaoh doesn’t mean that God didn’t want you, didn’t love you, didn’t die for you, didn’t desire for you to be saved nor designed you to perish.
> 
> “Just like pharaoh, God permanently hardened his heart after pharaoh hardened his own heart.”
> 
> ...


My post backs up that god predestined some people to never be with him.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> My post backs up that god predestined some people to never be with him.


I’m not sure your post does do that. What I see as omniscient, even knowing one in the womb that will fall but not intentionally created for the purpose of falling in the below  -

“It’s NOT God’s Will that any perish. Man was designed (predestined / chosen) to serve God. Every man is given the measure of faith. Not some, “every”. Men fall because of their unrighteousness.”

And this when it comes to not having done good or bad yet -

“So God endured those vessels of wrath, these were people that would never change and never accept God’s plan and then He would accomplish His plan with them”


That’s why I say it’s not contradictory. Being all knowing he already knows, but he isn’t building anyone without hope and no opportunity to chose him. 

I haven’t seen an explanation / scripture to indicate that anyone is intentionally created without hope, or no measure of faith that he says was there. That would make him an unjust God if he left you without a choice.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> That would make him an unjust God if he left you without a choice.


What shall we say then? _Is there_ unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then _it is_ not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will _have mercy_, and whom he will he hardeneth.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 8, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> What shall we say then? _Is there_ unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then _it is_ not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will _have mercy_, and whom he will he hardeneth.



Paul rejected the idea that God was being unjust in choosing Jacob and not Esau.

As mentioned earlier -

“So God endured those vessels of wrath, these were people that would never change and never accept God’s plan and then He would accomplish His plan with them”

Being all knowing, do you think he knew the path that Esau would take or do you think he designed Esau to purposely take that path?

To me there’s a difference there.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> As mentioned earlier -
> 
> “So God endured those vessels of wrath, these were people that would never change and never accept God’s plan and then He would accomplish His plan with them”
> 
> ...


It had nothing to do with Esau's doings. It had all to do with the purpose of God according to election.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Man was designed (predestined / chosen) to serve God.  Every man is given the measure of faith. Not some, “every”. Men fall because of their unrighteousness.


God controls the measure of faith and He does not give everyone the same measure of faith or the same kind of faith. This is shown elsewhere in Scripture.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 8, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> It had nothing to do with Esau's doings. It had all to do with the purpose of God according to election.


I agree, I’m just saying God used Esau because he knew the path Esau would ultimately take.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 8, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> God controls the measure of faith and He does not give everyone the same measure of faith or the same kind of faith. This is shown elsewhere in Scripture.


But……every man has a measure, meaning no one was left with 0?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I agree, I’m just saying God used Esau because he knew the path Esau would ultimately take.


And I am saying that it has nothing to do with Esau.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> But……every man has a measure, meaning no one was left with 0?


Are we talking about a simple faith or a saving faith?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 8, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Are we talking about a simple faith or a saving faith?


I would think faith itself is the start for anything. If I don’t have simple faith, I’m not going to have saving faith. If I’ve got simple faith - then I have faith to have saving faith.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 8, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I would think faith itself is the start for anything. If I don’t have simple faith, I’m not going to have saving faith. If I’ve got simple faith - then I have faith to have saving faith.


Then you should have no problem showing us from Scripture where a man was ever saved by his natural faith.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 9, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Then you should have no problem showing us from Scripture where a man was ever saved by his natural faith.


That^^^


> I would think faith itself is the start for anything. If I don’t have simple faith, I’m not going to have saving faith. If I’ve got simple faith - then I have faith to have saving faith.





> But……every man has a measure, meaning no one was left with 0?


Is not what this^^^ means



"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

"And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you"

EVERY man is given the measure of faith. Does not matter what size it is or if it is equal to every man - every man has a measure. Based on the above it is possible that every man can please God - their troubles begin with their unbelief.

As far as simple or saving faith - I am not one that really follows labels.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Being all knowing, do you think he knew the path that Esau would take or do you think he designed Esau to purposely take that path?
> 
> To me there’s a difference there.



If I understand you at all, the difference you see can only exist with an assumption that Esau can overcome God's "design".  "God knows that Esau will overcome His design, and thereby His purpose in design" is a meaningless proposition; self defeating from every perspective.

Except god in the likeness of man.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 10, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> If I understand you at all, the difference you see can only exist with an assumption that Esau can overcome God's "design".  "God knows that Esau will overcome His design, and thereby His purpose in design" is a meaningless proposition; self defeating from every perspective.
> 
> Except god in the likeness of man.


I’m saying God being omniscient isn’t saying he’s programming folks to fail.

I’m not saying that Esau could overcome God’s design. My question was did God design Esau to fail, or just knew he would? By saying Esau could have repented is not self defeating because God said it isn’t his Will that any perish - he hadn’t Willed that for anyone.

He can accomplish his Will with your unrighteousness and still you could at some point turn to him. Nothing says the opposite of that. It’s those that continues to reject God that find themselves in a pickle.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m saying God being omniscient isn’t saying he’s programming folks to fail.
> 
> I’m not saying that Esau could overcome God’s design. My question was did God design Esau to fail, or just knew he would? By saying Esau could have repented is not self defeating because God said it isn’t his Will that any perish - he hadn’t Willed that for anyone.
> 
> He can accomplish his Will with your unrighteousness and still you could at some point turn to him. Nothing says the opposite of that. It’s those that continues to reject God that find themselves in a pickle.



Nothing there to which a response has not been given.

You appear to be making judgments for which Scripture says you are unqualified.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 10, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Nothing there to which a response has not been given.
> 
> You appear to be making judgments for which Scripture says you are unqualified.


I really have a lot of respect for you, honestly do. But, I’m going to respectfully disagree that I’m making judgments. Mostly because I don’t think we fully understand one another’s thoughts on this and I admit I have poor communication skills.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 10, 2021)

I believe that poor communication skills is an element of human nature as illistrated by The Tower of Bable.  Now, let me illustrate with my puny attempt.

Not directly in response, but underlying, is your apparent judgment that Scripture is about men.  I believe that it is about God (note that the statement is unqualified).  Carnally speaking, we could, hypothetically, learn something about men sensually (how much is a very large question), but not about God.

"Did God design Esau to fail?"  Impllies the judgement that Esau failed.  As GEM said "it has nothing to do with Esau" — which is fully in agreement with Paul (Rm. 9).

"Esau could have repented" is a judgment not supported by Scripture.
You assume the adjective "all", referring to "you", is a noun.
(note that the support you offer assumes that 2 Pet. 3:9 is independent of 2 Pet. 1:1-4, and the several addresses to the "beloved" which immediately precede)

"You could at some point turn" — sure, as with Esau, if God wills/willed it.  (temporal language seldom accomadates eternal propositions)

Illustration complete?; no, attempt complete.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 10, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I believe that poor communication skills is an element of human nature as illistrated by The Tower of Bable.  Now, let me illustrate with my puny attempt.
> 
> Not directly in response, but underlying, is your apparent judgment that Scripture is about men.  I believe that it is about God (note that the statement is unqualified).  Carnally speaking, we could, hypothetically, learn something about men sensually (how much is a very large question), but not about God.
> 
> ...



I’m good with “apparent” as I’m not very detailed in my thoughts. It was just one example, mostly hypothetically since Esau was a subject. My “failure” assumption is based solely on the one event concerning the one passage of Esau that was referenced. The rest are assumptions by everyone.

I’m not really sure why some of you seem so aggravated / short in your responses to the questions or assumptions that you pose in replies to others. My asking questions should never be considered as judgmental. It’s nothing more than a question.

The ones correcting my thoughts have provided absolutely zero scripture, it’s only been their opinions and very short, ones at best. Still respect you, but thanks. A discussion usually means more than “I’m right, you’re wrong”.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 10, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I believe that poor communication skills is an element of human nature as illistrated by The Tower of Bable.  Now, let me illustrate with my puny attempt.
> 
> Not directly in response, but underlying, is your apparent judgment that Scripture is about men.  I believe that it is about God (note that the statement is unqualified).  Carnally speaking, we could, hypothetically, learn something about men sensually (how much is a very large question), but not about God.
> 
> ...


Wait -


> "Did God design Esau to fail?"  Impllies the judgement that Esau failed.  As GEM said "it has nothing to do with Esau" — which is fully in agreement with Paul (Rm. 9).


I’ve acknowledged that Esau was just a tool, it could have been anyone God chose to use. I saw the comment as a diversion to not answer the hypothetical question.


> .
> 1 your apparent judgment that Scripture is about men.  2 I believe that it is about God


1. I will leave this as your assumptions because I totally agree with number 2 and have on more than one occasion acknowledged that.


> "Esau could have repented" is a judgment not supported by Scripture.
> 
> 
> "You could at some point turn" — sure, as with Esau, if God wills/willed it.


So it’s judgment saying Esau could have repented? But it’s not judgment saying “sure if God wills/willed it”? Because that implies he failed. And it’s not judgment saying there are those that God don’t chose?

Anyone that fails can repent - it’s in Acts, all men are called unto repentance, I guess except those that were not selected??? I haven’t found the exceptions, though,

Now the attempt can be complete.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> So it’s judgment saying Esau could have repented? But it’s not judgment saying “sure if God wills/willed it”? Because that implies he failed.


Or it recognizes that the goodness of God was not toward Esau. But it is still not about Esau. Esau is reputed as nothing.

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or it recognizes that the goodness of God was not toward Esau. But it is still not about Esau. Esau is reputed as nothing.
> 
> And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?


I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s about Esau. I get that point. It’s not even relevant. Change the name to Bob. I realize his Will is his Will and his work will be accomplished and nothing we do or refuse to do will interfere with that. He’s no different than us, we pick up a tool and use it to get our work done, if that tool can’t be used, grab another one.

But it is not his Will that any perish, that’s scripture and that’s not interpretation. His Will is that ALL men come to repentance. He’s long suffering. That actually supports the idea that he just don’t turn you over to a reprobate mind, it’s your continuation of rejecting him that’s repeated multiple times in scripture. I’ve had the English lesson but ALL can’t exclude anyone.

Your above scripture is accurate. He uses everyone to do his Will. He uses those that chose him, and uses those vessels of wrath that deny him.

I think our only hang up is the fact that you’re saying man can be put here predestined for salvation or predestined for no salvation. I’m saying  all men are called into repentance and salvation is for whosoever will and those that choose life and retain the knowledge of Jesus, and many more scriptures that did not reject. The rest of it with everyone doing His Will and it’s all about God - I have no issues with.


----------



## Israel (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s about Esau. I get that point. It’s not even relevant. Change the name to Bob. I realize his Will is his Will and his work will be accomplished and nothing we do or refuse to do will interfere with that. He’s no different than us, we pick up a tool and use it to get our work done, if that tool can’t be used, grab another one.
> 
> But it is not his Will that any perish, that’s scripture and that’s not interpretation. His Will is that ALL men come to repentance. He’s long suffering. That actually supports the idea that he just don’t turn you over to a reprobate mind, it’s your continuation of rejecting him that’s repeated multiple times in scripture. I’ve had the English lesson but ALL can’t exclude anyone.
> 
> ...




Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:





The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

Israel said:


> Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree Israel, I see the red as those that have obtained, received, etc. The Book of Acts laid out a salvation plan that begins with repentance. Bible is clear also that it says believe and baptized shall be saved, it goes on to say those that believe not…….

But to say no one can’t deny God, go against his Will, etc., I will rest on the the below.

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:”

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,”

And one more Izzy, for those that say it’s not scripture that Judas could have repented. He did in fact feel the condemnation and the draw from God. 

“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders”


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> He’s no different than us, we pick up a tool and use it to get our work done, if that tool can’t be used, grab another one.


I can't help you.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I can't help you.


I wasn’t looking for help lol I was looking for you to explain your belief.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2021)

This is the consistent inconsistencies of interpretations that exist among believers who all believe what is written in the Bible is truth. It is as true as the individuals convince themselves it to be. The difference in truths are apparent above.
Add in the interpretations of people who believe in other religions/gods and non believers and the contents of the Bible are as untruthful as the individuals convince themselves it to be. The differences are brought up here daily.
It is a result of the contents, not the individuals.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It is a result of the contents, not the individuals.


Or it is a result of the individual's content. None of us get to choose our takeaways.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 11, 2021)

"...the Most High rules over the kingdom of mankind and gives it to whom He wishes.” "

Never the less... we can chose  "our"  kingdoms yet knowing the above...


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 11, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or it is a result of the individual's content. None of us get to choose our takeaways.


Beat me to it.  A good thing because you said it better.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I wasn’t looking for help lol I was looking for you to explain your belief.



It would be interesting to to back a week, or so, and tabulate the ways that has been done: scripturally, rationally, analogically, even a few touches on philosophically.  But not interestingly enough for me to do it.

Perhaps the question is why you do not hear (introduction of the question is not suggestive of an answer).


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or it is a result of the individual's content. None of us get to choose our takeaways.


No argument from me. I fully understand that you would say nothing else based off of your beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Beat me to it.  A good thing because you said it better.


Again, I'd expect no different answer from either you or GEM


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> It would be interesting to to back a week, or so, and tabulate the ways that has been done: scripturally, rationally, analogically, even a few touches on philosophically.  But not interestingly enough for me to do it.
> 
> Perhaps the question is why you do not hear (introduction of the question is not suggestive of an answer).


I chose not to review a weeks worth of post, you and Gem chose to inject your thoughts / comments without explanation. As much as I like y’all, I’m not researching your previous thoughts to see what you mean if you quote me. 

It is my opinion that as much as convenient this predestined doctrine may be, it is also a very wrong and dangerous doctrine. This doctrine is responsible, at least partially, for the passivity of many people not spreading the Word because “whoever will be saved will be saved” anyway - directly responsible for making “Go ye therefore into all the world” less meaningful / valuable.

According to the Bible, God gave His Son for ALL men, which then means His choice for salvation is “everybody”. In turn this means that the view that God chose to save some, over some others cannot be correct.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

In short, I have called and you have refused, I will laugh at your calamity, I will turn you over to a reprobate mind……. Pharaoh is one example.

If our Gospel be hid - it’s to whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not…..God didn’t blind them……yet.

Their continued rejection and “willfully ignorance” (that’s scripture) resulted in God allowing them on their merry way.

And yes, Judas felt the condemnation, he could have repented to God. God’s work was still accomplished.

The predestined dream boat has too many holes in it.

If you don’t think God allows you to have a choice you haven’t read Matthew 11. 

“Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”

Then again if you’re dependent upon your worldly knowledge and education to dissect the Bible instead of the Spirit leading you -

“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite, you have proclaimed something that every believer is far too sensitive of to ignore. It takes us back to the garden where first encountered. 

My liberty to discuss these things with you has been removed.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I chose not to review a weeks worth of post, you and Gem chose to inject your thoughts / comments without explanation. As much as I like y’all, I’m not researching your previous thoughts to see what you mean if you quote me.





> you and Gem chose to inject your thoughts / comments without explanation



From over here it looks like explanation is ignored, as I pointed out 10 days ago.  I'm sure an update would also be ineffectual (i.e. your belated reference to an "English lesson").

As to any specific questions (an important part of dialogue) which have been asked, and gone unanswered, I'm sure a reminder would be given consideration.  "Explain your believe" is not a specific question any more that "if" and "all" explain everything.








> It is my opinion that as much as convenient this predestined doctrine may be, it is also a very wrong and dangerous doctrine. This doctrine is responsible, at least partially, for the passivity of many people not spreading the Word because “whoever will be saved will be saved” anyway - directly responsible for making “Go ye therefore into all the world” less meaningful / valuable.
> 
> According to the Bible, God gave His Son for ALL men, which then means His choice for salvation is “everybody”. In turn this means that the view that God chose to save some, over some others cannot be correct.



What you have stated has been expressed many times by those that view evangelism though the same lense as used by the practitioners of pyramid schemes; however, even a perfunctory study of God's work through His People should disuayed anyone of clinging to such worldly arguments.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Spotlite, you have proclaimed something that every believer is far too sensitive of to ignore. It takes us back to the garden where first encountered.
> 
> My liberty to discuss these things with you has been removed.


Gem, no offense but I wasn’t waiting to discuss anything with you as that has never happened. You’ve made a statement here and there but that’s about it. I disagree in your belief because it goes against the Word of God saying it’s for ALL and he will pour out his Spirit on ALL flesh…….your belief removes that.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 11, 2021)

So be it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> From over here it looks like explanation is ignored, as I pointed out 10 days ago.  I'm sure an update would also be ineffectual (i.e. your belated reference to an "English lesson").
> 
> As to any specific questions (an important part of dialogue) which have been asked, and gone unanswered, I'm sure a reminder would be given consideration.  "Explain your believe" is not a specific question any more that "if" and "all" explain everything.
> What you have stated has been expressed many times by those that view evangelism though the same lense as used by the practitioners of pyramid schemes; however, even a perfunctory study of God's work through His People should disuayed anyone of clinging to such worldly arguments.


Thanks hummer. I can always count on you to remind me there’s a post somewhere explaining your thoughts.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Thanks hummer. I can always count on you to remind me there’s a post somewhere explaining your thoughts.



Spot, I in no way question your faith in God through Our Lord Jesus Christ; but your discussion of that faith has the appearance of a recreational activity.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Spot, I in no way question your faith in God through Our Lord Jesus Christ; but your discussion of that faith has the appearance of a recreational activity.


I’m not sure why I’m even in this debate with you at the moment because currently, I don’t even have a clue of what you believe as far as predestined, free will or any other labels out there.

I assure you there’s nothing recreational about what I believe. I’m not that brave to play around with religion.

To me the only question I had was if man has a choice - yes or no. I believe based on scripture that man can deny God. I don’t believe that makes God any less powerful, glorified, honored and gets in the way of his Will being accomplished.


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2021)

What shall I say then...Father deliver me from this hour? But it is for this very hour I have come.

What Jesus "lets us in on" is the believer's delightful occupation to consider (sounds maybe recreational?) meditate upon (sounds more Biblical/spiritual?)...pursue...ask, seek, knock, about (are we getting warmer?)...discover...there is nothing else to consider? More than "about life"...but life itself. 

Christ our life. To see, even know, and...experience.

This ..."what we have been let in on"

"Our choices"...such as they appear to us (and I trust no believer would have any problem with the admitting of this...except of course for that small issue of "agreement") eventually lead as they must, to no choice. Where all possibilities (where choice exists) exhaust themselves in final resolution.

Like an algorithm that wends its ways through all possibilities to come to one final "solution"...it could seem to us. (And long before that word was common...or I even knew it, I worked briefly in sales and the method was in common use. Always has been. If the customer says "this" you say "that"...all being built to one final outcome to overcome all possibly considered objections to buying. It was "built backwards"...reverse engineered from the goal of purchase.)

This thing the believer could admit to is: All begins with and in God, all ends with and in God...regardless of how we see disposition of places...(heaven/he11)...all is purposed (has its reason for being) by One...for One. Our finding ourselves (in experience) in what appears some apparent in between...(again where choices exist)...I ask...dare we ever, in any way...let slip, ignore, count as "too basic an assumption to be absurd" the start and finish that must never leave our sight?

I would also think a believer has no issue with this "I have no choice about what truth is". Truth is _not for_ my deciding as subject to it...but is...above all (if I entertain _any hope_) and must be, of such transcendence and power as to carry me out of any place where I am possibly influenced to, and by, deception. What is subject...what is and bears such possibility of holding "not true"...even by such possibility...cannot be truth. Or to the absurd..."truly true."

Am I wrong in saying the believer is thrust into absolutes in Christ? But in such finds Christ is able to bear...and even has come to "bear up" all that are His to the seeing of what is "truly true"...covering for all that is "less than that" (sin) in the process?


It is a sort of reverse experience...this matter we endure. Yet God, rich in mercy...counts our suffering as dear to Him...even though it be all that is entirely opposite of the Christ's! And why? Because it is the work of His dear Son...alone.
All between Father and Son. (if one presses for man's part in "but hey, what about me/us?"...God will open a man's eyes to that...but its seeing, though necessary...is not pleasant)

What do I mean of getting credit for an even opposite working where God counts such suffering as dear? This is too ridiculous...but then...grace is to what refutes it.

What Christ experienced as "straight arrow" (do you know the term?) was the pressing against himself (without any succumbing/bending) of every crooked thing in man, and that man in, and under, the influences of a thing (a mere created thing) he submitted to (now who would exalt man's "free will"?) could press against him. Think of bundling the most zig zaggy of rods/nails together with one straight...and binding them with such force as could be exerted (by God and God's plan...not even "man's choice") and  despite all those sharp angles pressing at every point...the rod remains and remained...straight (as an arrow).


We, however, if among those as the scripture says:

For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. 

Are somewhat backward in the experience...being pressed against the straight...and finding all our crooked places stretched out...all our bends and darkened angles being exposed to such straightening...and yet...the marvel is that God counts our "bearing with this"...no less than He has counted Christ's bearing with us...to the same glory!

It's precious to God to behold the death of His saints.

“But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials."

There is no condemnation now for those saying "ouch".

God is getting all the ouch out that our own choices have brought upon us. Through His chosen One.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure why I’m even in this debate with you at the moment because currently, I don’t even have a clue of what you believe as far as predestined, free will or any other labels out there.
> 
> I assure you there’s nothing recreational about what I believe. I’m not that brave to play around with religion.
> 
> To me the only question I had was if man has a choice - yes or no. I believe based on scripture that man can deny God. I don’t believe that makes God any less powerful, glorified, honored and gets in the way of his Will being accomplished.





> To me the only question I had was if man has a choice - yes or no.



My response to that question is still available, it hasn't been deleted (#125 & #164).  If it is insufficient or unclear, a specific question will still be considered.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 12, 2021)

Israel said:


> What shall I say then...Father deliver me from this hour? But it is for this very hour I have come.
> 
> What Jesus "lets us in on" is the believer's delightful occupation to consider (sounds maybe recreational?) meditate upon (sounds more Biblical/spiritual?)...pursue...ask, seek, knock, about (are we getting warmer?)...discover...there is nothing else to consider? More than "about life"...but life itself.
> 
> ...



Izzy thanks.

1. So basically if there’s enough influence “eye candy” thrown at me, I can’t resist - so in a technical sense I just gotta bite? In other words this is so appealing I can’t say not? Not the best description but I think you know what I mean. 

2. But what about the other side of the coin? Those that don’t find it that appealing? Is scripture correct in saying if this Gospel be hid it’s because of this -  “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” 

In more than one place we can tie this to UNBELIEF and it all connects to them not retaining the knowledge of God, continuing in their unrighteousness, finding pleasure in sin, etc.. 


For those in number 2 the god of this world isn’t God, so what about these? 

Their actions in red caused this Gospel to be hidden from them, what I’m looking for is the root cause of that. I know God “allows”everything, but that isn’t the root “cause”.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 12, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> My response to that question is still available, it hasn't been deleted (#125 & #164).  If it is insufficient or unclear, a specific question will still be considered.





> your choice is not "free" but influenced, and dependent upon, many prior factors. which are dependent on other prior factors


I am clear on that ^^^^


> Yes, but you did not make the choice available, nor did you establish the circumstances


I am clear on that ^^^


> the response.



This is my hang up my hang up.

"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

If I understand you correctly, these in the above scriptures did not dictate their response that they will be judged for?


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2021)

I'll get back to you when this is fully reconciled in me...to an effectiveness through spirit, soul, and body.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 

and in the same book:


And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.



Much of my own either/or that to me seems being dealt with, is surely not complete.
Whom God has made to be Savior, Lord, and Christ I would have made once subject to my preferences of choice. Have I been "allowed" choice? None I think here deny it. That choices are made. But, as to who He is...this is where I find (and am finding) all choice is denied me. Nothing I know, have, or can exercise can cause Him to deny Himself...His being who He is.

"I want Him as Savior...(but not judge)" 


But I have found Him quite indivisible...even according to what "candy" my eye may be attracted to. He is all He is...

And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found _it_, he layeth _it_ on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together _his_ friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.





For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay _them_ before me. 


I very much like the lost sheep part. Till I read the other passage and realize that sheep got lost "in its own way" of not wanting the discipline of being "under another". It doesn't matter whether it was distracted, misled, prone to its own tendency to wander...it_ was not paying attention_ to whatever was necessary to keep it from becoming lost.

We are not instructed to "Behold either the kindness OR severity of God"...but something else.


And I cannot make of Christ more kinder nor gentler...anymore than I can Him less than the fierce judge of the whole world.

You see how "eye candy" could now be out of the picture?  

Any of my fondness for sweets holds no less the discovery by revelation of deep cavities and abyss.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 12, 2021)

Israel said:


> I'll get back to you when this is fully reconciled in me...to an effectiveness through spirit, soul, and body.
> 
> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> 
> ...





> I'll get back to you when this is fully reconciled in me...to an effectiveness through spirit, soul, and body.
> 
> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> 
> ...



It isn't His Will that any perish. He has not Willed one person to perish, not a single person. He came as a light to those who might see through conviction, not condemnation - there`s a difference. He also came as judgment to those who reject.

 I hit on this second part earlier with "*Then again if you’re dependent upon your worldly knowledge and education to dissect the Bible instead of the Spirit leading you*" - and was "corrected" lol. But see below, it is actually scripture.

1. They which see not - Christ came as a light into the world, that those who are in the darkness of sin, ignorance, and unbelief might see.

2. They which see might be made blind - the wise and knowing in their own conceit, knowledge, true understanding of divine things, and to be guides of the blind -Scribes and Pharisees.


“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”




> Nothing I know, have, or can exercise can cause Him to deny Himself...His being who He is.



I do agree with THAT^^^ Scripturally, there are those that deny, reject and receive him not - as posted in #339. It is my understanding that this is due to their unbelief.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2021)

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"

"He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I am clear on that ^^^^
> 
> I am clear on that ^^^
> 
> ...



You are then this guy


> 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”


right.

At least we know where we are: back at June 28, 2021, Post #87 & 94.

I find that funny, but avoidable.

Look at this, which we have talked about:




hummerpoo said:


> Yes, but you did not make the choice available, nor did you establish the circumstances which dictated the response.






Spotlite said:


> 1. Agreed. I never said I made the choice available, I was given an opportunity to choose.






Spotlite said:


> The predestined dream boat has too many holes in it.



It's easy to see how some of those holes were produced.  It's not a new thing though, and not restricted to discussion among laymen like ourselves.  A few days ago I recommended a couple of books by 17th century theologians.  Even though I referred to them as thorough, it's a relative term, they sometimes create the same sort of holes.  I only mention the issue because awareness helps lead to prevention.  Lord, help my awareness.

As I was formulating my "Yes, but " response (not totally dissimilar to the one above) a faint bell was ringing.  Here's the paragraph that was that bell.

"*Has not the potter a right over the clay to make from the same lump one part a vessel for honourable service and another a vessel for menial service?*  The fact that the occurrence together of 'potter' and 'clay' can be paralleled in some of the Old Testament potter passages and of 'potter and vessel' in others is hardly surprising.  But the contact with Wisd 15.7 ('For a potter, kneading soft earth, Laboriously mouldeth each several _vessel_ for our service: Nay, out of the same clay doth he fashion Both the vessels that minister to clean uses, and those of a contrary sort, All in like manner, But what shall be the use of each _vessel_ of either sort, The craftsman _himself_ is the judge) is much more significant, since not only do 'potter', 'clay' and 'vessel' all occur together there, but the thought of the differences in dignity among the vessels is also expressed.  Paul is no doubt aware that he was using a common biblical image.  It may be that it was actually Wisd 15.7 (a passage which is not metaphorical but literal) which suggested to him the suitability of this image for his present purpose.  But the similitude which we have here is Paul's own construction, designed specially with the point he wanted to make in view.  The point of the similitude lies in the fact that the potter - as potter - must, in order to fulfil the rational purposes of his craft, be free to make, from the same mass of clay, some vessels for noble, and some for menial, uses. The conclusion to be drawn is that God must be acknowledged to be free - as God, as the one who has ultimate authority - to appoint men to various functions in the on-going course of salvation-history for the sake of the fulfilment of His over-all purpose.  And it cannot be emphasized to strongly that there is naturally not the slightest suggestion that the potter's freedom is the freedom of caprice, and that it is, therefor, perverse to suppose that what Paul wanted to assert was a freedom of the Creator to deal with His creatures according to some indeterminate, capricious absolute will."   C.E.B, Cranfield, Romans a Shorter Commentary, 9.18-21, 20b-21

In the author's opinion


> "The conclusion to be drawn is that God must be acknowledged to be free - as God, as the one who has ultimate authority - to appoint men to various functions in the on-going course of salvation-history for the sake of the fulfilment of His over-all purpose."







> If I understand you correctly, these in the above scriptures did not dictate their response that they will be judged for?



Yes, but to suppose that God dictates their response without beneficence and justice is to  presume to "answer back to God" (9:20).


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2021)

Do the verses in #342 show that God predestined some people to be without God and predestined some people to be with God?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 12, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> You are then this guy
> 
> right.
> 
> ...





> You are then this guy right.





> 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”


No. I am not that guy. I have seen anything unfair about God be it we are given the power of choice or not.




> Yes, but to suppose that God dictates their response without beneficence and justice is to  presume to "answer back to God" (9:20).



I recognize the justice, and that's why I stand firm that God is not unjust in anything.

As for the potter`s right over the clay. He formed man from the same clay (Genesis) - both those that would accept him (honorable) and those that would reject him (dishonorable) vessels. All were considered corrupt until they come to God.

I knew your stance, but now I better understand it. Thanks for your clarification on it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Do the verses in #342 show that God predestined some people to be without God and predestined some people to be with God?


I say no. I am wondering if the word predestination is actually used correctly. Scripture says he died for ALL. I don't think there is anything contradictory there with those verses that the predestined folks use, I do think it is how we apply certain terms with our "wisdom".

I have always heard it taught that mankind was selected by God to serve him. Not individual hand picks. But due to unbelief some would reject his calling.

I am only familiar with a very small group of folks that were former "predestination" believers and this is actually the reply to my text asking one of them about this subject, so if it is wrong, it is their own thoughts about a doctrine they supported - 

"It is my opinion that as much as convenient this predestined doctrine may be, it is also a very wrong and dangerous doctrine. This doctrine is responsible, at least partially, for the passivity of many people not spreading the Word because “whoever will be saved will be saved” anyway and directly responsible for making “Go ye therefore into all the world” less meaningful / valuable"

And this right here was an eye opener for them -

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

They saw that it was through the unbelief of the individual that the god of this world / the prince of this world John 14:30 (Lucifer) was allowed to blind their minds. Ultimately, their disbelief is the root cause.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I say no. I am wondering if the word predestination is actually used correctly. Scripture says he died for ALL. I don't think there is anything contradictory there with those verses that the predestined folks use, I do think it is how we apply certain terms with our "wisdom".
> 
> I have always heard it taught that mankind was selected by God to serve him. Not individual hand picks. But due to unbelief some would reject his calling.
> 
> ...


"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"

That sounds like his will can and is anything that he wanted each individual to inherit according to God's purpose. Election or Not for examples


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"
> 
> That sounds like his will can and is anything that he wanted each individual to inherit according to God's purpose. Election or Not for examples


I absolutely agree.

I think where I understand things differently is being it’s not His Will that any perish - that’s not a lie.

But, there are those that will because of their unbelief.

And, of course yes, he uses ALL of us according to his purpose.

What I don’t believe is that he chose you to be a non believer and chose me to be a believer. I believe he chose and predestined both of us to serve him, and allowed us to become what we became. I don’t see how that takes any authority away from him.


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2021)

It surely is captivating what God gives man to consider in Christ.
Meditate upon, pray in regards, pursue, ask, seek, knock.

What else is there?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2021)

Israel said:


> It surely is captivating what God gives man to consider in Christ.
> Meditate upon, pray in regards, pursue, ask, seek, knock.
> 
> What else is there?


Over 5 Billion people who do not consider Christ whatsoever.


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or it is a result of the individual's content. None of us get to choose our takeaways.



"No one puts new wine in old wineskins"

and Phillipians 3:12-16?

In things we once trusted that of, and to, ourselves made perfect sense are now shown utterly imperfect?


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Over 5 Billion people who do not consider Christ whatsoever.



Is that so?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I absolutely agree.
> 
> I think where I understand things differently is being it’s not His Will that any perish - that’s not a lie.
> 
> ...


Regarding believers:
If a person has truly experienced God in some way in which they are convinced that they somehow have more of an understanding about him, or feel that they are part of the Elect, or are somehow more enlightened than someone else...why aren't all of them on the same page? Why hasn't god cleared up what he means among the chosen instead of them leaving them with no better understanding as a non chosen or non believer EXCEPT for personal interpretations which is on par with everyone else?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> No. I am not that guy. I have seen anything unfair about God be it we are given the power of choice or not.



(assuming either "I have [not] seen" or "I have seen [no]thing"—__it happens) Since Paul's hypothesized opponent has also seen nothing unfair about God and mistakenly thinks that Paul is portraying Him as unfair he speaks.  



> I recognize the justice, and that's why I stand firm that God is not unjust in anything.



To suppose that you understand the justice without understanding the justice with beneficence is to fail to understand substitutionary atonement or the incarnation.

Please go back to the discussion of "holes" in my last post.



> As for the potter`s right over the clay. He formed man from the same clay (Genesis) - both those that would accept him (honorable) and those that would reject him (dishonorable) vessels. All were considered corrupt until they come to God.



I believe the current discussion begins where you statement ends; by what power do they come to God?



> I knew your stance, but now I better understand it. Thanks for your clarification on it.



With regret, I don't think the above represent understanding of Paul, Cranfield, or me.

Good luck with your "theology of 'if' and 'all'"


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Regarding believers:
> If a person has truly experienced God in some way in which they are convinced that they somehow have more of an understanding about him, or feel that they are part of the Elect, or are somehow more enlightened than someone else...why aren't all of them on the same page? Why hasn't god cleared up what he means among the chosen instead of them leaving them with no better understanding as a non chosen or non believer EXCEPT for personal interpretations which is on par with everyone else?






> Why hasn't god cleared up what he means among the chosen instead of them leaving them with no better understanding as a non chosen or non believer EXCEPT for personal interpretations which is on par with everyone else?



But He has, and is "cleared up".


Love your brother...even in disagreement.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2021)

Israel said:


> But He has, and is "cleared up".
> 
> 
> Love your brother...even in disagreement.


The conversation above among believers directly refutes your assertion.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The conversation above among believers directly refutes your assertion.


I don't think it does.  Probably another "perspective" thing.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Regarding believers:
> If a person has truly experienced God in some way in which they are convinced that they somehow have more of an understanding about him, or feel that they are part of the Elect, or are somehow more enlightened than someone else...why aren't all of them on the same page? Why hasn't god cleared up what he means among the chosen instead of them leaving them with no better understanding as a non chosen or non believer EXCEPT for personal interpretations which is on par with everyone else?




The very fact that this discussion is occurring is proof that man has a choice and God allows them to form their own Bible, opinion, doctrine, etc. Of course it is all because of him, his work, etc. That has never been in question.

It is clear, "lean not unto your own understanding". Which ties into "following the spirit" - not selling yourself as with great intelligence using medical terms, translating Greek / Hebrew translations, etc. God gave us right here a Bible in our own language. When one is following the Spirit they may ask, they may answer and they may differ in opinions / interpretations because some are on milk, some are on strong meat BUT this happens with those are being led by the spirit and not their own wisdom - 

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

Some of the "ELECT" that at their discretion correct you, and then give us the liberty to discuss with them, or will consider another question may want to self check below -




> They which see might be made blind - the wise and knowing in their own conceit, knowledge, true understanding of divine things, and to be guides of the blind -Scribes and Pharisees.
> 
> 
> “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The very fact that this discussion is occurring is proof that man has a choice and God allows them to form their own Bible, opinion, doctrine, etc. Of course it is all because of him, his work, etc. That has never been in question.


This discussion in no way,shape or form points to a God at all. It shows people have discussions and their interpretations and opinions differ.



Spotlite said:


> It is clear, "lean not unto your own understanding". Which ties into "following the spirit" - not selling yourself as with great intelligence using medical terms, translating Greek / Hebrew translations, etc. God gave us right here a Bible in our own language. When one is following the Spirit they may ask, they may answer and they may differ in opinions / interpretations because some are on milk, some are on strong meat BUT this happens with those are being led by the spirit and not their own wisdom -


An Ultimate Truth can only be true one way. If it was ultimately true everyone would understand it and agree.



Spotlite said:


> "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"


That and a dollar gets you a large soft drink at Micky D's. You want Quran verses too?
"O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another -- and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers."



Spotlite said:


> Some of the "ELECT" that at their discretion correct you, and then give us the liberty to discuss with them, or will consider another question may want to self check below -


Who are these "elect" that you are referring to?
If your claim of self check actually worked and those words you referred to are true, I wouldn't take the position I take.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> (assuming either "I have [not] seen" or "I have seen [no]thing"—__it happens) Since Paul's hypothesized opponent has also seen nothing unfair about God and mistakenly thinks that Paul is portraying Him as unfair he speaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The power they come to God is God. We are way past that, that hasn't been in question from myself. He came and died for all. All will not accept him. Their unbelief is the reason. 


1. It is not God`s Will that *ANY* perish.

2. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

It is scripture, not my theology.

I only said I better understand you. I do understand Paul. I understand Cranfield but with zero confidence in him because his doctrine will completely ignore one whole Book in the Bible concerning salvation.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> This discussion in no way,shape or form points to a God at all. It shows people have discussions and their interpretations and opinions differ.
> 
> 
> An Ultimate Truth can only be true one way. If it was ultimately true everyone would understand it and agree.
> ...





> This discussion in no way, shape or form points to a God at all. It shows people have discussions and their interpretations and opinions differ.


You are exactly right - it is a people problem.



> An Ultimate Truth can only be true one way. If it was ultimately true everyone would understand it and agree.



Yes Sir. The truth does not change. The agree part - that is where the people problem comes into play. We are not programmed robots and if we toy with things and start entertaining things that bring in doubt that will lead to disbelief then our minds get blinded. That is scripture - 2 Corinthians 4




> That and a dollar gets you a large soft drink at Micky D's. You want Quran verses too?



Lol no, but I will take a chocolate shake from Dairy Queen.



> Who are these "elect" that you are referring to?
> If your claim of self check actually worked and those words you referred to are true, I wouldn't take the position I take


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The conversation above among believers directly refutes your assertion.


How so?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> You are then this guy - 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”


Not wanting to leave this hanging I wanted to address this one item.

God will not be unjust no matter what man asks or claim. He has ensured that by his own doings.

"Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains"

There is no fault found in God - an individual can either believe or not believe. It is the not believing that causes the blindness to be allowed by God. For a person to believe or not believe, they must be presented with something. If there be found any that never heard the Gospel or had an opportunity to hear it then ^^^^^^^^ But to those that hear it and still don`t believe.....

Sure, God will have mercy on whom he has mercy on. That is not wrong, Paul is illustrating the sovereignty of God. But, being the gentleman that he is, God took it a step further and put it in writing in verses for those willing to listen to him and not question him.


In the spiritual, we are all born blind. 

You cannot deny scripture that says their blindness was caused by their unbelief. Read John 9. There are more Biblical references that I have quoted, also.


Two key verses from Jon 9:

But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

He came to open the blinded eyes of those that want him, and close those eyes that reject him.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Not wanting to leave this hanging I wanted to address this one item.
> 
> God will not be unjust no matter what man asks or claim. He has ensured that by his own doings.
> 
> ...



Good

I addressed it:
"Since Paul's hypothesized opponent has also seen nothing unfair about God and mistakenly thinks that Paul is portraying Him as unfair he speaks."

You addressed it.

And Paul addressed it:
"20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?"...and following.

All parties have been heard from.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Good
> 
> I addressed it:
> "Since Paul's hypothesized opponent has also seen nothing unfair about God and mistakenly thinks that Paul is portraying Him as unfair he speaks."
> ...


Awesome. Since that diversion has been cleared and everyone has addressed it, the origin of what is YOUR belief remains - Do you think God purposely creates one to be a believer and another to be a non believer?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Awesome. Since that diversion has been cleared and everyone has addressed it, the origin of what is YOUR belief remains - Do you think God purposely creates one to be a believer and another to be a non believer?


Diversion?  I believe that diversion was instigated by your question, has been on the table for 14 days, and the subject of many, many posts.

Before I can respond to what I do not recall having been asked before, I will have to decipher "the origin of what is YOUR belief remains".  Are you asking "What is it that I believe? or "What is the origin of what I believe", relative to "Do you think ....?".  Or was something else intended?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Diversion?  I believe that diversion was instigated by your question, has been on the table for 14 days, and the subject of many, many posts.
> 
> Before I can respond to what I do not recall having been asked before, I will have to decipher "the origin of what is YOUR belief remains".  Are you asking "What is it that I believe? or "What is the origin of what I believe", relative to "Do you think ....?".  Or was something else intended?


The diversion starts here in post 296 with a condensed quote of my post and quoting a scripture in reply.  





> Spotlite said: That would make him an unjust God if he left you without a choice.





> The scripture quote: What shall we say then? _Is there_ unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then _it is_ not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will _have mercy_, and whom he will he hardeneth.



This led into a debate from you and that Poster about God`s control and being Just / Unjust. My statement was not intended as quoted as I have provided ample scripture to show that God is not and cannot be unjust. God designed it that if you failed there is no one to blame but yourself.  

From his stance he has said both - "no-one is advocating no choice" and "ultimately God decides" the hardened heart - that conflicts with scripture: 

"But you were unwilling to go up; you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God"

"Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness"

"So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the wilderness, where your ancestors tested and tried me, though for forty years they saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation; I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.’ So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ” 

No need to discuss that any further.

My question to you was does a man have a choice to serve or deny God? (can a man that hears Gods voice reject God, can he harden his own heart, rebel against God, be unwilling, go astray) Or is he designed to be a believer or designed to be a non believer?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The diversion starts here in post 296 with a condensed quote of my post and quoting a scripture in reply.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Same subject and same passage as #87 & #94.
but
Whatever.




> My question to you was does a man have a choice to serve or deny God? (can a man that hears Gods voice reject God, can he harden his own heart, rebel against God, be unwilling, go astray)


Previously discussed (remember when you addressed the first half of my sentence and failed to acknowledge the last half)

More later.  I just finished turning a 5 c.y. too wet compost pile with a pitch fork.  I'm going to shower, eat, and probably watch a couple shows on the DVR.



> Or is he designed to be a believer or designed to be a non believer?



To Continue:

I believe that God is the ultimate cause*of everything: sensible and supersensible, to include all motion, actions, and inactions (if there is inaction), within the bounds of creation, from the beginning of time to the end of time, and all that is outside of time (eternal).

The lone exception is God Himself; He is without cause, He simply is and is simple (not compounded).

I hope that is broad enough to satisfy your questions.

* Besides the common understanding of cause, there are several types of cause defined by different disciplines, law and philosophy come to mind; it is my opinion that they all reduce to the ultimate cause.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Same subject and same passage as #87 & #94.
> but
> Whatever.
> 
> ...


Ok, that’s fair enough. I admit my weakness is over looking material at times. I will review and will let that suffix.

Wet compost? I’m starting a worm bed and researching how much moisture is required - what are you doing with the wet compost?

My 14 month old Grandson lives next door and saw me on the tractor and I ended up with him. We are watching shark week.

Hummer - if nothing else, this stuff makes me dig. Always enjoy the debate


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Ok, that’s fair enough. I admit my weakness is over looking material at times. I will review and will let that suffix.
> 
> Wet compost? I’m starting a worm bed and researching how much moisture is required - what are you doing with the wet compost?
> 
> ...



You posted this while I was completing my post.



> Wet compost? I’m starting a worm bed and researching how much moisture is required - what are you doing with the wet compost?


Mostly learning about compost.  It's wet because we had several weeks of dry weather and the pile seemed to be getting too dry (I cover it to try to hold moister and turn it about once a week to aerate it).  I dreading having to haul water or run hoses 100 yards so I thought I was getting lucky with the forecast and uncovered the pile.  It dumped almost 7" of rain on the 3' deep pile before I got it recovered.  Like I said "Mostly learning".

Good luck with the worms.


----------



## Israel (Jul 14, 2021)

Here's an interesting game the Lord has allowed me to enter with Him. It never grows old, we have never (yet) exhausted it, I have never lost in playing it, yet I have never triumphed over Him in it...nevertheless there is very real triumph experienced.

And it always calls for only 2 players so anyone even vaguely interested will have to find their partner.

(And yes, I know...games are for children, so the "too" mature and too wise/intelligent are out...so I get the frowns on those faces...but I can't stop playing)

The name of the game is "Fear Not"...though it's more commonly and comparably known hereabouts as "Peek-a-boo".

There's only one rule to the game, so it's simple, and the rule is the same as the name of the game.

Had I made up the game I might have called it (for marketing purposes and to get many others to play) "The Try to Break the Rule Game"...but thankfully, I did not.

It's a sorta perfect game... you only have to hear the rule to know you've been invited to play.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2021)

Same shelf,  two god games to the left. Brought to you by MB (Mohammed Bradley)

_*“Behold! Verily no fear shall be upon the friends of Allah, nor shall they grieve;”
“Those who believe and constantly keep from evil.”
“For them are Glad Tidings in this world’s life and in the Hereafter. There is no change in the Words of Allah. That is the great success.”
And let not their speech grieve you. Verily the glory is wholly Allah’s; He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”
Behold! Verily to Allah belongs whoever is in the heavens and whoever is in the earth, and they do not follow any associates, who call on others besides Allah, they do not follow (anything) but conjectures, and they only lie.”
They say, ‘Allah has begotten a son!’ Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! His is whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth! No warrant have you for this! Do you say about Allah what you do not know?’”*_


These things must be true, it says so right in the Quran.
_*Say: ‘Verily those who forge a lie against Allah will not prosper.’”
“(They have) a little enjoyment in this world, then to Us will be their return, then shall We make them taste the severe penalty because they used to disbelieve.”*_


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You are exactly right - it is a people problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You added a question mark to my last sentence and answered it as if I asked a question when I actually made a statement.


----------



## Israel (Jul 14, 2021)

Were the reward only to see the "esteemed" unrighteous in subjection and not the righteous One exalted I suppose that game would suffice.

The whole world is playing that one.

(See how you tried to introduce a 3rd player?)


Run along. Go find your own partner.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You added a question mark to my last sentence and answered it as if I asked a question when I actually made a statement.


Sorry. Typo when copying and pasting. It’s corrected. I actually deleted my answer because I boogerd it up.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2021)

Israel said:


> Were the reward only to see the "esteemed" unrighteous in subjection and not the righteous One exalted I suppose that game would suffice.
> 
> The whole world is playing that one.
> 
> ...



No need for me to run and find a partner nor introduce anyone else into the game. The Religious Solitaire players do a fine job of conjuring up enough of their own Drop Dead Fred friends to corner the market. I had just shown how it is marketed to others.


----------



## Israel (Jul 14, 2021)

Obviously all you have known.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2021)

Israel said:


> Obviously all you have known.


Me and Ol Jeezey were tight back in the day. Beliefs change.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Me and Ol Jeezey were tight back in the day. Beliefs change.


At the beginning of your Christian walk - what was it that you either saw / thought / heard / experienced that made you believe you’ve found something?

During your skepticism - if you were once convinced that you had a “Christian walk”, as part of your researching and digging, did you also consider this; “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? Meaning the below. 

At least to the point of searching scriptures similar to this -  “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not”

At least to the point to ensure that ^^^^ isn’t what’s happening?

I’m not saying that ^^^^ happened, just curious if everything biblical was also used in your decision.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> At the beginning of your Christian walk - what was it that you either saw / thought / heard / experienced that made you believe you’ve found something?
> 
> During your skepticism - if you were once convinced that you had a “Christian walk”, as part of your researching and digging, did you also consider this; “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? Meaning the below.
> 
> ...


I will not get into details as I have mentioned a vague outline of things that I felt was spiritual a few times previously. And like I've said numerous times before, Those instances led me to dig deep into the bible. The more I read the more I wanted to know about the people, places and events. I felt to be a part of them all. The more I researched those things I found out information elsewhere and at times a lack of information elsewhere which did not add up. I knew that something so true as Gods word would stand up to all scrutiny. It took me many years to admit that what I was told and read did not match what I was finding out through research. I wanted to back up what I was sure I knew to be true and found out something different entirely.
I am still researching the history of "my" religion and to do that I had to go back to the one before it,and the one before that one, and the one before that one and I've come to realize that the one I thought was unique and true was an adaptation of previous religions. I didnt like to hear it, I didnt want to believe it and I made excuses like I hear in here as to why things didn't add up. I finally realized that I was keeping the truth from myself. And, I am still searching for that one piece which proves me wrong.


----------



## Israel (Jul 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Me and Ol Jeezey were tight back in the day. Beliefs change.


Yes, I don't doubt that's how you would view it. I have heard you describe yourself as devout and again, no doubt thinking of yourself as one who has plumbed the very depths and "coming up empty" are more than ready to announce there's no "there, there".

This "Ole Jeezey" you believe you have fully surveyed to a sufficiency of licence to deride like the some who I have seen that enjoy spitting His name, for you serves many purposes.

When convenient for you He is no more than a man who (may have?) once lived whose only reputation is entirely a construct of some men whose Machiavellian religious scheming (some anonymous, some not) was to exalt themselves as founders of some new religious cult.
But if all was mistaken, if "Ole Jeezey" was never at fault for what was done with Him and His name, why then, the derision? Unless of course my perception is entirely wrong in respect to your use of Ole Jeezey.

But for all I know you may just be trying to get a rise out of something. Not unlike, at all, the some christians I have known who mistakenly believe they show right end of justification by referring to Satan in their most casual dismissals with some silly and derogatory sounding appellations. To me you appear still very religious. Your taint has merely taken on a slightly different hue. (Beliefs change)

But since "christianity" did not afford you the place of feeling right about yourself, you've simply adopted what to you is the now "better informed" pile of rubble upon which you may crow. Research, exhaustive investigations, the _truly deep plumbings _that you imagine few, if any, (and especially those esteeming the name of Jesus Christ) have undertaken. This would at least imply a general ignorance and deficiency (whether apparently willful or not) as no less than root cause (ignorance) for their embrace of that Name. "If they only knew" says the latest messiah.

We could both recite, I am sure (if we care to bring in 3rd parties) men very learned, studied, diligent in their academics and with their _very decent IQ's_ who either oppose or support (depending) their view and the significance of that Name. The Bart Ehrman's vs the CS Lewis sort of thing. Or drag in other religions with claims so similar sounding (to the religious) that such similarity must therefore cast a taint upon any preeminence claimed to be seen or known, in that Name. Intelligence then, (and academic distinctions) at least as measured among men and by men becomes there a "wash"...of no consequence to resolution.

But, for now, it's just you and me. And you will have to determine whether I am being honest or just another liar when I say that in my following and any motions I may perceive as toward that, for that, and in that Name I have yet to find anything that makes me "feel good" about myself. But, I have found comfort extended to a thing entirely "not right" of itself. And a sight of someone, not me, who is entirely that...right and righteous. You may call him Ole Jeezey, He has said He is able to bear it, and has.

"Any word spoken against the Son of Man shall be forgiven..."

As was once said to me by a fellow believer claiming that name



> You’re one of the worst offenders. There are _men_ far _smarter_ _than_ either one of us who make their points _much_ better and don’t waste people’s time with their verbosity.



you may be in total agreement with him as to my wasting "people's time".

But you?

You are quite useful.

Necessary.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> The name of the game is "Fear Not"...though it's more commonly and comparably known hereabouts as "Peek-a-boo".
> 
> There's only one rule to the game, so it's simple, and the rule is the same as the name of the game.


It would appear that the objective of the game is also the same as the name of the game.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I will not get into details as I have mentioned a vague outline of things that I felt was spiritual a few times previously. And like I've said numerous times before, Those instances led me to dig deep into the bible. The more I read the more I wanted to know about the people, places and events. I felt to be a part of them all. The more I researched those things I found out information elsewhere and at times a lack of information elsewhere which did not add up. I knew that something so true as Gods word would stand up to all scrutiny. It took me many years to admit that what I was told and read did not match what I was finding out through research. I wanted to back up what I was sure I knew to be true and found out something different entirely.
> I am still researching the history of "my" religion and to do that I had to go back to the one before it,and the one before that one, and the one before that one and I've come to realize that the one I thought was unique and true was an adaptation of previous religions. I didnt like to hear it, I didnt want to believe it and I made excuses like I hear in here as to why things didn't add up. I finally realized that I was keeping the truth from myself. And, I am still searching for that one piece which proves me wrong.




I think it is healthy that people are themselves, or they are "do you" but also that people can provide in themselves a space where they can try to know what it is like to walk in other people's shoes not their own and  yet fully aware they are  biased against this for walking in their own--which they should do.

You seem to have concluded that Christianity is an adaptation of previous religions, and that this conclusion makes it equal in a judgement perhaps that some Christians themselves might have that all others are inventions or false beliefs--- therefore for you Christianity is equally false.

If this is indeed the case than the conclusion is of the the extreme that all other religion's gods are  false, fake, made up and not true  and therefore the God of Christians is equally false, fake, made up and not true.

In my case trying to put myself in your shoes and other Christians shoes ( other than myself) that other religions have false gods seem for me to be  trying to put on shoes of people who have polarized thinking or don't entertain the complex and nuanced meanings in the various cultural and religious expressions throughout man's history

Understanding that cultural expression forms much of the brick and mortar of how man articulates reality, and that cultures stand on the shoulders of cultures, it does not follow that the cultures who have lost their freshness in meaning, their newness in saying things, that  some of the content of those expressions or the subject of the expressions are not truth now.

Meaning that is derived from polarized thinking seems to miss out in meaning which is derived that thinking is complex and nuanced for most human beings, for most cultures and for most of their religious expression.

To conclude that because Christianity is an adaptation of previous religions and therefore by this fact disqualifies the existence of Christ as God where especially God if he exists at all and a  God defined from the specifics of polarized thinking seems to me to be missing a lot of walking in other people's shoes.

So it is safe to say, I'm not a polarized thinker, and this little exercise of trying to get into someone else's shoes is not easy... but I tried. I tried to understand what could not be understood by another...without making judgement as to what is right and what is wrong thinking but what types of thinking might provide which are not similar.

I must confess when I get down to reading the history of religions I put on different socks and shoes  than my everyday shoes and socks. I dress up my thinking like it was an actor in a play and I play all the characters through out time in my mind, and I listen for the footfall sounds that are common to all in their expressions... and it is there I meet with their so called gods, meeting in some cases with mine as God stands (lives) with me now and so see in  some cases that my God  stood-lived equally with others- with them.

So it is mine the opposite truth to yours I have found-- ancient religions are not antagonistic to my spiritual understandings. My thinking is just not polarized when I reach out to ancient religions or other cultures in time... as I don't understand that the people who occupied them had for the most part polarized thinking so that meaning for them was derived and expressed for  and from complexities and nuances... they lived with.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> Yes, I don't doubt that's how you would view it. I have heard you describe yourself as devout and again, no doubt thinking of yourself as one who has plumbed the very depths and "coming up empty" are more than ready to announce there's no "there, there".
> 
> This "Ole Jeezey" you believe you have fully surveyed to a sufficiency of licence to deride like the some who I have seen that enjoy spitting His name, for you serves many purposes.
> 
> ...


I believe that you believe that you have a relationship with a god. In your mind having that relationship is all that matters. Like the relationship, your perception can only be as accurate as you think it is and convince yourself it is. 
Why do you get so defensive when your board game buddy is unable to get past Go and collect his $200? Relax, he is able to bear it, remember?
If you feel the need to defend the things that you claim he is able to bear are you trying to be useful, necessary to him? For his purpose or yours?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I think it is healthy that people are themselves, or they are "do you" but also that people can provide in themselves a space where they can try to know what it is like to walk in other people's shoes not their own and  yet fully aware they are  biased against this for walking in their own--which they should do.
> 
> You seem to have concluded that Christianity is an adaptation of previous religions, and that this conclusion makes it equal in a judgement perhaps that some Christians themselves might have that all others are inventions or false beliefs--- therefore for you Christianity is equally false.
> 
> ...


I think all religions are the results of mans adaptation in order to try to explain the things he can never know while dealing with his own mortality.

All the religions have a better version of man to take care of them, a better place to live, a better realm to live in, peace, happiness, love, and everything that can be improved upon here in earth. It is a great distraction instead of thinking about the inevitable. A person gets to spend a lifetime of convincing themselves to wait till Act II so when it gets close to that time it is easier to think that they are hitting the eternal lottery.

The History of religions are similar in those regards. Everyone is gonna be alright the 2nd time around.
I on the other hand am concerned with this life and do not feel the need to rely on something so complex that I cannot understand even if it did exist or rely on another man's interpretation of what it is. Individuals interpret such things to suit themselves according to their wants and needs and while many people like(need) to be part of a group they all secretly alter the rules to suit themselves anyway.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2021)

Bullet, before I start I must apologize for starting, but I feel compelled to start.

My current personal circumstance is such that I have been telling myself that I must spend much less time thinking about these discussions in favor of more important things.  I am rationally correct in those thoughts but very limited in implementing them; although I will continue the effort, even as I continue to type.

Some 5 or 6 years ago I suggested to you that, although many people, over a significant period of time, have talked about connections drawn from one definable practice of faith to another; then, having placed those practices chronologically, concluded that religions are of some evolutionary nature not connected to any supernatural being at all (I know that you do not deny the possibility of a Deity); that there is one distinctive of Christian faith.  That discussion (the one we engaged in years ago) went no where.  I perceive a somewhat different atmosphere today; therefore I will ask:

*In what religion, other that "Christianity", is God, or a god, believed to perform the necessary atonement for transgression by a believer of the imperatives of God, or a god, and credit that atonement to the believer (Substitutionary Atonement)?*

It must be stipulate that within Christianity there is disagreement as to the scope of the atonement, and the mechanism of inauguration, but that the substitutionary nature of the atonement is the same on all sides of that discussion.  I hear, but see as pretentious, your argument that if God is truly God, He would cause all of His People to interpret His revelations in the same way, but would not think that bears on the question of atonement, given the agreement among the contenders within the faith.

I have not found any other; but intend, God willing, to investigate any viable candidate suggested.

If, considering my opening, indicating that I may not be fully engaged, you are hesitant to respond, you would probably demonstrate wisdom superior to mine.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

Wisdom (I'd use thoughts instead), of any magnitude, should be shared. It doesn't do anyone any good to not  share a thought and offer another perspective.
Christianity is Judaism 2.0. An ever evolving "improvement" over the last version which sprouted from the one before it. 
They all stick to core basics and offer something else to stand out.
"*In what religion, other that "Christianity", is God, or a god, believed to perform the necessary atonement for transgression by a believer of the imperatives of God, or a god, and credit that atonement to the believer (Substitutionary Atonement)?"*

Christianity, as well as all others would need to offer something different in order to attract members. Wouldn't you agree Hummer?
I don't see the correlation between differences and truth rather than giving the people what they want to hear or another option to choose from.

In tales taken from writings we are seemingly led to believe that for thousands of years Gods were interacting daily in and among humans. It would seem that Gods got camera shy or that these ancient writers were doing nothing different than what is done in here by writing down stories inspired by their beliefs as evidence outside of these writings is non existent. 

I think you nailed it when you stated that a God is "BELIEVED to perform......." rather than "has been shown to perform......"
Christianity is another avenue to attract individuals who's beliefs differ from another religion.  Inside Christianity itself,  multiple (thousands) of denominations exist because nobody can all agree on what exactly Christianity is or means when it gets broken down into details.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2021)

Your "higher criticism" mentors (Ehrman and Co.) would be pleased.
Dismiss rather than engage.
I suppose I should have known better.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Your "higher criticism" mentors (Ehrman and Co.) would be pleased.
> Dismiss rather than engage.
> I suppose I should have known better.


I rarely consider "Ehrman and Co" unless they are discussed in here.
I have heard the expression that Great Minds Think Alike and I appreciate your compliment. 
I directly engaged your previous post while being specific to the point you brought up regarding a god and atonement. 
If you seem to think my direct engagement dismisses your point then it seems as if I did a good job getting my point across.
If you want me to answer the way you hoped I would answer then tell me what I should have said so I can engage that with dismissive points, facts and examples also.

I wrote a few paragraphs which engaged your post.
You wrote 3 sentences in reply,  none of which engaged direct questions to you or tried to refute anything that I said. Who is really being dismissive?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I rarely consider "Ehrman and Co" unless they are discussed in here.
> I have heard the expression that Great Minds Think Alike and I appreciate your compliment.
> I directly engaged your previous post while being specific to the point you brought up regarding a god and atonement.
> If you seem to think my direct engagement dismisses your point then it seems as if I did a good job getting my point across.
> ...


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Wisdom (I'd use thoughts instead), of any magnitude, should be shared. It doesn't do anyone any good to not  share a thought and offer another perspective.
> Christianity is Judaism 2.0. An ever evolving "improvement" over the last version which sprouted from the one before it.
> They all stick to core basics and offer something else to stand out.
> "*In what religion, other that "Christianity", is God, or a god, believed to perform the necessary atonement for transgression by a believer of the imperatives of God, or a god, and credit that atonement to the believer (Substitutionary Atonement)?"*
> ...





> I think you nailed it when you stated that a God is "BELIEVED to perform......." rather than "has been shown to perform......”


I’m leaning more to view it as a personal stance - it’s shown to some at the same time it’s not to some. The “why’s” of that will always be debated.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m leaning more to view it as a personal stance - it’s shown to some at the same time it’s not to some. The “why’s” of that will always be debated.


I think where the personal part comes in are the ones who think they've been shown it and the next guy wasn't.
I am not sure that I have ever heard a believer admit that they did not think they were of the Chosen or Elect, it is always some other person is not, doesn't get it, or is blinded.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


>


Have you actually ever researched atonement in other religions?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3136769?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/atonement

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_2.html

http://www.jacksmithprophecy.org/20...by his bad deeds and rendered, out-of-balance.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2021)

http://www.paganizingfaithofyeshua.freeservers.com/atonement_egyptian_religion.htm


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think where the personal part comes in are the ones who think they've been shown it and the next guy wasn't.
> I am not sure that I have ever heard a believer admit that they did not think they were of the Chosen or Elect, it is always some other person is not, doesn't get it, or is blinded.




Ya ever eat a believer? I mean, that you know of.

And though I would surely include _on here_... nevertheless I am persuaded some have an imaginary line drawn. Do you "get it"?

A place some may think of (do you think any do think this way?) as a virtual presence as opposed to let's say "Their real life"? Like a "forum life"/real life. That forward slash is that imaginary line.

Do you think some may think this way?
That there's "this" _online thing_ of some derivation...but then they also have "their real life"? This online thing to them...not being (to them) as "real" as their _real life._

I eat believer's all the time, or at the very least have some taste for them. This doesn't at all indicate my palate is refined to any degree of rightness...(after all, who can account for taste?) or that because a thing tastes good to me...it is good. Or even good for me.

But I am inclined to some agreement with your statement:



> Wisdom (I'd use thoughts instead), of any magnitude, should be shared. It doesn't do anyone any good to not share a thought and offer another perspective.



(And will, for now, take you as an honest man; and not expect to hear anything about anyone's frivolous use of bandwidth.)

Therefore I will concede (even though _I know_ the line is imaginary) that some divide according to "real life"/online excursions...do you know any believers in what might be called (even according to those imaginary dividers) "real life"? Do you have any intercourse with them...exchange...tastings? And if you do...do you tell them about "Ole Jeezey" as you might on here? Do you know any_ things_ that call themselves believers..."in real life"?

You ever been to funerals? Weddings? God knows, even commencements or graduations where that name has come up? Around some table somewhere where someone offers grace or prayer? (I don't imagine you much frequent buildings with the word "Church" above the door...but...then neither do I, claiming no rightness nor wrongness in it)

I taste what calls itself "unbeliever" also. And not unlike believers (to me) some have a chunky, some have a smoother texture/consistency. And I'm pretty sure it's that imaginary line that accounts for texture. But it's not limited to just "online"/offline...sometimes it's church face/regular face...work place face/regular face...etc. Even...marriage face/real face.

And since use of bandwidth is no longer open as basis of dismissal, I will tell you a funny story (though I already know who will get it...at least now...perhaps...some later). See how thoughts are shared?

Yesterday morning after finishing a post "on here"...I stepped away from my desk and engaged my wife about something, and right now I can't even remember what it was. But it resulted in her putting her index finger to her temple area and making circular motions with it. (I also speak sign language, do you?)

I couldn't help but laugh out loud. I said "Honey, I just finished writing to a guy who once mentioned (years ago) it would probably be good for you to be "warned" about me"

"Oh, really?" she said, "and who would that be?"

Now, I didn't give up any names, and won't now, but I will tell any who would hear that everything that was in her tone had nothing to do with wanting to know "that person" that they could share a laugh and happy agreement over a beer.

If anything it was more a "mother bear" response.
Do you "get it"?

Have you ever eaten a believer?

I do...all the time. On here, off here, in closets, behind steering wheels, when watching TV...and even playing Fortnite with the grand kids and great grands...He's never absent...nor given to anything like "virtual presence" as opposed to "real presence" Online/offline.

So I will say this in closing in regards to appearances and interior workings...of consistencies and knowings.
Of things said, and things even not necessary to be said.

In this matter of choosing, of God's election, of God's sovereignty in, and over all matters and things and over which some have been said to only "parrot", I know, yes I know...who amongst us know that this matter, and of this matter to a terribleness that is placed against the sheer superficiality that is apprehended solely in



> I am not sure that I have ever heard a believer admit that they did not think they were of the Chosen or Elect, it is always some other person is not, doesn't get it, or is blinded.



That there are some (yes, even amongst us) that don't deny Jesus words here:

"Have I not chosen you, the 12, and yet one of you is a devil?"

That are quite sober.

Some even live in that place where this question, this terrible question is not denied to their knowing...and know there is ONLY ONE who can give any RIGHT and TRUE answer.

"Lord, is it I?"

Am I Judas?

Two faced?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> Ya ever eat a believer? I mean, that you know of.


Yes, they taste like chicken.



Israel said:


> And though I would surely include _on here_... nevertheless I am persuaded some have an imaginary line drawn. Do you "get it"?


I understand what you mean



Israel said:


> A place some may think of (do you think any do think this way?) as a virtual presence as opposed to let's say "Their real life"? Like a "forum life"/real life. That forward slash is that imaginary line.


You mentioned an imaginary line above and then asked me if I "get it".
My answer to that fits this also.



Israel said:


> Do you think some may think this way?
> That there's "this" _online thing_ of some derivation...but then they also have "their real life"? This online thing to them...not being (to them) as "real" as their _real life._


It is a physical vs virtual setting.




Israel said:


> I eat believer's all the time, or at the very least have some taste for them. This doesn't at all indicate my palate is refined to any degree of rightness...(after all, who can account for taste?) or that because a thing tastes good to me...it is good. Or even good for me.


Give some background as what you mean by "eating believers".
This is the type of statement that separates "in real life" and "virtual".



Israel said:


> Therefore I will concede (even though _I know_ the line is imaginary) that some divide according to "real life"/online excursions...do you know any believers in what might be called (even according to those imaginary dividers) "real life"? Do you have any intercourse with them...exchange...tastings? And if you do...do you tell them about "Ole Jeezey" as you might on here? Do you know any_ things_ that call themselves believers..."in real life"?


Yes, I converse with believers frequently. Casual acquaintances, Acquaintances,  Friends, and Family
I am less reserved face to face as I am in here.



Israel said:


> You ever been to funerals? Weddings? God knows, even commencements or graduations where that name has come up? Around some table somewhere where someone offers grace or prayer? (I don't imagine you much frequent buildings with the word "Church" above the door...but...then neither do I, claiming no rightness nor wrongness in it)


No, I am the offspring of shipwrecked parents and I live on an Uncharted Desert Island with
Gilligan
The Skipper too,
The millionaire and his wife,(Lovey says hello)
The movie star
The Professor and Mary Ann.
Luckily I have internet and can interact here due to the Professor's knack for making Coconuts and Bamboo do miraculous things. I've never heard of a funeral, wedding, commencement,  graduation....or church.
If you have a point with that line of questioning get to it, otherwise I have no problem being your invisible internet friend that plays the Stupid Questions get Stupid Answers Game.



Israel said:


> I taste what calls itself "unbeliever" also. And not unlike believers (to me) some have a chunky, some have a smoother texture/consistency. And I'm pretty sure it's that imaginary line that accounts for texture. But it's not limited to just "online"/offline...sometimes it's church face/regular face...work place face/regular face...etc. Even...marriage face/real face.


Please, by all means explain in detail using examples instead of metaphors.



Israel said:


> And since use of bandwidth is no longer open as basis of dismissal, I will tell you a funny story (though I already know who will get it...at least now...perhaps...some later). See how thoughts are shared?


 Since you asserted about bandwith being a non issue and continue on before receiving any reply....by all means...proceed.



Israel said:


> Yesterday morning after finishing a post "on here"...I stepped away from my desk and engaged my wife about something, and right now I can't even remember what it was. But it resulted in her putting her index finger to her temple area and making circular motions with it. (I also speak sign language, do you?)
> 
> I couldn't help but laugh out loud. I said "Honey, I just finished writing to a guy who once mentioned (years ago) it would probably be good for you to be "warned" about me"
> 
> ...


Yep, you are her nut. (According to your anecdotal story you felt necessary to include)



Israel said:


> Have you ever eaten a believer?


Yes, I eat a believer much like i eat an Elephant...One bite at a time.
Again I ask you to explain in detail with at least one example of what you mean.



Israel said:


> I do...all the time. On here, off here, in closets, behind steering wheels, when watching TV...and even playing Fortnite with the grand kids and great grands...He's never absent...nor given to anything like "virtual presence" as opposed to "real presence" Online/offline.


??????????



Israel said:


> So I will say this in closing in regards to appearances and interior workings...of consistencies and knowings.
> Of things said, and things even not necessary to be said.
> 
> In this matter of choosing, of God's election, of God's sovereignty in, and over all matters and things and over which some have been said to only "parrot", I know, yes I know...who amongst us know that this matter, and of this matter to a terribleness that is placed against the sheer superficiality that is apprehended solely in
> ...


Is that how you end conversations in your real world also?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think all religions are the results of mans adaptation in order to try to explain the things he can never know while dealing with his own mortality.
> 
> All the religions have a better version of man to take care of them, a better place to live, a better realm to live in, peace, happiness, love, and everything that can be improved upon here in earth. It is a great distraction instead of thinking about the inevitable. A person gets to spend a lifetime of convincing themselves to wait till Act II so when it gets close to that time it is easier to think that they are hitting the eternal lottery.
> 
> ...



You are or are very close to describing yourself as a Buddhist in my estimation. Which I'm not condemning. It is just a observation. Enlightened Buddhist would say pretty much what you claim regards god belief--- according to my experience and understanding of what they claim.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Have you actually ever researched atonement in other religions?
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3136769?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
> 
> ...


Yes I have, by which I mean that I have read about it in the Bible, as well as several  articles and essays, both of general circulation and academic.

Have you read these?

I am somewhat familiar with Jestor and Jewish Virtual Library.  Much of what I have read in Jestor are essays by doctoral students about their research.  My impression of Jewish Virtual Library is mixed (you don't know what your going to get).  I am not familiar with the other two sources.

I'll look at them as I can, but I read very slowly.



bullethead said:


> http://www.paganizingfaithofyeshua.freeservers.com/atonement_egyptian_religion.htm



The address of this one makes it sound like it might be a good chuckle, in a "higher criticism sort of way, but maybe not.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> You are or are very close to describing yourself as a Buddhist in my estimation. Which I'm not condemning. It is just a observation. Enlightened Buddhist would say pretty much what you claim regards god belief--- according to my experience and understanding of what they claim.


I more align with a guy with zero religious affiliation who has come up with these observations through research on his own -ism.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes I have, by which I mean that I have read about it in the Bible, as well as several  articles and essays, both of general circulation and academic.
> 
> Have you read these?
> 
> ...


The Old Testament contains atonement, you've read that,  so clearly atonement is not exclusively Christian.
I read these before I sent them to you.
I don't let addresses judge the content.
I read Pro, Con and everything in between.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> Oh, OK.
> 
> I am going to take that to mean you are "_less reserved_ face to face_ than_ I am (you are) in here", unless you correct me.
> 
> ...


rend your clothes?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The Old Testament contains atonement, you've read that,  so clearly atonement is not exclusively Christian.


Exclusively


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> Oh, OK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're interpretation is a great example of why individuals all see, read, hear differently despite what is clearly shown, written and said.
I did not say that I am less reserved regarding Jesus. Don't let that stop you from using it inappropriately down the road though.


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> rend your clothes?



I guess some might, but I kinda like mine.

(BTW...did you know it was forbidden for the High Priest to rend his garments?)


Well, it would sure go a long way in making some things clear.

But I'm still in English as a Second Language classes.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Exclusively


There was atonement in the Torah/OT long before Christianity. Christianity incorporated it and took it where they wanted it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> Oh, OK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Take a stab at answering all my questions that I asked you that were contained in the same post that you cherry picked those two quotes from.

I take the time to answer and address your posts, can you clarify what I've asked you in my reply to yours?


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You're interpretation is a great example of why individuals all see, read, hear differently despite what is clearly shown, written and said.
> I did not say that I am less reserved regarding Jesus. Don't let that stop you from using it inappropriately down the road though.


You seem to want to present yourself as so very consistent, honest and always forthright.

You have some doubts about things...I, no less.

So, as you speak of Jesus in "this" forum, this area of your life, the question was kinda straight forward...when speaking with others in "real life" of Jesus Christ...do you also refer to Him as "Ole Jeezey"?

Some believers may not be as understanding of your childishness as some others are, but then again...some may be more so.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> You seem to want to present yourself as so very consistent, honest and always forthright.
> 
> You have some doubts about things...I, no less.
> 
> ...


I give what I get.
I have to play to the capabilities and understanding across from me.
That is most likely why some are capable of understanding me more than others and why I need to vary my tact.


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I give what I get.
> I have to play to the capabilities and understanding across from me.
> That is most likely why some are capable of understanding me more than others and why I need to vary my tact.






> I am not sure that I have ever heard a believer admit that they did not think they were of the Chosen or Elect, it is always some other person is not, doesn't get it, or is blinded.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> You seem to want to present yourself as so very consistent, honest and always forthright.
> 
> You have some doubts about things...I, no less.
> 
> ...



What you asked:


> Therefore I will concede (even though _I know_ the line is imaginary) that some divide according to "real life"/online excursions...do you know any believers in what might be called (even according to those imaginary dividers) "real life"? Do you have any intercourse with them...exchange...tastings? And if you do...do you tell them about "Ole Jeezey" as you might on here? Do you know any_ things_ that call themselves believers..."in real life"?


What I replied:


> Yes, I converse with believers frequently. Casual acquaintances, Acquaintances, Friends, and Family
> I am less reserved face to face as I am in here.


I tell them about Jesus, Ole Jeezy, Yeshua, Josh, Joshua as I might on here.
It in no way implies that I use beyond/beneath "Ole Jeezey" as you moved the goal posts here:


> So less reserved means something beyond/beneath even "Ole Jeezey" by reference to Jesus Christ in your discussions with believers...face to face?



It means that I am less reserved at putting things in more colorful ways during all discussion face to face which is not fitting of the forum rules.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

Point? Post #410


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> What you asked:
> 
> What I replied:
> 
> ...


Better not use "Ole Jeezy" in front of my mother. 
She'll crack your skull with her Kirby vacuum and pray for forgiveness the whole time she's digging a hole in the back yard for your body.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Better not use "Ole Jeezy" in front of my mother.
> She'll crack your skull with her Kirby vacuum and pray for forgiveness the whole time she's digging a hole in the back yard for your body.


A man's got to know his limitations.

I am sure Mom wouldn't push buttons by using specific words aimed at a specific individual in what would seem to be vague replies in attempts to be coy. Like I said, I give what I get.
I can play games if that is one's choosing.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 16, 2021)

[


bullethead said:


> A man's got to know his limitations.
> 
> I am sure Mom wouldn't push buttons by using specific words aimed at a specific individual in what would seem to be vague replies in attempts to be coy. Like I said, I give what I get.
> I can play games if that is one's choosing.





> choosing.


 Naughty word up in here


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> There was atonement in the Torah/OT long before Christianity. Christianity incorporated it and took it where they wanted it.


You can't ignore the declaration by embracing the prophecy. You do have in mind the things of men and that is encouraging to a point. But we already have that example against you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> You can't ignore the declaration by embracing the prophecy. You do have in mind the things of men and that is encouraging to a point. But we already have that example against you.


With all due respect, those prophecies were Hebrew prophecies and the Hebrews can and have pointed out how and why Jesus does not fulfill them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> With all due respect, those prophecies were Hebrew prophecies and the Hebrews can and have pointed out how and why Jesus does not fulfill them.


Au, the Lord God of the Hebrews. This indicates a Hebrews of God.

Thanks for the reminder!

Exclusively!


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long _season_, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked _him_, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> With all due respect, those prophecies were Hebrew prophecies and the Hebrews can and have pointed out how and why Jesus does not fulfill them.



For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.











Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

Hey Israel, I recently received a corporate email inviting me to apply for membership to the Inclusivity Council. The email also included the requirements that must be met in order to be considered.

The requirements ensured that only the worse possible candidates would be admitted. And now the worse possible candidates that were chosen have a badge to show in their signature.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Hey Israel, I recently received a corporate email inviting me to apply for membership to the Inclusivity Council. The email also included the requirements that must be met in order to be considered.
> 
> The requirements insured that only the worse possible candidates would be admitted. And now the worse possible candidates that were chosen have a badge to show in their signature.


It would be terrible to be first runner up!

I guess close enough only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> It would be terrible to be first runner up!


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

I don't have Capote's lisp, just his arrogance.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I can't help you.




LOL...

(O! but you have!...see, you're a liar, too)

2 Cor 1:24


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

mine includes trumpets


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> LOL...
> 
> (O! but you have!...see, you're a liar, too)
> 
> 2 Cor 1:24


In post #422, I had misspelled "ensured". I can't even help myself.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

Kinda wonderful to have no choice but to laugh.
(meanwhile in other news)

Definition of rarely. 1 :* not often : seldom.* 2 : with rare skill : excellently. 3 : in an extreme or exceptional manner

To which Trueman replies:


There's not a word or a sentence or a concept that you could illuminate for me.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Au, the Lord God of the Hebrews. This indicates a Hebrews of God.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder!
> 
> Exclusively!


https://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Kinda wonderful to have no choice but to laugh.
> (meanwhile in other news)
> 
> Definition of rarely. 1 :* not often : seldom.* 2 : with rare skill : excellently. 3 : in an extreme or exceptional manner
> ...



To which Vikrant Bhingardive replied:

One thing I noticed today is that if you correct someone, they will try to correct you even if you didn't make a mistake. So don't try to make anyone wise.​


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> To which Vikrant Bhingardive replied:
> 
> One thing I noticed today is that if you correct someone, they will try to correct you even if you didn't make a mistake. So don't try to make anyone wise.​


Priceless.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Priceless.


See, we agree, albeit rarely.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> See, we agree, albeit rarely.


Oh, you and I are just alike.

Neither of us just knows yet the fullest extent of it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Oh, you and I are just alike.
> 
> Neither of us just knows yet the fullest extent of it.


Like I said, rarely


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

Why do you think we have so much fun together?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Why do you think we have so much fun together?


I know you've saved it if I've said it, but when did I ever say that I think we have so much fun together?


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

Wait...is this a drudge to you? A hard job?
A distasteful duty?

A "sacrifice" of some sort...?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Wait...is this a drudge to you? A hard job?
> A distasteful duty?
> 
> A "sacrifice" of some sort...?


What do you mean by "this"?


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> What do you mean by "this"?


Our being together...even right here...right now.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html?


I agree with the Rabbi. Jesus is not his messiah.

Now what?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

If you mean this forum and threads, No. It is not a sacrifice, a hard job  or a drudge, or a distasteful duty.

If you mean trying to interact with you....
At times, which are more often than not, it is a distraction due to your unwillingness to answer what is asked of you to clarify what you said in more detail.  My questions for you to do so arise from your very own previous statements so I am not asserting words into your mouth, I ask if you can explain what you have chosen to post. When asked to explain what you mean in more detail you ignore any requests to do so. Those tactics lead me to believe that you are not interested in explaining what you post but rather you are content just to post.
What we have is not discussion. To me it is a side show while trying to hold a discussion with others. You feel the need to cross contaminate threads with indefinite implications in order to show.....what exactly? I specifically used the word "rarely" instead of "all" or "never" or "don't " for a reason. And the "fun" fish took the bait on the first cast.
You like to insert my old quotes from previous threads on different subjects into current discussions to make me seem like I am saying something which I have not said. For what purpose? Is that part of our fun?
Your version of fun is to interject specific words in vague context aimed at a specific person to incite a direct response. For those that have not followed along closely it would seem the response you worked so hard to receive is unwarranted, but you and I know better and why I continue to play along.
I give what I get.
It is none of the negative things you suggested it might be.
If this is your version of fun, so be it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I agree with the Rabbi. Jesus is not his messiah.
> 
> Now what?


The Rabbi showed how and why Jesus did not and does not fulfill the OT/Messianic prophecies. He does not make a case as to why Jesus isn't "his" Messiah. He shows why Jesus isn't "The" Messiah according to the rules set forth by scripture. 
Whoever chooses to disregard the information and make Jesus into something that he is not is of little consequence as to what was required and what was met in order to meet prophecy.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> He does not make a case as to why Jesus isn't "his" Messiah.


I thought him to be pretty clear.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I thought him to be pretty clear.


Naturally, because he is a practicing Jewish Rabbi, Jesus not being his messiah is a given based off his evidence.
I mean, This is the title of his work.
"For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?"

From the article:
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:


Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
This does not sound like one personal view:
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)


Specifically, the Bible says he will:


Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

The Rabbi is no more speaking specifically of himself as he is about one specific Christian.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)

> I am realistic that life is tough and there is no invisible buddy to help.





> The way to what? I am not singing the song asking how to get to Sesame Street. I am telling you that there is no Sesame Street.




Were we to forgo for some bit how much alike we both are with "very decent IQ's" (at least what some men _tell us we have_) that often allow for some cleverness, and even concede we are in the presence (I surely believe we are) of those with even more decenter ones.

Let's really strain our _magnificent brains _to imagine simplicity. I dare not shovel too much dung upon what is highly esteemed of men (IQ)...for I too have to consider who sits across from me. And no less, who might even be spectating not ready to have that idol soiled.

But, let's just aim for simplicity. It's not as easy as it sounds...but it is entirely simple.

Who creates the straw man...leaving some wiggle room?

If one says the first statement sounds frankly atheistic (and please, it was not made so very long ago, nor revised that I know of) a clever man might say

"No, I am not saying there is no God, just that there's no invisible buddy"...meaning what?

God would be "visible"? Or that God is not a buddy? Or that there is no invisible (and supreme) being that is anyone's friend? Let's be simple...ain't that what "buddy" means (friend)...or shall we get too clever for our own good?

Now the second statement allows for lotsa wiggle room, but is it filled with straw?
Has anyone spoken of Sesame Street? Has anyone tried to "lead" anyone there? If one says..."no, of course not", I was speaking metaphorically (would that be Heaven...or a Kingdom there-of?), it's not particularly bold, but is nevertheless particularly emphatic that one is saying:



> _I am telling you_ that there is no...



Emphatic...

"I am telling you..."

I like conviction, but am not much a fan of quisling.

But I do understand the advantage, or convenience of, in some instances playing games of feint. When convenient I declare myself agnostic...while in others I am quite at home saying "there is not".

I've heard that voice before.

The "I don't know...but I (believe) I really do...and I will tell you..."

It's just like "my own".

You think I archive this stuff?

Or would you prefer no one pay attention to you?

Or, only _your elect?_



> That is most likely why some are capable of understanding me more than others and why I need to vary my tact.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Were we to forgo for some bit how much alike we both are with "very decent IQ's" (at least what some men _tell us we have_) that often allow for some cleverness, and even concede we are in the presence (I surely believe we are) of those with even more decenter ones.
> 
> Let's really strain our _magnificent brains _to imagine simplicity. I dare not shovel too much dung upon what is highly esteemed of men (IQ)...for I too have to consider who sits across from me. And no less, who might even be spectating not ready to have that idol soiled.


If your brain is straining.....



Israel said:


> But, let's just aim for simplicity. It's not as easy as it sounds...but it is entirely simple.
> 
> Who creates the straw man...leaving some wiggle room?


1: opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2*: *a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Straw men such as Invisible Buddies for example?



Israel said:


> If one says the first statement sounds frankly atheistic (and please, it was not made so very long ago, nor revised that I know of) a clever man might say
> 
> "No, I am not saying there is no God, just that there's no invisible buddy"...meaning what?
> 
> God would be "visible"? Or that God is not a buddy? Or that there is no invisible (and supreme) being that is anyone's friend? Let's be simple...ain't that what "buddy" means (friend)...or shall we get too clever for our own good?


A god may exist in reality in some form.
Invisible buddies are made up.
If you or anyone can show that one is also the other then you will solve a lot of the requests and discrepancies in here.



Israel said:


> Now the second statement allows for lotsa wiggle room, but is it filled with straw?
> Has anyone spoken of Sesame Street? Has anyone tried to "lead" anyone there? If one says..."no, of course not", I was speaking metaphorically (would that be Heaven...or a Kingdom there-of?), it's not particularly bold, but is nevertheless particularly emphatic that one is saying:
> 
> 
> ...


"More Likely Than Not Based Off Of The Available Evidence"
Include that quote of mine and it becomes clear why I can be more certain of some things and not ascertain of others.



Israel said:


> You think I archive this stuff?
> 
> Or would you prefer no one pay attention to you?
> 
> Or, only _your elect?_


If you archived this stuff or could recite everything I say from your memory then you are purposely leaving out the parts that do not align with what you try to use.

The Search Feature here is excellent and it gives you what you are looking for without having to read or remember the pre or post context.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Naturally, because he is a practicing Jewish Rabbi, Jesus not being his messiah is a given based off his evidence.


Are you just now catching up?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you just now catching up?


I am backtracking


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am backtracking


"If everything must be demonstrated, nothing can be demonstrated, for there would be no starting point. If you cannot start, then you surely cannot finish." ~ Clark


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> "If everything must be demonstrated, nothing can be demonstrated, for there would be no starting point. If you cannot start, then you surely cannot finish." ~ Clark


Gordon did an awful lot of demonstrating in his time.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


> Were we to forgo for some bit how much alike we both are with "very decent IQ's" (at least what some men _tell us we have_) that often allow for some cleverness, and even concede we are in the presence (I surely believe we are) of those with even more decenter ones.
> 
> Let's really strain our _magnificent brains _to imagine simplicity. I dare not shovel too much dung upon what is highly esteemed of men (IQ)...for I too have to consider who sits across from me. And no less, who might even be spectating not ready to have that idol soiled.


So what exactly IS your point for going back into a previous conversation that I had held with someone else about a topic that is not the subject of this discussion and regurgitating your drivel about IQ up in here?
Did you have to make sure you got your #me too moment in?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Have you actually ever researched atonement in other religions?
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3136769?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> http://www.paganizingfaithofyeshua.freeservers.com/atonement_egyptian_religion.htm



https://www.jstor.org/stable/3136769?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Goodspeed.
This is different than other articles I have encountered on Jstor — it was longer, not as well written, and the others were not boring.

After having found the remainder of the article (your link is to the first segment only), it continued to be a tedious and laborious read.  My impression is of a College Professor, which he was, fulfilling his requirement to publish, and struggling to get enough words.

I found one sentence which I first thought related to my question, although it refenced the prior +/-10 pages which were unrelated, but reading on I realized it related to the "willingness" of an animal or human sacrifice.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/atonement
Jewish Virtual Library
Is a good explanation of the categories of atonement in post-temple Judaism; which only applies negatively in that it provides a definite "NOT JUDAISM" answer to my question as it relates to Judaism.

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_2.html
Alislam
The article appears, so far, to be intended to encourage Muslims who have converted to Christianity to return to the fold, or who are considering conversion to stay home.
About half way through the article is a straw man whose belt buckle could not be hidden by the tallest Sequoia in Yosemite:


> Having read the Biblical account of how Adam and Eve were punished, one cannot help wondering if the pain and throes of labour were unknown to woman until the beginning of the era of Adam and Eve. A scientist will be hard to come by, who believes in such fantasies. Again, we have plenty of irrefutable evidence that man, long before Adam and Eve, had occupied all the continents of the world, even remote Pacific islands and had always laboured hard to survive. Therefore, to say that Adam and Eve were the first to commit a sin and because of that, painful child birth was ordained as punishment, is totally proven wrong by the study of life. Even animals, who are much lower in the order of life, give birth in pain. If one watches a cow giving birth to a calf, her suffering seems similar to the pain of a human female. Many such animals, we know, inhabited the earth millions and millions of years before Adam and Eve.
> 
> To earn ones livelihood with labour is common to man, but not distinctive at all. Women also labour for their earnings and livelihood. Before that, every specie of life earns its livelihood through labour. This fact is the key motivator in the evolution of life. The struggle for existence is perhaps the very first distinctive mark of life which separates it from the world of the inanimate. It is a natural phenomenon, with nothing whatsoever to do with sin.
> 
> Again, if this be the punishment prescribed as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin, then one wonders what would happen after Atonement? If Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the sinful human beings, was the punishment prescribed for the Sin abolished after the Crucifixion? Did those who believed in Jesus Christ as the ‘Son of God’, if they were women, cease to have painful childbirth? Did the believing men start earning their livelihood without exerting manual labour? Did the propensity to sin cease to pass on to the future generations and innocent children started being given birth to? If the answer to all of these questions were to be ‘yes,’ then of course there would be some justification in seriously contemplating the Christian philosophy of Sin and Atonement. But Alas, the answer to all these questions are no, no and no. If nothing seems to have changed since the Crucifixion, both in the Christian and non-Christian worlds, then what would be the meaning of Atonement?



No Christian that I know believes, nor does any Christian Doctrine of which I am aware teach, that Christ's Substitutionary Atonement removes guilt, a logical and legal prerequisite of atonement, nor does His Atonement abolish any temporal consequences of  sin; instead, His Atonement provides the  recompense justly required  for the sin against God, thus abolishing the eternal consequences for the Believer resulting from the trespass and reconciling the Believer with God.

Obviously this guy does not understand, or does not honestly portray, that which he attempts to refute.

Having gone through fully half of what you have provided, and found nothing that is related to the question I asked, other than negatively as to Judaism, I'm done for now.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3136769?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
> Goodspeed.
> This is different than other articles I have encountered on Jstor — it was longer, not as well written, and the others were not boring.
> 
> ...


That sounds so....dismissive and proud mentors and yadda yadda yadda.
The links given show atonement is part of other religions.
The rest is just filler, or bias, or negativity towards Christians or whatever...but none of that has anything to do with, for, or against the atonement that is part of other religions which is exactly what we are talking about.
Bowing out of the engagement early doesn't make atonement in other religions go away. You just don't want to admit it exits, or have more examples of it shown by continuing on with the conversation.
Here is more to read half of and negatively critique as a whole.
https://outreachjudaism.org/sin-and-atonement/


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 17, 2021)

there are tens of thousands of Jews that do believe that Jesus is Messiah.  A lot of them are highly educated and intelligent people.  

so this rabbi, who, because of his religion and bias toward a Christian Messiah, doesn't think Jesus is Messiah is not a surprise to anyone.

Like a friend of mine is so fond of saying...

One monkey don't stop the circus.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> They show atonement is part of other religions.
> The rest is just filler, or bias, or negativity towards Christians or whatever...but none of that has anything to do with, for, or against the atonement that is part of other religions which is exactly what we are talking about.
> Bowing out of the engagement early doesn't make atonement in other religions go away. You just don't want to admit it exits, or have more examples of it shown by continuing on with the conversation.
> Here is more to read half of and negatively critique as a whole.
> https://outreachjudaism.org/sin-and-atonement/



Are you serious?
Do you really not know what Substitutionary Atonement is?
It was introduced into the conversation with a description for clarity.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> there are tens of thousands of Jews that do believe that Jesus is Messiah.  A lot of them are highly educated and intelligent people.
> 
> so this rabbi, who, because of his religion and bias toward a Christian Messiah, doesn't think Jesus is Messiah is not a surprise to anyone.
> 
> ...


How many Jews are there, smart or otherwise, that do not believe Jesus is the Messiah due to Jesus or anyone at this point in time not meeting the requirements to fulfill the prophecies?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Are you serious?
> Do you really not know what Substitutionary Atonement is?
> It was introduced into the conversation with a description for clarity.


The Jews substituted lambs for humans because they do not sacrifice humans.
Christianity substituted a human for humans.
And the Jews especially would never sacrifice their messiah as that is definitely not part of the prophecy.
Are both of those examples of substitutionary atonement?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 17, 2021)

I'll give you this: You need a wheelbarrow to help you walk.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I'll give you this: You need a wheelbarrow to help you walk.


Who cares. That means nothing without an explanation as to why.
Did the Jews sacrifice people for atonement? Yes or No
Was Jesus sacrificed for atonement? Yes or No


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I'll give you this: You need a wheelbarrow to help you walk.


Walk? I don't even see any legs.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Walk? I don't even see any legs.



Stipulated.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> How many Jews are there, smart or otherwise, that do not believe Jesus is the Messiah due to Jesus or anyone at this point in time not meeting the requirements to fulfill the prophecies?



a lot.

How many people believe that Joe Biden was really elected as president?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Walk? I don't even see any legs.


Ohhhh, bwaahahah, wait...bwaaahahahah, "Walk? I don't even see any legs" Oh is that funny cause......well.....It must be....uhh...
It's all ya got I guess.
Are we now playing the insult game?
I just want to know if that is the next step.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> a lot.
> 
> How many people believe that Joe Biden was really elected as president?


Irrelevant to this topic


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Who cares. That means nothing without an explanation as to why.
> Did the Jews sacrifice people for atonement? Yes or No
> Was Jesus sacrificed for atonement? Yes or No



Jews sacrificed children to Baal. Whether it was for atonement, to appease a god, or to fit in with the inhabitants of the land, I know not


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Irrelevant to this topic



no it isn't.

It matters not the amount of the people, if they err in their beliefs, they are still wrong


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> no it isn't.
> 
> It matters not the amount of the people, if they err in their beliefs, they are still wrong


You brought up numbers of Jewish people, not me. I expounded upon it.
I've posted the reasons why Jesus does not meet the OT prophecy according to the Jews. Can you explain how he does which has not already been addressed and refuted in those links?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jews sacrificed children to Baal. Whether it was for atonement, to appease a god, or to fit in with the inhabitants of the land, I know not


We are speaking about atonement here right? 
And the Jews certainly would not sacrifice their messiah for atonement. It is not part of the prophecy to do that.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Ohhhh, bwaahahah, wait...bwaaahahahah, "Walk? I don't even see any legs" Oh is that funny cause......well.....It must be....uhh...
> It's all ya got I guess.
> Are we now playing the insult game?
> I just want to know if that is the next step.


Insult? Or an awareness of futility?

If you understood the sacrifice, you'd already be a Christian.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Insult? Or an awareness of futility?
> 
> If you understood the sacrifice, you'd already be a Christian.


I understand the concept of it, I just do not believe it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I understand the concept of it, I just do not believe it.


GEM, it isn't any different than me asserting that if you understood Judaism, or Islam or Atheism you'd already be those.
I am pretty sure that you get the concepts of each but just aren't buying what they are selling. I am no different with Christianity.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> We are speaking about atonement here right?
> And the Jews certainly would not sacrifice their messiah for atonement. It is not part of the prophecy to do that.



they wouldn't if they thought he was Messiah, but they would if He claimed to be and they didn't accept him


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You brought up numbers of Jewish people, not me. I expounded upon it.
> I've posted the reasons why Jesus does not meet the OT prophecy according to the Jews. Can you explain how he does which has not already been addressed and refuted in those links?


I brought up numbers because if I said I personally know a Jew who holds several degrees and doctorates that has studied and believes Jesus is Messiah, you would dismiss it as only one's opinion


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> they wouldn't if they thought he was Messiah, but they would if He claimed to be and they didn't accept him


So what you are telling me is that the Jews would have or did sacrifice Jesus for atonement because they didn't think he was the Messiah.
Where in scripture can I find that?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So what you are telling me is that the Jews would have or did sacrifice Jesus for atonement because they didn't think he was the Messiah.
> Where in scripture can I find that?


no, they killed him because he claimed to be


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I brought up numbers because if I said I personally know a Jew who holds several degrees and doctorates that has studied and believes Jesus is Messiah, you would dismiss it as only one's opinion


If that one person, gave the specific OT/Torah prophecies and showed that Jesus fulfilled them to their entirety and for those reasons he and the rest of the followers in his religion believes that  Jesus is the Messiah I would not just dismiss it as his opinion only.

The rabbi showed why not only he dismisses Jesus as being the Messiah but he gave the specific prophesies which Jesus did not fulfill and cannot fulfill as the reasons why all the Jews who dismiss Jesus as Messiah. The article isn't his personal opinion. The reasons given in the article are specifically why the majority of Jews cannot believe Jesus is the Messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> no, they killed him because he claimed to be


Did they kill him for their atonement?
The Jews did not sacrifice Jesus. They punished him for breaking the law.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> GEM, it isn't any different than me asserting that if you understood Judaism, or Islam or Atheism you'd already be those.


It is different, but I understand the attempt.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> It is different, but I understand the attempt.


I would honestly be interested in hearing your explanation on how it is different.


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Did they kill him for their atonement?
> The Jews did not sacrifice Jesus. They punished him for breaking the law.



No, they wanted Him punished using as pretense their particular interpretation of the law to justify their turning Him over to the gentile authorities. They just hated Him and wanted Him gone by whatever means would not cost them. They thought the law was handy to this.

The High Priest who believed himself sufficient to judge Jesus himself broke the very law under which he presented himself (and misrepresented himself) as authority and sufficient to judge. (It is unlawful for the High Priest to rend his garments)


Where goes then such authority claimed then _as adherent to the law for sufficiency to judge? _

It is nullified.

Change of priesthood.

But we believers see this all the time among the religio-political. Two faced-ness. But first we are forced to see it in ourselves by Jesus' consistency...even and especially to His own death. Then we see the change in priesthood.



> A god may exist in reality in some form.
> Invisible buddies are made up.



Nobody makes counterfeit 23$ bills.

The first:



> A god may exist in reality in some form.



Is made in claim of agnosticism.

But the second:



> Invisible buddies are made up.



Is quite clever to mask the underlying atheism without need of taking (what they feel might cost them) stance.

Lotsa wiggle room reserved to themselves. Or so they think.

Essentially what is being said is "God could be...and could be anything in the infinite possibilities of what an infinite being might be"

It _sounds as reasonable_ as an open door.

But the second is the giveaway.

Just as the Jews had to "hand Him over". For if they truly loved their law as much as they purported, and no less truly believed Jesus Christ a blasphemer, also as they purported, they would have stoned Him themselves regardless of consequences in regards to Rome...or even in consideration of Jesus' followers (almost without exception Jews)

But, that was weighed against consequences they perceived.

The second is the giveaway.

Trying to verify the first it annuls it.  "God can be anything...but...He cannot be "that".

Particularly...A friend. Or friend to man...men, or any man in particular.

Or are you saying God must be visible?

That would no less show a determinate form imposed putting the lie to all the baloney about "no man could know what He is like...if He exists"

The moment a man says what God cannot be it puts to the lie any saying "no man can know what He is like".


Two faced.

And no less, a judge of God as to how He may appear.

1 John 2-22


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The Jews substituted lambs for humans because they do not sacrifice humans.
> Christianity substituted a human for humans.
> And the Jews especially would never sacrifice their messiah as that is definitely not part of the prophecy.
> Are both of those examples of substitutionary atonement?



No.



bullethead said:


> Who cares. That means nothing without an explanation as to why.
> Did the Jews sacrifice people for atonement? Yes or No



Irrelevant.




> Was Jesus sacrificed for atonement? Yes or No



Yes,

By whom is the sacrifice made?

Of whom is the sacrifice require?


Those questions correctly answered and understood explain GEM's "difference".


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2021)

It had already been established that the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world would be manifest in earth, and in the earth and that by His being lifted up upon the tree...by God's will.

Abraham, spoken of as God's friend

(And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.)

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.


saw this and delighted.

And Isaiah wrote of it:



’Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2For he shot up right forth as a sapling, And as a root out of a dry ground; He had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, Nor beauty that we should delight in him. 3He was despised, and forsaken of men, A man of pains, and acquainted with disease, And as one from whom men hide their face: He was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; Whereas we did esteem him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5But he was wounded because of our transgressions, He was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, And with his stripes we were healed. 6All we like sheep did go astray, We turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath made to light on him The iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, though he humbled himself And opened not his mouth; As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, And as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; Yea, he opened not his mouth. 8By oppression and judgment he was taken away, And with his generation who did reason? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. 9And they made his grave with the wicked, And with the rich his tomb; Although he had done no violence, Neither was any deceit in his mouth.’ 10Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, That he might see his seed, prolong his days, And that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: 11Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, Who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, And their iniquities he did bear. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, And he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; Because he bared his soul unto death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet he bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.

Jewsih Publication Society

https://jps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Tanakh1917.pdf

and as need be, this also:

https://www.difa3iat.com/8993.html/isaiah-53-refer-jesus-says-servant-lord-sickly-died-disease/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

Israel said:


> No, they wanted Him punished using as pretense their particular interpretation of the law to justify their turning Him over to the gentile authorities. They just hated Him and wanted Him gone by whatever means would not cost them. They thought the law was handy to this.
> 
> The High Priest who believed himself sufficient to judge Jesus himself broke the very law under which he presented himself (and misrepresented himself) as authority and sufficient to judge. (It is unlawful for the High Priest to rend his garments)
> 
> ...


I know why Jesus was put to death. Since this turned to atonement and Ne GA Pappy brought up about the Jews killing Jesus, I am trying to figure out why he enters that into the conversation when it has nothing to do with the atonement for the Jews who put him to death. 

For the rest...
It is Two Facts, not two faced.

I have absolutely no idea what a god is. I have absolutely no idea what a god would, could, or does look like. I literally do not know a single tangible thing about a god. I can wrap my mind around the concept of a god.
I can see how the unexplained forces of Energy can be evolved into something that can be formed into a god over time. I can absolutely see why these conceptual gods look, act and react JUST like the people who feel the need to worship such things. I can conceptualize about a god but I cannot honestly say I have it pinpointed down to any details at all.
What I have heard all my life are suggestions of what a particular religions God IS and how the followers KNOW this god better than their best gamer buddies.

If your god exists and he is also your invisible buddy where is he?

You say he exists, but like an invisible 4th grade girlfriend ....he lives in Nebraska and his Grandparents are friends with your Grandparents who live a couple hours away. His Grandparents live next to your Grandparents and when he visits his Grandparents you go visit yours. Unfortunately you cannot introduce him to your friends in person so all you have are these stories, detailed stories about what you two do together,  what he thinks, says, wants, needs, his reactions, his emotions, his compassion, his wrath and bragging about how he does exist and can be seen, heard, felt...
When asked if you can introduce us...OhOhOhOh...no sir, the Omnipresent god and all those others things that you claim him to be isn't those things today. Nope his schedule is full. I am told he IS here but I don't have the right credentials for a meeting. I am told that even though I really want to meet him, this all loving, all accepting god has hardened my heart and blinded my eyes so no dice.

Well Israel, WHERE IS HE?
Is he a real god or is he an invisible buddy?
One shouldn't be this hard and have taken this long to produce and the other is impossible produce.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> No.


So you are going on record saying that the sacrifice in each case is NOT a Substitute being sent/offered to god in place of the people for atonement?

I GOTTA hear this explanation


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I know why Jesus was put to death. Since this turned to atonement and Ne GA Pappy brought up about the Jews killing Jesus, I am trying to figure out why he enters that into the conversation when it has nothing to do with the atonement for the Jews who put him to death.
> 
> For the rest...
> It is Two Facts, not two faced.
> ...


Do you?

Know why Jesus was put to death?

If you do, you are blessed indeed.

All the rest that follows, not unlike this  




> Since you constantly claim that you have daily interaction with your god I have asked you to prove it to me with getting the name of my Sons dog.



is just so much of Herod's like spirit speaking.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So you are going on record saying that the sacrifice in each case is NOT a Substitute being sent/offered to god in place of the people for atonement?
> 
> I GOTTA hear this explanation



Quite understandably, you are still confused.

Those sacrifices are being sent/offered to God by the people as atonement for their sins (it would not be incorrect to characterize it as symbolic).  It is not Substitutionary Atonement because you are identifying the wrong object of substitution.


hummerpoo said:


> *In what religion, other that "Christianity", is God, or a god, believed to perform the necessary atonement for transgression by a believer of the imperatives of God, or a god, and credit that atonement to the believer (Substitutionary Atonement)?*


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

Israel said:


> Do you?
> 
> Know why Jesus was put to death?
> 
> ...


The total avoidance of answering direct questions is just so much of Israel's like spirit speaking.
Claims without substance to back it up.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Quite understandably, you are still confused.
> 
> Those sacrifices are being sent/offered to God by the people as atonement for their sins (it would not be incorrect to characterize it as symbolic).  It is not Substitutionary Atonement because you are identifying the wrong object of substitution.


Yours is the Ransom Theory of Atonement


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Yours is the Ransom Theory of Atonement


Please explain.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Please explain.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone7.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement

Now, there are many other reads about it out there just like my earlier links that you didn't like and only read half way through. No links I post are meant to be the Do All, Be All, End All ends to a conversation. 
I am just pointing you in the direction with easy examples so you can get a feel for it and research it elsewhere further.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Quite understandably, you are still confused.
> 
> Those sacrifices are being sent/offered to God by the people as atonement for their sins (it would not be incorrect to characterize it as symbolic).  It is not Substitutionary Atonement because you are identifying the wrong object of substitution.


In a nutshell religions have atonement.
Different religions have different versions of atonement as they have to offer something a little different than the next in order to give the potential member another choice. But it is still Atonement.

Like spaghetti, everyone's recipe is a little different but it is still spaghetti. Each has its fans and the fans go to the restaurant that they think serve the spaghetti which tastes the best to them. No one recipe somehow renders all the other spaghetti's as not being spaghetti just because the cook sticks his hand in the boiling water when he places the noodles in as some sort of symbol of sacrificial devotion to his customers.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone7.htm
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement
> 
> ...



Thank you.

Unlike your previous links which did nothing and led nowhere because they did not even approach the subject being discussed, the first paragraph of each of these tells me which Ransom Theory you are referring to; the ransom paid to Satan or the ransom paid to God.

No, mine is not the "Ransom Theory of Atonement" that identifies the recipient as Satan.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Unlike your previous links which did nothing and led nowhere because they did not even approach the subject being discussed, the first paragraph of each of these tells me which Ransom Theory you are referring to; the ransom paid to Satan or the ransom paid to God.
> 
> No, mine is not the "Ransom Theory of Atonement" that identifies the recipient as Satan.


If you only read the first sentence then again you have not read everything it is about and the other versions of it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

Why a God would have to make a sacrifice to save his subjects, appease his subjects is unbecoming of a god.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> In a nutshell religions have atonement.
> Different religions have different versions of atonement as they have to offer something a little different than the next in order to give the potential member another choice. But it is still Atonement.
> 
> Like spaghetti, everyone's recipe is a little different but it is still spaghetti. Each has its fans and the fans go to the restaurant that they think serve the spaghetti which tastes the best to them. No one recipe somehow renders all the other spaghetti's as not being spaghetti just because the cook sticks his hand in the boiling water when he places the noodles in as some sort of symbol of sacrificial devotion to his customers.



So now we go back to #387 and rehash from there.

Here's my #388:


hummerpoo said:


> Your "higher criticism" mentors (Ehrman and Co.) would be pleased.
> Dismiss rather than engage.
> I suppose I should have known better.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Why a God would have to make a sacrifice to save his subjects, appease his subjects is unbecoming of a god.



I suppose that you can judge God to your heart's content.  He responded to such once (Job 38 and the following 3 chapters, if I recall correctly.)


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> So now we go back to #387 and rehash from there.
> 
> Here's my #388:


Highly Critical claims require Higher Criticism


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Highly Critical claims require Higher Criticism


Higher Criticism assumes the answer then glorifies in finding the answer it set out to prove.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I suppose that you can judge God to your heart's content.  He responded to such once (Job 38 and the following 3 chapters, if I recall correctly.)


* according to the author of Job, this is what the author's inspiration led him to write down about what he thinks a god would say.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Higher Criticism assumes the answer then glorifies in finding the answer it set out to prove.


Higher Criticism:
study of biblical writings to determine their literary history and the purpose and meaning of the authors

Higher Criticism questions the one who is making assertions and asks the person to provide examples along with explanations that back up the assertions.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2021)

Sounds like we are done here, starting to sound like a couple of old women talking about the neighbors garden.  Have a good day.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Sounds like we are done here, starting to sound like a couple of old women talking about the neighbors garden.  Have a good day.


?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I know why Jesus was put to death. Since this turned to atonement and Ne GA Pappy brought up about the Jews killing Jesus, I am trying to figure out why he enters that into the conversation when it has nothing to do with the atonement for the Jews who put him to death.
> 
> For the rest...
> It is Two Facts, not two faced.
> ...





> Since this turned to atonement and Ne GA Pappy brought up about the Jews killing Jesus, I am trying to figure out why he enters that into the conversation when it has nothing to do with the atonement for the Jews who put him to death.


I won’t attempt to speak for Pappy - But for myself, it raises a few questions for the majority of this thread. The Jews were / is / are God’s chosen people. They rejected Jesus. God gave Israel a letter of divorce. For those that crucified him - He prayed Father forgive them, they know not what they do. The crucifixion is the Atonement for sins. 


1. How did the (chosen / elect) Jews reject him? Were they able to resist His Will?

2. Praying for forgiveness for those who crucified him, and: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” - What if they don’t? Does Jesus ask for forgiveness for them, although we are told to repent? And, humble themselves - how if the below is accurate?

It’s been said here that ultimately, God decides. 

For the Bible story - Atonement is made available for all and even the chosen rejects at times, and can even turn from their wicked ways.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I won’t attempt to speak for Pappy - But for myself, it raises a few questions for the majority of this thread. The Jews were / is / are God’s chosen people. They rejected Jesus. God gave Israel a letter of divorce. For those that crucified him - He prayed Father forgive them, they know not what they do. The crucifixion is the Atonement for sins.
> 
> 
> 1. How did the (chosen / elect) Jews reject him? Were they able to resist His Will?
> ...


The Jews reject everyone that does not meet the rules god set forth in the Torah in order for someone to be the Messiah.
You, I, God cannot fault them for following the rules.


----------



## Israel (Jul 19, 2021)

The people who reject Jesus Christ are the people who reject Jesus Christ.
Were it not for the Jews who accepted/received Him (God loves working with remnants) we would have no New Testament as it is written; by a company of Jew men who came to understand what a Jew is, and what it means to be of the seed of Abraham. Even Luke is totally reliant upon the King of the Jews.

(Avraham having two sons...one of promise)



There's too much to unpack here but enough for anyone in Christ to get started.

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

Is God stupid? Forgetful? Did He not know about Ishmael? That would be very strange considering all He had already spoken of him (Ishmael)...and instructions about his mother Hagar.

What right does God have to what is dearest to a man? God who made man, God who made man to even hold things dear, even to a dearest in those things given by Him...upon what grounds does God require it...to take it away to annihilation...or to preserve it, knowing man cannot?

Until man faces this between himself and God alone, he will always have suspicions of God being a cruel sadist. And he has no choice about entering here, this place of facing "is your eye evil because I am good?"

God will surely bring him to it in arrangement of all circumstance.

Here there are no 3rd party introductions that will avail; "but what about so and so?" What about what so and so has said of you? Or what was done to so and so? Or even..."but what are you going to do about so and so...what will this man do?"

Who _do you say_ that I am?

The wages promised to those whose work began, and caused those workers to start at the break of day suddenly become despised when seen given in like measure to those starting nearer sunset. But, what has changed? Not the wages.

Nothing...except man's "sense of fairness" being forced to confront God's goodness.

Nothing has changed.

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with _mine_ own?

But, until a man sees Christ, and what God has done with His own...(and why)...no man can begin to know how good...goodness is. And if he must learn this by whatever means, he will, if he too is God's own.

What may yet sound ominous to whatever degree it does is the_ only entrance into all of joy._

“Some of these days, there are just going to be two people alive on this earth as far as you are concerned... You and the Lord.” Rolfe Barnard

or as CS Lewis also put it:

“Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.
"I am dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the Lion.
"May I — could I — would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl. And as Jill gazed at its motionless bulk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.
The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.
"Will you promise not to — do anything to me, if I do come?" said Jill.
"I make no promise," said the Lion.
Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.
"Do you eat girls?" she said.
"I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms," said the Lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.”

As some friends recently reminded me...if you are created for everything...nothing else will ever satisfy nor suffice. 

Even if all that is at first asked or tasted is the crumbs falling from the table, those crumbs have in them a certain power to a life where a man cannot lie before God. "I want all".

Then begins a tutelage of Whom all is.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 19, 2021)

Israel said:


> The people who reject Jesus Christ are the people who reject Jesus Christ.
> Were it not for the Jews who accepted/received Him (God loves working with remnants) we would have no New Testament as it is written; by a company of Jew men who came to understand what a Jew is, and what it means to be of the seed of Abraham. Even Luke is totally reliant upon the King of the Jews.
> 
> (Avraham having two sons...one of promise)
> ...


Outside of omniscient, all powerful, all everything which is not in debate  - what’s the thing that caused Peter to begin to sink?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2021)

Israel said:


> The people who reject Jesus Christ are the people who reject Jesus Christ.


Some, like Jews, reject Jesus Christ as per God's instructions.


Israel said:


> Were it not for the Jews who accepted/received Him (God loves working with remnants) we would have no New Testament as it is written; by a company of Jew men who came to understand what a Jew is, and what it means to be of the seed of Abraham. Even Luke is totally reliant upon the King of the Jews.
> . ”


That is no different than Judaism offshooting from the Sumerian religion.
People who either left the region and or were not happy with the current religion so they tweaked the old with the new in order to make it suit them.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 19, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Outside of omniscient, all powerful, all everything which is not in debate  - what’s the thing that caused Peter to begin to sink?




For the same reason Jonah what got himself tossed in the drink. The wind, the wind. And more precisely fear of the wind. When the wind is caused by theophany it is best not to fear. It requires perhaps the ability to know where the wind is from. Maybe. Or not to be afraid of the Holy Spirit active in one's life or intimate in another person's life. Maybe.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 19, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> For the same reason Jonah what got himself tossed in the drink. The wind, the wind. And more precisely fear of the wind. When the wind is caused by theophany it is best not to fear. It requires perhaps the ability to know where the wind is from. Maybe. Or not to be afraid of the Holy Spirit active in one's life or intimate in another person's life. Maybe.


And lack of faith opens the door to unbelief that opens the door to fear.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2021)

I have a few questions.

What scripture is to be believed and followed?
Is there scripture that overrides other scripture?
Is the New Testament a replacement for the Old Testament?
Do both have equal footing as the word of God?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2021)

It isn't that the Jews reject Jesus despite the evidence. The Jews reject Jesus because of what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written in the Torah. The Jews reject Jesus on God's word of who the Messiah will be and what he will do.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/WhyJesusChristCannotbetheMessiah.html

https://www.learnreligions.com/jewish-view-of-jesus-2076763


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 19, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> And lack of faith opens the door to unbelief that opens the door to fear.




Maybe, but some, maybe many can't stand the kitchen heat of faith yea they continue with it. For example Jonah just did not want to go to
Nin.

If ever you are around people who have been to a revival where "the glory" shows up, you will notice that some who complain are really uncomfortable into it. The glory is ok for them but at a distance which they are comfortable with.

 Like the Hebrews who had sore ears and could not look at Moses' face when he came down the mountain... for some though it changed, it is basically still the same. Some folks are just not comfortable with close intimate contact with people let alone with Jesus. Maybe... kinda... perhaps.

If I was invited to stand on or above the waters... even with Jesus? Hum?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 19, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I have a few questions.
> 
> What scripture is to be believed and followed?
> Is there scripture that overrides other scripture?
> ...


It’s my understanding that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

“Two or three witnesses”
Most often when using stand alone scripture it changes the meaning / intent of the entire story.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> It’s my understanding that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
> 
> “Two or three witnesses”
> Most often when using stand alone scripture it changes the meaning / intent of the entire story.


Then the prophecy in Ezekiel, Isaiah  and Jeremiah is specific as to what it required to be Messiah is God's word correct? And the Messiah would need to fulfill those to the letter of God's word correct?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 19, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Then the prophecy in Ezekiel, Isaiah  and Jeremiah is specific as to what it required to be Messiah is God's word correct? And the Messiah would need to fulfill those to the letter of God's word correct?


What are those that haven’t been fulfilled?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> What are those that haven’t been fulfilled?


Spotlite, I've posted links above that specifically address what he has not and why he has not. It also addresses what Christianity accepts as prophecies and why they are not.
Here are more.
https://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
https://trackspast.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/messiah-requirements/


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 19, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I've posted links above that specifically address what he has not and why he has not. It also addresses what Christianity accepts as prophecies and why they are not.
> Here are more.
> https://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
> https://trackspast.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/messiah-requirements/


I will follow up on this.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2021)

The verses of Messiah requirements are straight out of the OT. When shown in Hebrew there are No mistranslations, no substituted words, no interpretation or twisting to suit needed. To believers of the bible these are God's words, God's requirements.


----------



## Israel (Jul 20, 2021)

There's only one place this certain argument leads.

And how, or why?

What is the source of mechanism, and no less, the mechanism of that source. Believer's have never had anything but "no choice" to consider it.


Writers and writings are being proffered as true and honest that can and would make nothing more of all the letters and gospels the product of men ill informed and ignorant of the Hebrew prophecies (at best), or malignant liars and conmen at worst, manipulating to their _own ends_



You may think it has something to do with scholarship, you may think it has something to do with simple error.

If you ain't been down that road already be prepared for all the forks and confusions to which your own choices must lead. For the choice at the 10th, or 20th, or 10,000th fork is all dependent upon the first road taken that leads to these.

This is where found a miss is as good as a mile. (And where repentance shines)

Can a man recognize the truth...or be made to?

And if so, how...and by whom or what?


If your faith is dependent upon scholarship...you will learn.


If your faith is only in the word of man, you will know.

But if your faith has been answer to this cry "My God I am a man who cannot even recognize truth when I hear or see it, I am blind to it, deaf to it, legless to move to it, armless to embrace it...help"...you may indeed learn to be a happy man.

This is already true _to you,_ or not, and you will find out of it in the testings.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2021)

Reads like warnings given to cult members who just found out that the internal documents show their leader isn't who he says he is.


----------



## Israel (Jul 20, 2021)

Almost without exception any prophet's writings that are quoted in relation to the Messiah also contain warnings and castigation in regards to the general estate of those calling themselves children of Abraham.

Even the most cursory readings will find them rife with condemnation of practices and judgments to be visited if warnings are not heeded. And such often go far beyond mere misunderstandings, but to a frank exposure among the addressed to their love of having things in such manner.

There is no naivete nor apologies, feigned or otherwise, in these prophets by whom the abundance of sins addressed are either going to be even recognized nor remedied by their bold address. Most knew they were, in that sense speaking to the wind, Jonah being one of the very few to witness the effective fruiting in the discharge of his message...yet...oddly...not much liking it at all.

For the most part the things described here, of "suffering affliction and patience"

Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

Were more the experience.

The manifest display of "not getting it" as almost always accompanied by resistances, persecutions, derisions and death for the prophets are plainly recorded.

To advance, in the name of such prophets, that suddenly the greater mass of those calling themselves Abraham's children now "understand and receive all" to such particularity that upon such basis they are accorded the "better" interpreters of the words of such prophets...one should consider.

It is that pride of life Jesus Christ addressed when speaking to those who held this view "Had we lived in the days of our Fathers we would not have persecuted the prophets", Jesus had no accolades. 

Nor does He, today.


What He does hold is mercy for those who believe the prophets, even the Chiefest among them, who have come to view their estate in a light that, even though they might prefer it cast upon "others", cannot deny they have found it shining upon themselves.

Yes, Lord...I am precisely that man who, when seeing the Shepherd smitten...runs first to all of his own for comfort in terror of the cross.

Such a man might know himself as such...in gratitude for its revealing as his entrance to see the mercy of Jesus Christ. To cowards...and liars.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2021)

Israel said:


> Almost without exception any prophet's writings that are quoted in relation to the Messiah also contain warnings and castigation in regards to the general estate of those calling themselves children of Abraham.
> 
> Even the most cursory readings will find them rife with condemnation of practices and judgments to be visited if warnings are not heeded. And such often go far beyond mere misunderstandings, but to a frank exposure among the addressed to their love of having things in such manner.
> 
> ...


So after all that and none of it is an apologetic attempt to explain why or why not OT scripture eliminates Jesus from being the Messiah...
I will ask you personally for a direct answer to a question which sticks to the topic and point at hand.
Then after this answer, You and I can go through God's word in the OT which specifically states what is required to be the Messiah and you can address them as we go. Okay?
I will just use the verses provided in the links that I have provided already.

Lets start with the first question

Israel,  is Jesus a descendant of King David?
And if you say so how do you explain away the evidence below?

Jeremiah 23
הִנֵּ֨ה יָמִ֤ים בָּאִים֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה וַהֲקִמֹתִ֥י לְדָוִ֖ד צֶ֣מַח צַדִּ֑יק וּמָ֤לַךְ מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ וְהִשְׂכִּ֔יל וְעָשָׂ֛ה מִשְׁפָּ֥ט וּצְדָקָ֖ה בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ See, a time is coming—declares the LORD—when I will raise up a true branch of David’s line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he shall do what is just and right in the land.


https://debeausoleil.com/is-jesus-a-son-of-david/


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 20, 2021)

bullethead said:


> And if you say so how do you explain away the evidence below?
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> הִנֵּ֨ה יָמִ֤ים בָּאִים֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה וַהֲקִמֹתִ֥י לְדָוִ֖ד צֶ֣מַח צַדִּ֑יק וּמָ֤לַךְ מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ וְהִשְׂכִּ֔יל וְעָשָׂ֛ה מִשְׁפָּ֥ט וּצְדָקָ֖ה בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ See, a time is coming—declares the LORD—when I will raise up a true branch of David’s line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he shall do what is just and right in the land.


The evidence of that is here:

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am _he_.

Nothing else is required.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> The evidence of that is here:
> 
> The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am _he_.
> 
> Nothing else is required.


I understand that is what works for you and others. It doesn't explain why God's requirements do not matter over the words of some woman.
Which of God's words are wrong and do not count?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 21, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So after all that and none of it is an apologetic attempt to explain why or why not OT scripture eliminates Jesus from being the Messiah...
> I will ask you personally for a direct answer to a question which sticks to the topic and point at hand.
> Then after this answer, You and I can go through God's word in the OT which specifically states what is required to be the Messiah and you can address them as we go. Okay?
> I will just use the verses provided in the links that I have provided already.
> ...


 I found this link to be lacking in substance. It focused on one main topic of Jesus's words "how then can he be the son of David'. I think it's clear that he is not arguing against being in David's lineage here???? Clear to me, but... nothing to base this on. . But rather, I speculate that he is referring to who is greater? But, I concede that I am only speculating.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I found this link to be lacking in substance. It focused on one main topic of Jesus's words "how then can he be the son of David'. I think it's clear that he is not arguing against being in David's lineage here???? Clear to me, but... nothing to base this on. . But rather, I speculate that he is referring to who is greater? But, I concede that I am only speculating.


I always appreciate your input, both your personal opinion and Apologetic talent.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I found this link to be lacking in substance. It focused on one main topic of Jesus's words "how then can he be the son of David'. I think it's clear that he is not arguing against being in David's lineage here???? Clear to me, but... nothing to base this on. . But rather, I speculate that he is referring to who is greater? But, I concede that I am only speculating.


What is the lineage from Jesus to David?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 21, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I found this link to be lacking in substance. It focused on one main topic of Jesus's words "how then can he be the son of David'. I think it's clear that he is not arguing against being in David's lineage here???? Clear to me, but... nothing to base this on. . But rather, I speculate that he is referring to who is greater? But, I concede that I am only speculating.





> I think it's clear that he is not arguing against being in David's lineage here???? I speculate that he is referring to who is greater?



I’m no where finished as I’m getting a late start, but I’d agree here - at least agree in speculation.

If you consider everything physical and spiritual - David is a spiritual Son of God and Jesus is a Son of God. 

I’ve traced the lineage from both Mary and Jesus back to David. I won’t speak now as I’d rather go back to my notes before I continue on that part - as in one study it was the Mothers “Jewish” and in another study the only way to pass on an inheritance if you didn’t have a son was by adoption. I want to be clear instead trying to remember all of that without my notes.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m no where finished as I’m getting a late start, but I’d agree here - at least agree in speculation.
> 
> If you consider everything physical and spiritual - David is a spiritual Son of God and Jesus is a Son of God.
> 
> I’ve traced the lineage from both Mary and Jesus back to David. I won’t speak now as I’d rather go back to my notes before I continue on that part - as in one study it was the Mothers “Jewish” and in another study the only way pass on an inheritance if you didn’t have a son was by adoption. I want to be clear instead trying to remember all of that without my notes.


https://pykafamily.wordpress.com/20...as-no-lineage-to-king-david-and-king-salomon/


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 21, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://pykafamily.wordpress.com/20...as-no-lineage-to-king-david-and-king-salomon/


Will review.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2021)

http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-th...udaism/the-messiah/who-is-the-messiah/?p=1063


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

https://pykafamily.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/can-jesus-of-nazareth-be-messiah/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

https://pykafamily.wordpress.com/2020/10/29/clear-undisputed-prophesies-about-messiah/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m no where finished as I’m getting a late start, but I’d agree here - at least agree in speculation.
> 
> If you consider everything physical and spiritual - David is a spiritual Son of God and Jesus is a Son of God.
> 
> I’ve traced the lineage from both Mary and Jesus back to David. I won’t speak now as I’d rather go back to my notes before I continue on that part - as in one study it was the Mothers “Jewish” and in another study the only way to pass on an inheritance if you didn’t have a son was by adoption. I want to be clear instead trying to remember all of that without my notes.


The mother's role in Judiasm is that if your Mother is Jewish you are a Jew. 

Hebrew lineage is not recorded through the female. The bible does not state that it is.

If you want to use spiritual connections, then we are all on equal ground as Messiah candidates in that matter if God created everyone.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

https://outreachjudaism.org/marys-genealogy/


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 22, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The mother's role in Judiasm is that if your Mother is Jewish you are a Jew.
> 
> Hebrew lineage is not recorded through the female. The bible does not state that it is.
> 
> If you want to use spiritual connections, then we are all on equal ground as Messiah candidates in that matter if God created everyone.


One aspect - when Mary married Joseph; through her marriage with Joseph she enters his family and legally becomes, she and her son Jesus, a part of the House of David.

Another aspect, although the women’s names were not used for whatever reason, the lineage can be traced through a woman because obviously, she has parents, they have parents, etc. Just because customs didn’t do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be. And it’s the name of woman not documented, not that the lineage can’t be traced that way. But for arguments sake it was if for nothing else  - “if your Mother is Jew you are a Jew”; Luke records Mary’s lineage.

Jesus can be traced through lineage, custom and spiritual back to the House of David.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> One aspect - when Mary married Joseph; through her marriage with Joseph she enters his family and legally becomes, she and her son Jesus, a part of the House of David.
> 
> Another aspect, although the women’s names were not used for whatever reason, the lineage can be traced through a woman because obviously, she has parents, they have parents, etc. Just because customs didn’t do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be. And it’s the name of woman not documented, not that the lineage can’t be traced that way. But for arguments sake it was if for nothing else  - “if your Mother is Jew you are a Jew”; Luke records Mary’s lineage.
> 
> Jesus can be traced through lineage, custom and spiritual back to the House of David.


Spotlite, the links that I provided address all of the possibilities, aspects,  excuses, and trying to put square pegs into round holes ...
And they show exactly how and why Jesus, through Joseph AND Mary's lines DOES NOT FIT the Davidic line.
Please read the links.
They clearly show where along the lines that the claims to David himself fall apart.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

From one of the links:

Jesus of Nazareth didn’t have this genealogy.He didn’t have a birth father from the Tribe of Judah in the line from King David and Solomon, not Jeconiah. He had a virgin birth according to Matthew and Luke. And even if he didn’t have virgin birth neither genealogy in Matthew 1 or Luke 3 can produce a King to be the Messiah. In Luke 3 the genealogy doesn’t go through Solomon as required and in Matthew 1 the genealogy is rejected because it goes though Jeconiah.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 22, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, the links that I provided address all of the possibilities, aspects,  excuses, and trying to put square pegs into round holes ...
> And they show exactly how and why Jesus, through Joseph AND Mary's lines DOES NOT FIT the Davidic line.
> Please read the links.
> They clearly show where along the lines that the claims to David himself fall apart.


I realize that. I would expect anything Judaism to be a Jesus as the Messiah advocate.

One thing still hinges - Joseph can be traced to David, when Mary married Joseph both her and her son becomes part of the House of David.

But yes, most definitely I will read all the links.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I realize that. I would expect anything Judaism to be a Jesus as the Messiah advocate.
> 
> One thing still hinges - Joseph can be traced to David, when Mary married Joseph both her and her son becomes part of the House of David.
> 
> But yes, most definitely I will read all the links.


The Jews are following the law and the Scripture.
Joseph is NOT Jesus's biological father.  If Jesus IS Joseph's son, then he is not God's son. The links specifically explain why adoption does not work.
Joseph is not traced through Solomon even if Joseph was the biological father.
It just does not meet the qualifications.

From a link:
*Messiah must be a direct descendant from David and Solomon through his human biological father. Jesus of Nazareth didn’t qualify, he had a virgin birth. Even if he didn’t have a virgin birth, the genealogy in Matthew chapter 1 goes through Jeconiah, whose line was disqualified from kingship as part of Elohim’s curse we can read in Jeremiah 22:30,36:30 and in Luke chapter 3 the genealogy doesn’t go through Solomon as required but his brother Nathan which we can read in 2. Samuel 7:12-14, 1. Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6. Jesus of Nazareth is the most definitely not the Jewish Messiah.*


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 22, 2021)

I've never been more comfortable with my decision to reject anything man says or writes about a god or God or whatever names(s) are given to it or them by the various cultures.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 22, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I've never been more comfortable with my decision to reject anything man says or writes about a god or God or whatever names(s) are given to it or them by the various cultures.


Once you have a “Damascus road experience” there are a lot of things that are easy to reject.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 22, 2021)

If Messiah must come from a human father, then there will never be a messiah because scripture says he will be born of a virgin


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 22, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Once you have a “Damascus road experience” there are a lot of things that are easy to reject.


I wont be walking to Damascus and me and Paul dont have much in common so I wont hold my breath.
But yes its that type of experience that its going to take.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> If Messiah must come from a human father, then there will never be a messiah because scripture says he will be born of a virgin


The translation says virgin. The Hebrew word does not mean virgin.
I believe scripture says when the Messiah comes his name will be Immanuel. Is that incorrect?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/messiah-the-criteria


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

Does it say in scripture that God will send himself to be the Messiah?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> If Messiah must come from a human father, then there will never be a messiah because scripture says he will be born of a virgin


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2016/12/07/debunking-nativity-mistranslation-virgin/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2021)

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 22, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I wont be walking to Damascus and me and Paul dont have much in common so I wont hold my breath.
> But yes its that type of experience that its going to take.





> But yes its that type of experience that its going to take.



Honestly, that’s what it takes for everyone. I wished more Christians would learn that instead of trying to prove it themselves.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 22, 2021)

> Spotlite, post: 12921070, member: 4135"]Honestly, that’s what it takes for everyone. I wished more Christians would learn that instead of trying to prove it themselves.


Not everyone.
I personally know a number of Christians who were simply indoctrinated when they were young and just continued to believe and still do, without ever having any kind of earth shattering moment.
Having said that, I also dont doubt there are many Christians who did have some sort of experience. We've heard some of those stories here and I take them at their word that they did have an experience.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Honestly, that’s what it takes for everyone. I wished more Christians would learn that instead of trying to prove it themselves.


What may happen is that faith might be based on an experience and not a heart revelation, those who have or have not an experience but find Christ relationally in them, that's like a wedding whose spouse isn't going anywhere. Yes, it's that secure, especially if not by self performance or experiences


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

I simply think that any lineage coming from the mother is reverse engineering from those whom tried to make Jesus fit their doctrine. In Jesus day, women were not considered of much standing. We heard "son of" often in the OT and new... and it was never the mother's name given. I don't see how anyone could justify this idea with anything from biblical days or our modern bible.  Another example of reverse engineering.... The story of the so called "virgin"... the story has been changed to fit. The word is simply "maiden" and it's use had no intentions and was insignificant. The king was told he would be given a sign.... that sign.... that he, against all odds, would defeat his oppressors. In that day, it was man power. The size of the "army" or better yet, how many men.... It would take generations and generations to grow his man power. ... this being the kings handicap and only means of victory.... but God said the sign that would prove that I am in this.... is that in the amount of time from conception to birth, 9 months, i will carry you to defeat your oppressors. The sign is a time period, not a maiden or virgin. Why give a sign that no one could verify?. No one would know who is a virgin and who is not. It's not much of a 'sign'. Jesus was the literal son of David, adopted son of God. The King would know that if he had victory in 9 months.... God did it, not my wit, strategy, etc.... all God. A sign that God was with him


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I wont be walking to Damascus and me and Paul don't have much in common so I wont hold my breath.
> But yes its that type of experience that its going to take.


Paul's experience is overshadowing the real revelation that he experienced. I'm not even sure if I believe it. The NT does have it's embellishments, especially due to having  been  written much later by non witnesses. Pardon me, I hate to sound preachy, I'm just relaying a viewpoint of the scriptures that you can't google and ever find. Paul, was like most Christians, but.... much more intense. He was the up and coming Michael Jordan of religion. He sought whole hardheartedly to study, to learn, to hang out with that crowd of elite... He dedicated years to God to prep himself to please God. He was extremely  zealous for "the things of God". He thought that this would please God. But his experience, not limited to blindness, or falling off a horse, or a great lite, or.... was based on the realization, by revelation,  possibly not all at once, was to see Jesus for who he was. This, who Jesus was, maybe another time. This humbled Paul. Paul realized what religion does. We work hard to build a temple that God would be pleased to dwell in. We stand back and admire what we have accomplished. Each "work" a brick in our temple that we so admire. We think of how deserving we are and how good God has it that we created such a place worthy of him. How disgusting when you see it. Religion. But Paul, tore this temple down, considered it rubbish and stated that I am what I am... by the grace of God. [not by my study, dedication, perseverance, brains, etc, etc] Jesus told the disciples when they were admiring the temple, that not one stone would be left standing. Stephen understood.... God does not live in houses made by man.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I simply think that any lineage coming from the mother is reverse engineering from those whom tried to make Jesus fit their doctrine. In Jesus day, women were not considered of much standing. We heard "son of" often in the OT and new... and it was never the mother's name given. I don't see how anyone could justify this idea with anything from biblical days or our modern bible.  Another example of reverse engineering.... The story of the so called "virgin"... the story has been changed to fit. The word is simply "maiden" and it's use had no intentions and was insignificant. The king was told he would be given a sign.... that sign.... that he, against all odds, would defeat his oppressors. In that day, it was man power. The size of the "army" or better yet, how many men.... It would take generations and generations to grow his man power. ... this being the kings handicap and only means of victory.... but God said the sign that would prove that I am in this.... is that in the amount of time from conception to birth, 9 months, i will carry you to defeat your oppressors. The sign is a time period, not a maiden or virgin. Why give a sign that no one could verify?. No one would know who is a virgin and who is not. It's not much of a 'sign'.


Accurate and agreeable until you lost me below...


1gr8bldr said:


> Jesus was the literal son of David, adopted son of God. The King would know that if he had victory in 9 months.... God did it, not my wit, strategy, etc.... all God. A sign that God was with him


Can you explain that in more detail?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 23, 2021)

StriperAddict said:


> What may happen is that faith might be based on an experience and not a heart revelation, those who have or have not an experience but find Christ relationally in them, that's like a wedding whose spouse isn't going anywhere. Yes, it's that secure, especially if not by self performance or experiences


The Damascus road experience is also symbolic that God does the revealing / eye opening, no need in my beating it over someone’s head to try to make them believe. I can tell them, but I can’t open their eyes.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

Near death experiences happen throughout the world. Cultures, geography,  time in history have no bearing on them taking place.
If Jesus meeting prophecy cannot be established, Paul's vision means what exactly? People of all religions claim to have visions, experiences and interactions. What are they examples of?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Near death experiences happen throughout the world. Cultures, geography,  time in history have no bearing on them taking place.
> If Jesus meeting prophecy cannot be established, Paul's vision means what exactly? People of all religions claim to have visions, experiences and interactions. What are they examples of?


Near death experiences and visions aren’t what a Damascus road experience means. The meaning of that is a revelation of God. 

Jesus meets the prophecy. Remember in prophecy, “will” do is will do, not past tense. 

The same Judaism sources that reject Jesus that you agree with as accurate because it’s God’s word also say things about a God that you deny the existence of. 

Bottom line until you have a Damascus road experience…..


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Near death experiences and visions aren’t what a Damascus road experience means. The meaning of that is a revelation of God.
> 
> Jesus meets the prophecy. Remember in prophecy, “will” do is will do, not past tense.
> 
> ...





> The same Judaism sources that reject Jesus that you agree with as accurate because it’s God’s word also say things about a God that you deny the existence of.


Thats actually a valid point.
To me.... its just more of Jesus aint this because we believe that and Jesus is this because we believe this and then another religion says they are both wrong because we believe this and on and on. Its just a vicious circle and why I reject all of it.
Its ALL men trying to claim "God" as theirs and not yours.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Near death experiences and visions aren’t what a Damascus road experience means. The meaning of that is a revelation of God.


I understand that. You are using it as a term that describes a "come to Jesus Moment".
People use NDE's as similar reasons.



Spotlite said:


> Jesus meets the prophecy. Remember in prophecy, “will” do is will do, not past tense.


Simply saying that Jesus meets prophecy goes against the scripture that has been shown here.
If you understand scripture you have to take into account when this "will do" (The Messanic Age) will happen. It will happen soon when it starts, not wait for a few thousand years with a "wait till tomorrow" attitude.
So according to your post, Jesus eventually "will" become a descendant of David through Soloman? Because he absolutely has not and cannot so far.



Spotlite said:


> The same Judaism sources that reject Jesus that you agree with as accurate because it’s God’s word also say things about a God that you deny the existence of.


Whether I believe them to be historically accurate and truthful or not has no bearing on what they say and requirements within.
According to scripture (I didn't write scripture) Jesus does not meet the requirements of Messiah.



Spotlite said:


> Bottom line until you have a Damascus road experience…..


I experience nature. It is as soul soothing and as heavenly as I need.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I understand that. You are using it as a term that describes a "come to Jesus Moment".
> People use NDE's as similar reasons.
> 
> 
> ...


I can agree on the photo - very soothing experience indeed. But so very different than a cone to Jesus experience. 

For the record - what scripture says the Messiah will come from the paternal side?

The prophecy of bringing the Jews home, 3rd temple, etc. The prophecy from the House of David will relate to my above question.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats actually a valid point.
> To me.... its just more of Jesus aint this because we believe that and Jesus is this because we believe this and then another religion says they are both wrong because we believe this and on and on. Its just a vicious circle and why I reject all of it.
> Its ALL men trying to claim "God" as theirs and not yours.


Yes.
And like I have said many times before...
If we are going to talk, discuss, argue about who is faster, Mighty Mouse or Superman, we have to use the comic book for a source because that realm exists no where else.
If the earliest portions of the Bible tells its readers what is needed in order to meet the requirements of Messiah then that is the starting point and standards to go by.
SpiderMan needed to be bit by a radioactive spider in order to be who he is in the books. If he was never bitten by the spider he is just some guy running around in fancy pajamas pretending to shoot webs. He cannot be the later version if he was never the first.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can agree on the photo - very soothing experience indeed. But so very different than a cone to Jesus experience.
> 
> For the record - what scripture says the Messiah will come from the paternal side?
> 
> The prophecy of bringing the Jews home, 3rd temple, etc. The prophecy from the House of David will relate to my above question.


Spot, the links provide all of the requirements along with scripture to back it up.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spot, the links provide all of the requirements along with scripture to back it up.


I failed to see the scripture that states it must be from the paternal side. I will recheck it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 23, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats actually a valid point.
> To me.... its just more of Jesus aint this because we believe that and Jesus is this because we believe this and then another religion says they are both wrong because we believe this and on and on. Its just a vicious circle and why I reject all of it.
> Its ALL men trying to claim "God" as theirs and not yours.





> its just more of Jesus aint this because we believe that and Jesus is this because we believe this
> Its ALL men trying to claim "God" as theirs and not yours.


Unfortunately, I wished that wasn’t the case but it is. All kinds of Doctrines out there. It doesn’t make them ALL wrong, though. I guess that’s the drive for most in their quest for truth. Maybe if they / we ALL ate a little humble pie occasionally there’d be less driven away by all of the “I’m right / you’re wrong” arguments.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can agree on the photo - very soothing experience indeed. But so very different than a cone to Jesus experience.


Different for who?



Spotlite said:


> For the record - what scripture says the Messiah will come from the paternal side?
> 
> The prophecy of bringing the Jews home, 3rd temple, etc. The prophecy from the House of David will relate to my above question.


I used the links because they cover the bases.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Unfortunately, I wished that wasn’t the case but it is. All kinds of Doctrines out there. It doesn’t make them ALL wrong, though. I guess that’s the drive for most in their quest for truth. Maybe if they / we ALL ate a little humble pie occasionally there’d be less driven away by all of the “I’m right / you’re wrong” arguments.


In these last few days I have tried to do without the right/wrong and just use scripture and the laws of the times to speak for itself.
If the requirements are met except one then All the requirements are not met. Period 
It is an all or nothing proposition using the rules in OT scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

Does the Genealogy that starts in Genesis go by Adam or Eve?
Does the Bible use Abrahams lineage or Sarah's?
Do the requirements for Messiah use David or David's wife?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Unfortunately, I wished that wasn’t the case but it is. All kinds of Doctrines out there. It doesn’t make them ALL wrong, though. I guess that’s the drive for most in their quest for truth. Maybe if they / we ALL ate a little humble pie occasionally there’d be less driven away by all of the “I’m right / you’re wrong” arguments.





> It doesn’t make them ALL wrong, though.


Thats true.
But I think its just as likely, even more likely, that they are all wrong as opposed to only one being right.
I see it as -
1. There is no "God"
2. There is a "God" but noone has a freakin' clue as to what or how that 'God" is.
Thats why you get so many opposing stories/beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> In these last few days I have tried to do without the right/wrong and just use scripture and the laws of the times to speak for itself.
> If the requirements are met except one then All the requirements are not met. Period
> It is an all or nothing proposition using the rules in OT scripture.


There's no getting around that.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 23, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats true.
> But I think its just as likely, even more likely, that they are all wrong as opposed to only one being right.
> I see it as -
> 1. There is no "God"
> ...



Every couple of years I go though a 3-step argument with myself.

One
Given Omnipotence, all that is is God's will
Given Omnibenevolence, all that is is good.
Therefore, all of the variety of opinion on Scripture must be good.

Two
The variety of opinion on Scripture has the appearance of entropy.
From within an entropic system it would not be possible to distinguish entropy from negentropy.
Therefore what we think is entropy could as easily be negentropy; negentropy is supported by the conclusion in Step One.

Three
What the heck am I thinking about?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Accurate and agreeable until you lost me below...
> 
> Can you explain that in more detail?


I expect your referring to Jesus being in David's lineage , rather than my misuse of "Literal son"? I realize that in tracing jesus's lineage, that problems occur. However, I'm not surprised by that. The NT misses several names in tracing Jesus lineage, thus totally crushing Matthew's theory that 14, 14, and 14, must be some sort of proof. Point is, that, regardless of whether they got it right on paper.... in hindsight.... i believe the NT context reveals that no one at that time was making an argument that "he could not be the Messiah' based on his lineage, thus I think it was assumed. I hold the opinion, that the truth lies here, in the context, not in some writers history ability 50 years later.  I think that they all knew Joseph to be of that lineage. Comments such as "tell us plainly if you are the Christ" give indication that the doubters were not questioning his lineage. Many such verses exist that shore up this theory. I will point out that "is this not Joseph's son, who we know" could be translated to mean that... if the assumption is that Joseph is not of that lineage, he was not the Christ based on this however, I don't think context supports this. I personally think that if he had not been obviously of David's lineage, that he would have never captured an audience and would have gotten stoned if he continued.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I simply think that any lineage coming from the mother is reverse engineering from those whom tried to make Jesus fit their doctrine. In Jesus day, women were not considered of much standing. We heard "son of" often in the OT and new... and it was never the mother's name given. I don't see how anyone could justify this idea with anything from biblical days or our modern bible.  Another example of reverse engineering.... The story of the so called "virgin"... the story has been changed to fit. The word is simply "maiden" and it's use had no intentions and was insignificant. The king was told he would be given a sign.... that sign.... that he, against all odds, would defeat his oppressors. In that day, it was man power. The size of the "army" or better yet, how many men.... It would take generations and generations to grow his man power. ... this being the kings handicap and only means of victory.... but God said the sign that would prove that I am in this.... is that in the amount of time from conception to birth, 9 months, i will carry you to defeat your oppressors. The sign is a time period, not a maiden or virgin. Why give a sign that no one could verify?. No one would know who is a virgin and who is not. It's not much of a 'sign'. Jesus was the literal son of David, adopted son of God. The King would know that if he had victory in 9 months.... God did it, not my wit, strategy, etc.... all God. A sign that God was with him


Driving to work this morning, it hit me, how my shooting from the hip, not focusing on the target, that I mispoke. The story goes on to include "until he is weened". Therefore, the sign is not just 9 months, but rather 9 months plus the standard weeaning period. Whatever that was?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I expect your referring to Jesus being in David's lineage , rather than my misuse of "Literal son"? I realize that in tracing jesus's lineage, that problems occur. However, I'm not surprised by that. The NT misses several names in tracing Jesus lineage, thus totally crushing Matthew's theory that 14, 14, and 14, must be some sort of proof. Point is, that, regardless of whether they got it right on paper.... in hindsight.... i believe the NT context reveals that no one at that time was making an argument that "he could not be the Messiah' based on his lineage, thus I think it was assumed. I hold the opinion, that the truth lies here, in the context, not in some writers history ability 50 years later.  I think that they all knew Joseph to be of that lineage. Comments such as "tell us plainly if you are the Christ" give indication that the doubters were not questioning his lineage. Many such verses exist that shore up this theory. I will point out that "is this not Joseph's son, who we know" could be translated to mean that... if the assumption is that Joseph is not of that lineage, he was not the Christ based on this however, I don't think context supports this. I personally think that if he had not been obviously of David's lineage, that he would have never captured an audience and would have gotten stoned if he continued.


How was he of David's lineage? It seems Joseph is of Jeconiah's lineage.
Matthew and Luke list two different fathers for Joseph.
Nowhere do they mention Mary.
https://rarebible.wordpress.com/201...ontradictory-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke/

Is it possible that the overwhelming majority of Jews then were not captivated by Jesus because they knew he was not from David's lineage?
It took 300 years to get Christianity going.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> How was he of David's lineage? It seems Joseph is of Jeconiah's lineage.
> Matthew and Luke list two different fathers for Joseph.
> Nowhere do they mention Mary.
> https://rarebible.wordpress.com/201...ontradictory-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke/
> ...


Slipery slope I ride often, LOL, my point is that I don't think any genealogy given in the NT is credible. All accounts were written by those who were writing about that which they knew nothing about. Mostly plagiarizing. Writing many years later, almost my life span after the fact. Writing, not from knowledge, but with other's writings in front of them. I don't put much confidence in them as historians, especially Luke trying to flip it to the genealogy of Mary, as if he is going to put in a "fix". Again, as a reminder. I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin. I believe Joseph was his real father. I believe that if he were not born of Joseph, then he is not of the line of David. Reminding... that I don't believe he is God's literal son, otherwise he could not be son of David, thus removing him from the possibility of such.

However..... I do believe in the sum of the context. The sum of the context has story after story, whether passed down orally or copied from another, that.... there was a constant theme of the people's questioning Jesus's potential of being the longed for Christ. Over and over, context of questioning.... but never his lineage. It tells me that the people's did not doubt his genealogy. "when the Christ comes, will he do more miracles than this", being an example. Rather than, [made up] "how could he be the Christ, does not the scriptures say that he will be a descendant of david"? This made up example is the missing context. This was a deal breaker. Not even a second look had he not been assumed of the lineage of David, through his father. Jesus drew great crowds. They were anxiously awaiting... but not so anxious that they would gather to hear a non decendant of David.  I'll bet the farm on this context.

  We have multiple examples of "fixes" penned to fix the problem of a scripture that can't hold water. Nobody ever tried to fix his heritage in regards to his Father. Luke did however try to fix the evolution of the virgin story beginning to take hold. When I say "fixes", no better example can be found than something.... I can't recall... regarding Joseph and Mary not going back.... because of a dream, maybe something about him being from Nazereth?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> How was he of David's lineage? It seems Joseph is of Jeconiah's lineage.
> Matthew and Luke list two different fathers for Joseph.
> Nowhere do they mention Mary.
> https://rarebible.wordpress.com/201...ontradictory-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke/
> ...


The overwhelming majority of Jews.... that's skewed a bit. Lets disagree with part 1, and agree with part 2. He only reached those within his immediate area, and seemingly, they came out to hear what he had to say. I believe that if he had not been so offensive to the religious crowd, that the story could have been different. I think the leaders were afraid. They saw that the majority was gravitating to him. We also don't have context where the leaders were claiming he was not of David's lineage in an effort to reel the people back in. Then, part two, after the fact, you would be correct that the overwhelming majority of Jews did not accept him because he did opposite of what they expected. He died, rather than ruled. Paul would have said that he conquered death, not the Roman's


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Slipery slope I ride often, LOL, my point is that I don't think any genealogy given in the NT is credible. All accounts were written by those who were writing about that which they knew nothing about. Mostly plagiarizing. Writing many years later, almost my life span after the fact. Writing, not from knowledge, but with other's writings in front of them. I don't put much confidence in them as historians, especially Luke trying to flip it to the genealogy of Mary, as if he is going to put in a "fix". Again, as a reminder. I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin. I believe Joseph was his real father. I believe that if he were not born of Joseph, then he is not of the line of David. Reminding... that I don't believe he is God's literal son, otherwise he could not be son of David, thus removing him from the possibility of such.
> 
> However..... I do believe in the sum of the context. The sum of the context has story after story, whether passed down orally or copied from another, that.... there was a constant theme of the people's questioning Jesus's potential of being the longed for Christ. Over and over, context of questioning.... but never his lineage. It tells me that the people's did not doubt his genealogy. "when the Christ comes, will he do more miracles than this", being an example. Rather than, [made up] "how could he be the Christ, does not the scriptures say that he will be a descendant of david"? This made up example is the missing context. This was a deal breaker. Not even a second look had he not been assumed of the lineage of David, through his father. Jesus drew great crowds. They were anxiously awaiting... but not so anxious that they would gather to hear a non decendant of David.  I'll bet the farm on this context.
> 
> We have multiple examples of "fixes" penned to fix the problem of a scripture that can't hold water. Nobody ever tried to fix his heritage in regards to his Father. Luke did however try to fix the evolution of the virgin story beginning to take hold. When I say "fixes", no better example can be found than something.... I can't recall... regarding Joseph and Mary not going back.... because of a dream, maybe something about him being from Nazereth?


LOL, my example... is almost John 7/42. So, my context falls apart, I lose the farm, but I still believe I'm right. The text is ambigious, but still lost the farm


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

I can't help but think that I knew personally 3 generations ( parents,  grandparents and some great grandparents) of my family. I had to do a good amount of research to get to 5 generations ago. And this was my own family with the help of the internet/ancestry sites. In doing so it cleared up some family guessing as to who belonged to who. I've gone back to 9 generations on my maternal great grandmothers side with some intensive digging through archived birth, marriage, and citizen records that were found online. 
How would anyone in the crowds that gathered to see or hear Jesus have a clue as to who is grandparents were (maybe a few village old timers were still around that could remember that) but who could trace back 14 generations of a man who didn't become known until he was 30? Saying that the people of 2000 years ago who gathered around him could somehow know Jesus was a descendant of David is quite a claim. Suggesting that those people knew 14 generations of Jesus and he was a descendant of David and the "right" descendant of David would be almost more than you/I/any of us can find out, let alone know and recite from memory about our own family!!!!!

I ask(from memory)how many generations and names can each of us name regarding our own families on our Father's side?
How far back and how many can we name of our best friends family on their Father's side?
How far back and how many can we name of the Queen Elizabeth's husband (that just recently passed away)on his Father's side?
How far back and how many could we name of a guy that we saw preaching on a Sunday in church?
How far back and how many could we name of a guy who we saw on a street corner 2000 years ago? Can anyone here (without looking it up) recite the Lineage of Jesus backwards 14 generations to David?
How can we expect that ANY of those people who saw Jesus make speeches could do any better?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 24, 2021)

just to point out... the Jews have recited their family heritage since the before Abram was promised he would be the father of the Jewish nation.  It was taught in their schools, and memorized word for word.  It isn't like us today where we can't even name our first cousins


----------



## robbrainer (Jul 24, 2021)

lumbalgia y ciatica carrera continua dibujos
fisioterapia uroginecologica la mega fm
accidente en granada muletas valencia
clases para embarazadas bajar escaleras con muletas
uso de muletas comprar viagra
cialis generico comprar como colocar las bolas chinas
sildenafil sandoz comprar online noticias medicas recientes
lamega envio contrareembolso
internet granada lumbalgia como sentarse
comprar cialis generico en espana envio rapido condilo humeral
masajes linfaticos lumbalgia y ciatica
como subir escaleras con muletas spa granada
como curar la episiotomia comprar tadalafilo
kamagra efectos la mega fm
masajes relajantes granada oferta limpieza facial
abdominales pilar rubio comprar contrareembolso
generico de viagra master entrenamiento personal granada
abdominales hipopresivos pilar rubio fractura cabeza del radio
ciatica fisioterapia clases de pilates en granada
mariola pena condilo codo
lucia y patricia las mejores bolas chinas
condilo codo cicatriz episiotomia
fisioterapia en obstetricia y uroginecologia sildenafil 100mg
sildenafil 100 mg comprar levitra generico
como usar una muleta viagra connect espana
estiramientos para la lumbalgia donde comprar contrareembolso
prostatectomia radical efectos secundarios estiramientos lumbalgia
pedicura granada entrenador personal granada
prostatectomia la mega fm
rehabilitacion fractura cabeza de radio comprar viagra espana
cabeza de radio patricia pena
ciatica fisioterapia ereccion despues de operacion de prostata
clinica sanabria abdominales hipopresivos pilar rubio
comprar viagra en madrid hoy fisioterapia para ciatica
las bolas chinas medico rehabilitador
kamagra 100mg oral jelly como usar una muleta
lucia y patricia viagra connect espana
osteopata granada levitra generico barato
com llego lumbalgia ciatica
las bolas chinas ejercicios para mejorar la ciatica
compresas despues del parto cialis generico en espana
donde comprar viagra en espana spa granada
como usar muletas medico rehabilitador
la muleta estiramientos periostitis
comprar viagra generico kamagra 100mg oral jelly
fisioterapia la zubia viagra precios
com llego lamegafm
condilo humeral precio viagra generico
masaje drenaje linfatico precio fisioterapia granada precios
gley lucia y patricia


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 24, 2021)

robbrainer said:


> lumbalgia y ciatica carrera continua dibujos
> fisioterapia uroginecologica la mega fm
> accidente en granada muletas valencia
> clases para embarazadas bajar escaleras con muletas
> ...


IKR!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> just to point out... the Jews have recited their family heritage since the before Abram was promised he would be the father of the Jewish nation.  It was taught in their schools, and memorized word for word.  It isn't like us today where we can't even name our first cousins


Are those the same Jews who maintain that pedigree, bloodlines cannot be passed on through adoption?
So Joseph the carpenter would have been talked about in schools as being a descendant of David? It seems that all eyes would have been on him his entire life since he was a candidate for Messiah himself being of David's bloodline.
Can you provide any links that show "the Jews have recited their family heritage since the before Abram was promised he would be the father of the Jewish nation.  It was taught in their schools, and memorized word for word." ?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Is adoption made of the seed according to the flesh?

Psalms 132:11
The LORD hath sworn _in_ truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Fruit of thy body. Meaning step-fruit? Adopted fruit?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

In depth explanation 
https://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/365...e-seed-of-david-the-fruit-of-his-bodyluke-132


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

I agree... No one would know these things. on an individual level, I don't think anybody is researching his lineage, or would remember his family.  It had to have been  a prestige thing to have been in that lineage, and everybody local... just seemed to know. But, John 7-42, an example of him going into an area where that was unknown. Examples, something similar to the Ewing family [Dallas]  on the show I never have watched. Or the Trump family, everybody just seems to know, in that town, if, you belong to that family. Or another, the Kennedy's . Locally it's known from prestige


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I agree... No one would know these things. on an individual level, I don't think anybody is researching his lineage, or would remember his family.  It had to have been  a prestige thing to have been in that lineage, and everybody local... just seemed to know. But, John 7-42, an example of him going into an area where that was unknown. Examples, something similar to the Ewing family [Dallas]  on the show I never have watched. Or the Trump family, everybody just seems to know, in that town, if, you belong to that family. Or another, the Kennedy's . Locally it's known from prestige


So Joseph the carpenter was a local celebrity and potential Messiah candidate long before Jesus arrived?
It is a thousand years of separation from David to Jesus.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Rom 1:3
> Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
> 
> Is adoption made of the seed according to the flesh?
> ...


If they had never invented the "virgin birth", think about it..... Not saying everyone would be Christian.... just saying more Jews would have been converted


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So Joseph the carpenter was a local celebrity and potential Messiah candidate long before Jesus arrived?
> It is a thousand years of separation from David to Jesus.


Celebrity is a good word for the examples I gave. Poor examples on my part. In our day.... let me back up. In my younger days, our community was tight. we all knew everybody. We knew who was kin to who. Almost seemed like everybody was kin in some way. But, as time has gone by, houses built everywhere, I don't know nothing anymore. But, there was a time when I fully expected that every car that passed my bicycle, I waved before I saw who it was... because I was confident I knew them. So back it waaay up to Jesus day. We are talking about handfuls of people. I think it very possible that people knew family lines. However, I see no sign of last names being used, which would have made that easier.  But.... I don't believe that within this community that Joseph was focused on as the line of David. I believe many were of that lineage. Joseph may have had brothers and surely male cousins.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> If they had never invented the "virgin birth", think about it..... Not saying everyone would be Christian.... just saying more Jews would have been converted


The lines from/to David in both Matthew and Luke do not match prophecy. One goes to Jeconiah and the other Nathan. It must go through Solomon. 
And this is just ONE issue with prophesy. There are many that Jesus did not qualify for or fulfill. The Jews of then knew that then too. They disqualified men who fulfilled more prophecy than Jesus did but because not ALL prophecy was fulfilled those others were not Messiah. All these candidates absolutely had followers, fans, entourages,  people who died for them when things were looking like prophecy was being fulfilled. And then as soon as the person did not meet a requirement,  Done. No more bandwagon jumpers.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Celebrity is a good word for the examples I gave. Poor examples on my part. In our day.... let me back up. In my younger days, our community was tight. we all knew everybody. We knew who was kin to who. Almost seemed like everybody was kin in some way. But, as time has gone by, houses built everywhere, I don't know nothing anymore. But, there was a time when I fully expected that every car that passed my bicycle, I waved before I saw who it was... because I was confident I knew them. So back it waaay up to Jesus day. We are talking about handfuls of people. I think it very possible that people knew family lines. However, I see no sign of last names being used, which would have made that easier.  But.... I don't believe that within this community that Joseph was focused on as the line of David. I believe many were of that lineage. Joseph may have had brothers and surely male cousins.


Within a few generations we all can agree that we know "of" people and families that way.

My wife, through ancestory dot com found out that she is related to Mary Queen of Scots. Locally many people know of my wife's family within 3 generations of her. But NOBODY especially NOBODY alive today within her family has a clue that they were related to MQoS. 
Who can name Trump's Great Grandfather from the top of their head? I suspect few if any 2000 years ago could name Joseph's lineage beyond 3 generations, let alone over a thousand years.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

Pondering 


bullethead said:


> The lines from/to David in both Matthew and Luke do not match prophecy. One goes to Jeconiah and the other Nathan. It must go through Solomon.
> And this is just ONE issue with prophesy. There are many that Jesus did not qualify for or fulfill. The Jews of then knew that then too. They disqualified men who fulfilled more prophecy than Jesus did but because not ALL prophecy was fulfilled those others were not Messiah. All these candidates absolutely had followers, fans, entourages,  people who died for them when things were looking like prophecy was being fulfilled. And then as soon as the person did not meet a requirement,  Done. No more bandwagon jumpers.


I realize the problems with our accounts of Matthew and Luke. I just don't acknowledge them because I don't hold the books as credible. The big difference with Jesus, if you believe it, or accept that they did, was.... Jesus was a prophet likened to Moses. How will the people know that you sent me, says Moses. Essentially, God said, they will know you from the miracles. The Messiah had to display miracles in order to be seen as sent. This is what separated him from those previously disqualified.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Celebrity is a good word for the examples I gave. Poor examples on my part. In our day.... let me back up. In my younger days, our community was tight. we all knew everybody. We knew who was kin to who. Almost seemed like everybody was kin in some way. But, as time has gone by, houses built everywhere, I don't know nothing anymore. But, there was a time when I fully expected that every car that passed my bicycle, I waved before I saw who it was... because I was confident I knew them. So back it waaay up to Jesus day. We are talking about handfuls of people. I think it very possible that people knew family lines. However, I see no sign of last names being used, which would have made that easier.  But.... I don't believe that within this community that Joseph was focused on as the line of David. I believe many were of that lineage. Joseph may have had brothers and surely male cousins.


Wouldn't every single male of David's  line, son's,  nephews, cousins, from David to now be a Messiah candidate?
Who would keep track of a thousand years worth of ONE person's lineage let alone hundreds upon hundreds of offspring's lineage? When you factor in the magnitude of offspring and ten centuries between David and Joseph I doubt anyone locally had a clue.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Within a few generations we all can agree that we know "of" people and families that way.
> 
> My wife, through ancestory dot com found out that she is related to Mary Queen of Scots. Locally many people know of my wife's family within 3 generations of her. But NOBODY especially NOBODY alive today within her family has a clue that they were related to MQoS.
> Who can name Trump's Great Grandfather from the top of their head? I suspect few if any 2000 years ago could name Joseph's lineage beyond 3 generations, let alone over a thousand years.


Your looking at it wrong. Nobody cares about Trumps Grandfather. But 100 years from now, Trump's great, great, great, great, great grandkids, will be known, not to the world, but in his community. Unless they hide, LOL. 

I'm not sure how this ancestory dot com works or if I believe it as accurate. For example, going back that far, what  if you were Mary Queen of Scotts sister? What if your wife's  heritage actually went through her sister rather than Mary Queen of Scotts? But, this is a rabbit trail I have no business discussing because I'm only speculating. Just wondering though


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Pondering
> 
> I realize the problems with our accounts of Matthew and Luke. I just don't acknowledge them because I don't hold the books as credible. The big difference with Jesus, if you believe it, or accept that they did, was.... Jesus was a prophet likened to Moses. How will the people know that you sent me, says Moses. Essentially, God said, they will know you from the miracles. The Messiah had to display miracles in order to be seen as sent. This is what separated him from those previously disqualified.


Regarding Miracles...
From: https://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/

missionaries, like Jews for Jesus, profess that Jesus is the Jewish messiah.

Why has Judaism rejected this claim for 2,000 years?

The concept of the Messiah has its foundation in our Jewish Bible, the Tanach, which teaches that all of the following criteria must be fulfilled before any person can be acknowledged as the Messiah:

*The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon*

The Messiah must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct descendant of King David & King Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10). Genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18).

There is no evidence that Jesus really had this pedigree, and the Christian Bible actually claims that he did not have a “birth-father” from the tribe of Judah descending from King David and King Solomon (Matt. 1:18-20).

*Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles*

When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland (Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24).
This has clearly not yet happened and we still await its fulfillment.

*Rebuilding of the Holy Temple*

The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21).

The Temple was still standing in Jesus’ day. It was destroyed 38 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and it has not yet been rebuilt.

*Worldwide Reign of Peace*

There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).

Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the start of Christianity.

*Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews*

The Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).

Jesus never ruled as King, nor have all Jews embraced the commandments of G-d’s Torah.

*Universal Knowledge of G-d*

The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true G-d (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).

This, as well, has not yet taken place and we await its fulfillment.

*A Biblical Portrait of the Messiah*

All of these criteria for the Messiah are found in numerous places in the Jewish Bible. One foundational example is in the book of Ezekiel, Chapter 37:24-28:

“24 And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them

25 and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers have lived; and they shall live there, they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever; and My servant David will be their prince for ever.

26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant, which I will give them; and I will multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever

27 and My tabernacle shall be with them, and I will be their God and they will be My people.

28 And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”

Anyone can claim to be the Messiah or a group of people can claim that someone is the Messiah. However, if that person fails to fulfill all the criteria found in the Jewish Bible, he cannot be the Messiah.

According to the Christian scriptures, Jesus seems to have understood this. As he was being crucified by the Romans, he cried out “My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).

*The Christian Rebuttal*

In order to deal with Jesus’ failure to fulfill the Biblical messianic prophecies, missionaries argue that he will accomplish them when he returns in the future.

It’s important to understand that this second coming doctrine is an admission that Jesus didn’t fulfill the Messianic criteria. This ration- alization for his failure certainly provides no reason to accept him as the Messiah today.

Furthermore, the Jewish Bible does not have a Messianic “installment plan” where Messiah comes, fails in his mission, and then returns thousands of years later to finally succeed.

Missionaries will claim that because Jesus performed miracles, he must be the Messiah. However, we have no real evidence that Jesus actually performed any miracles. More signific-antly, even if Jesus did perform miracles, they would not prove that he was the Messiah.

Our Bible never says that we will be able to recognize the Messiah through the miracles that he will do. The Torah actually teaches that even false prophets can have the ability to perform supernatural miracles (Deut. 13:2-6).


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Your looking at it wrong. Nobody cares about Trumps Grandfather. But 100 years from now, Trump's great, great, great, great, great grandkids, will be known, not to the world, but in his community. Unless they hide, LOL.
> 
> I'm not sure how this ancestory dot com works or if I believe it as accurate. For example, going back that far, what  if you were Mary Queen of Scotts sister? What if your wife's  heritage actually went through her sister rather than Mary Queen of Scotts? But, this is a rabbit trail I have no business discussing because I'm only speculating. Just wondering though


Through the ancestor sites, a person is able to trace their history back as far as available records allow.
Birth certificates, ship travel logs, census records, basically anything that is available for an individual that shows their recorded existence is used to link with another ancestor. The power of the software does the searching and "leafs" (representing family tree parts) pop up when a known relative is matched with another known relative using the available information.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't every single male of David's  line, son's,  nephews, cousins, from David to now be a Messiah candidate?
> Who would keep track of a thousand years worth of ONE person's lineage let alone hundreds upon hundreds of offspring's lineage? When you factor in the magnitude of offspring and ten centuries between David and Joseph I doubt anyone locally had a clue.


Agree, no one should know for sure. But, from the mindset of the Jews, and factoring in their "problem" and how zealous they were for the coming Messiah, I think they passed this prestige of lineage down to their kids. I really feel like if you bank everything on the family of David, that your stocks are invested in the bank of David. So you just know where/who that bank is. 

Back to their "problem". The expectation of the coming Messiah is magnified by the fact that they saw themselves as being oppressed by the Romans. However, that was their perception in regards to there expectations or relative to the promises. They were not oppressed by the Romans. They were much like an Indian reservation. They were left alone, granted permission to assemble, did not have to pay taxes, etc. A good place to be. However releative to the promises they looked forward to, they saw themselves as oppressed. Therefore the Romans had to keep an eye on them because they were always contemplating an overthrow. When Jesus came on the scene, he excited them so that he had to walk the shadows to keep them from forcing him as the leader against the Romans. The Romans saw the extra excitment and started upping their troops because they feared a rebellion. My point, in their mindset..... they had one domineering thought that was like needed air.... David's lineage


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Pondering
> 
> I realize the problems with our accounts of Matthew and Luke. I just don't acknowledge them because I don't hold the books as credible. The big difference with Jesus, if you believe it, or accept that they did, was.... Jesus was a prophet likened to Moses. How will the people know that you sent me, says Moses. Essentially, God said, they will know you from the miracles. The Messiah had to display miracles in order to be seen as sent. This is what separated him from those previously disqualified.


If the contents of the Gospels are not credible, what then is? Why should we beleive some things and not others if  All of the bible is the word of god? If Matthew and Luke cannot get the lineage of Jesus correct,  why believe their accounts of miracles?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Regarding Miracles...
> From: https://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/
> 
> missionaries, like Jews for Jesus, profess that Jesus is the Jewish messiah.
> ...


I look forward to pondering over this, but for now, I need to go work on my bait tank. Might revist this later tonight, once my lines are out


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Agree, no one should know for sure. But, from the mindset of the Jews, and factoring in their "problem" and how zealous they were for the coming Messiah, I think they passed this prestige of lineage down to their kids. I really feel like if you bank everything on the family of David, that your stocks are invested in the bank of David. So you just know where/who that bank is.
> 
> Back to their "problem". The expectation of the coming Messiah is magnified by the fact that they saw themselves as being oppressed by the Romans. However, that was their perception in regards to there expectations or relative to the promises. They were not oppressed by the Romans. They were much like an Indian reservation. They were left alone, granted permission to assemble, did not have to pay taxes, etc. A good place to be. However releative to the promises they looked forward to, they saw themselves as oppressed. Therefore the Romans had to keep an eye on them because they were always contemplating an overthrow. When Jesus came on the scene, he excited them so that he had to walk the shadows to keep them from forcing him as the leader against the Romans. The Romans saw the extra excitment and started upping their troops because they feared a rebellion. My point, in their mindset..... they had one domineering thought that was like needed air.... David's lineage


All this latest conversation in here is of David's lineage.  I am not banking on it whatsoever. It is but one example, the first example that I chose to use as to why Jesus does not fulfill prophecy. I am prepared to go prophecy by prophecy and use just as much time and bandwith for each as the previous one gets resolved. It just so happens that David's lineage is consuming all this time despite what is clearly shown in the bible that specifically disqualifies Jesus on that lineage alone.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If the contents of the Gospels are not credible, what then is? Why should we beleive some things and not others if  All of the bible is the word of god? If Matthew and Luke cannot get the lineage of Jesus correct,  why believe their accounts of miracles?


Very valid point. To each his own as to what they believe. For me, I focus on the sum of the context. when I was on CARM for 10 years, almost 10 years ago, I called myself Dr.Context. LOL, because I zero in on this. I always said that missing context reveals more than context. But, in order to have a good grasp on context, you must read the NT a 1000 times, which I have. But, your point is valid.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Agree, no one should know for sure. But, from the mindset of the Jews, and factoring in their "problem" and how zealous they were for the coming Messiah, I think they passed this prestige of lineage down to their kids. I really feel like if you bank everything on the family of David, that your stocks are invested in the bank of David. So you just know where/who that bank is.
> 
> Back to their "problem". The expectation of the coming Messiah is magnified by the fact that they saw themselves as being oppressed by the Romans. However, that was their perception in regards to there expectations or relative to the promises. They were not oppressed by the Romans. They were much like an Indian reservation. They were left alone, granted permission to assemble, did not have to pay taxes, etc. A good place to be. However releative to the promises they looked forward to, they saw themselves as oppressed. Therefore the Romans had to keep an eye on them because they were always contemplating an overthrow. When Jesus came on the scene, he excited them so that he had to walk the shadows to keep them from forcing him as the leader against the Romans. The Romans saw the extra excitment and started upping their troops because they feared a rebellion. My point, in their mindset..... they had one domineering thought that was like needed air.... David's lineage


The "we have to beat our oppressors " mindset went on for centuries. And why there was always a Messiah candidate in the running. None, especially Jesus, fulfilled the qualifications.
2000 years later, no unification of the Tribes of Israel, no world peace, no world leader, and on and on of unfulfilled prophecies.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

I


1gr8bldr said:


> Your looking at it wrong. Nobody cares about Trumps Grandfather. But 100 years from now, Trump's great, great, great, great, great grandkids, will be known, not to the world, but in his community. Unless they hide, LOL.


Who are Warren G Harding's (president of the USA 100 years ago)children, grandchildren,  great grandchildren  and great great children?
I don't know either


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Different for who?
> 
> 
> I used the links because they cover the bases.


But the links are biased. For every anti Jesus link, there is a pro Jesus link.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> What is the lineage from Jesus to David?


In order to fully understand the entire concept it requires more than just the lineage. See below.

The lineage is recorded by Matthew from one of David`s sons - Solomon to Joseph.
It is also recorded by Luke from another of David`s sons - Nathan to Heli - Marys` Father. Luke was educated enough to note -  "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat,"

That "as it was supposed" stands in the  place of Mary because as you have noted many times - the names of women aren`t recorded when tracing lineage. More than a number of translations place Joachim / Heli / Eli - son of Matthat as the same person.


bullethead said:


> The Jews are following the law and the Scripture.
> Joseph is NOT Jesus's biological father.  If Jesus IS Joseph's son, then he is not God's son. The links specifically explain why adoption does not work.
> Joseph is not traced through Solomon even if Joseph was the biological father.
> It just does not meet the qualifications.
> ...






> From a link:


*From the Bible -*
A. Out of the House of David, through the Judah Branch is prophecy.

1. Genesis 49:10 - The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. (Genesis 49:10, KJV)

2. Jeremiah 23:5 - Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

3. 2 Samuel 7:16; -  And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

*From the Bible -*
B. God placed a curse on one of Joseph`s ancestors.

1. Jeremiah 23:30 - Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

*From the Bible - *
C. Yes, an inheritance can pass through the woman, not just the paternal side.

1. Numbers 27 : 8 - And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

2. Numbers 36 8 - And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.

*From the Bible -*
D . Natural sin is passed through the man. not the woman.

1. Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

2.  Exodus 34:7 - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

*A few things to consider:*
1. The sacrifice had to be "sinless", blameless, perfect.
2. Jesus was referred to as the last Adam. The first brought death through sin, the second brings life.
3. As mentioned in the lineage above, Mary is traced back to David. Scripture is clear that if a man has no sons, his inheritance can pass through his daughter. It also goes on to say that the daughter shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe. Joseph is indeed part of the tribe of Judah through Solomon. Judah is one of the twelve Tribes of Israel.
4. Because there was a curse, if Joseph was the natural Father of Jesus, Jesus could never reign as King forever on the throne of David, a Branch called the Tribe of Judah.
5. Because Heli had no sons, his inheritance was passed through Mary to Jesus - that is Gods law to the children of Israel.
6. Mary and Joseph marry, she is now married into the son of the Tribe. Joseph becomes Heli`s son-in-law - we already know that Jacob was Joseph`s biological father so scripture isn`t contradictory, it is written the way Jewish laws recognizes lineage.
7. There is still no scripture produced that says the Messiah HAD TO COME THROUGH the FATHERS SIDE. We do have scripture saying an inheritance CAN pass through the daughter.
8. As you have pointed out several times, if a woman marries a Jew, her and her children are Jew.




If it was not for the virgin birth, the natural sin of man would have passed through to Jesus. If the Jews are still waiting on the Messiah, they will miss it again. They need to learn their own laws about passing an inheritance on.

Back to what I said previously, Jesus is the Messiah and he came through both bloodlines, Jewish law and God`s law.

There is my take on it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> If they had never invented the "virgin birth", think about it..... Not saying everyone would be Christian.... just saying more Jews would have been converted



Invented or misunderstood?

The virgin birth is extremely important if one studies more than the “virgin birth” as a miracle / obstacle.

It’s been noted in this thread that prophecy from Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah is specific.

From one of those ^^^^ - “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> But the links are biased. For every anti Jesus link, there is a pro Jesus link.


The links use the scripture in the Bible.
The bias is that it is what the bible says.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> In order to fully understand the entire concept it requires more than just the lineage. See below.
> 
> The lineage is recorded by Matthew from one of David`s sons - Solomon to Joseph.
> It is also recorded by Luke from another of David`s sons - Nathan to Heli - Marys` Father. Luke was educated enough to note -  "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat,"
> ...


I will repost my #583
Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Is adoption made of the seed according to the flesh?

Psalms 132:11
The LORD hath sworn _in_ truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Fruit of thy body. Meaning step-fruit? Adopted fruit?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I will repost my #583
> Rom 1:3
> Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
> 
> ...


This has nothing to do with adoption or step fruit. Jesus wasn’t adopted by Joseph to receive the inheritance, the inheritance was passed through Mary from Heli to Jesus because Heli had no sons. Joseph doesn’t have two Father's, just one - Jacob. Scripture is noted by Luke to recognize the ordinances in the way that Jewish lineage is addressed / recognized by not to naming the woman.

Mary is also the seed / fruit of David because she is the Daughter of Heli. Mary had to marry into one of the sons of the Tribe - she married Joseph. My daughter is of my seed. 

Still haven’t seen a scripture prophecy that says it had to come from the paternal side.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> This has nothing to do with adoption or step fruit. Jesus wasn’t adopted by Joseph to receive the inheritance, the inheritance was passed through Mary from Heli to Jesus because Heli had no sons. Joseph doesn’t have two Father's, just one - Jacob. Scripture is noted by Luke to recognize the ordinances in the way that Jewish lineage is addressed / recognized by not to naming the woman.
> 
> Mary is also the seed / fruit of David because she is the Daughter of Heli. Mary had to marry into one of the sons of the Tribe - she married Joseph. My daughter is of my seed.
> 
> Still haven’t seen a scripture prophecy that says it had to come from the paternal side.



*Numbers 1:18*

*King James Version*

18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Numbers 1:19-20
19As the LORD commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai. 20And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> *Numbers 1:18*
> 
> *King James Version*
> 
> 18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.



By the house of their Fathers. So what part of that ^^^ says Heli with no sons can’t pass an inheritance through to his daughter as listed below? Based on just these 3 scriptures, how do you conclude it’s only paternally acceptable? I’m glad we are in Numbers.


Numbers 27 : 8 - And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

Numbers 36 8 - And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrilineality

In the Bible, family and tribal membership appears to be transmitted through the father. For example, a person is considered to be a priest or Levite, if his father is a priest or Levite, and the members of all the twelve tribes are called Israelites because their father is Israel (Jacob). Because of this they are called the "chosen people" by virtue of being "sons of Israel"; that is, the biological male descendants of Israel, who is referred to as their "father" in the sense that he is their lineal male ancestor.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

From Wiki:
Because Jews have historically believed that the Messiah will be a male-line descendant of David, the lineage of Jesus is sometimes cited as a reason why Jews do not believe that he was the Messiah. As the proposed son of God, he could not have been a male descendant of David because according to the genealogy of his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, he did not have the proper lineage, because he would not have been a male descendant of Mary, and Joseph, who was a descendant of Jeconiah, because Jeconiah's descendants are explicitly barred from ever ruling Israel by God.[41]


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> By the house of their Fathers. So what part of that ^^^ says Heli with no sons can’t pass an inheritance through to his daughter as listed below? Based on just these 3 scriptures, how do you conclude it’s only paternally acceptable? I’m glad we are in Numbers.
> 
> 
> Numbers 27 : 8 - And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
> ...



https://findingtruth.info/2011/03/11/contradictions-part-6-jesuss-genealogy/
Even worse is the fact that neither of these genealogies matches the Old Testament (1 Chron 1-3). Matthew’s comes closest, but it’s still different in several areas. He actually omits several names from his list: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. This might not be such a problem, but it becomes more of one when we read verse 17:

So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.​The statement here is _not true_. First of all, according to Matthew’s list, there are only 13 generations between the deportation and Christ, unless you count Jechoniah again. But the bigger problem is that Matthew presents this statement as though this were a divinely guided pattern showing us that Christ truly came at the appointed time. But he only gets these numbers by omitting people from the genealogy. Therefore, his statement is not factually true. There was no pattern in the genealogy as it is recorded in the Old Testament.

Why would a divinely inspired writer lie about the number of generations? If God had really wanted the genealogy to come out to this neat 14, 14, 14 division, why didn’t he just make it happen that way? Instead, this does nothing but confuse those who think the Bible is supposed to be completely true and inerrant. Matthew is obviously manipulating the records to add validity to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. In other words, he’s _lying_.

As we said at the beginning of this post, the primary purpose for including the genealogy is to show that Christ really came from the line of David. But when the two genealogies disagree with no explanation to reconcile them, and when Matthew slyly manipulates the list to make a theological point, how do these genealogies fulfill their goal? There would essentially be no point in including them. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, I don’t see how he could be the author of these genealogies. It seems to me that the two genealogies are different because they were written by two different people from two different traditions, and they didn’t expect their writings to be put into the same book. They probably weren’t even aware of one another.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

*From Adam to Abraham*
1 [a] Adam, Seth, Enosh; 2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; 3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; 4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

5 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 6 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath,[b] and Togarmah. 7 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.

8 The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 9 The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 10 Cush fathered Nimrod. He was the first on earth to be a mighty man.[c]

11 Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 12 Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.

13 Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, 14 and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, 15 the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, 16 the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites.

17 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. And the sons of Aram:[d] Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech. 18 Arpachshad fathered Shelah, and Shelah fathered Eber. 19 To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg[e] (for in his days the earth was divided), and his brother's name was Joktan. 20 Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 21 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 22 Obal,[f] Abimael, Sheba, 23 Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan.

24 Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah; 25 Eber, Peleg, Reu; 26 Serug, Nahor, Terah; 27 Abram, that is, Abraham.

*From Abraham to Jacob*
28 The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael. 29 These are their genealogies: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth, and Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 30 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, 31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael. 32 The sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bore Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan: Sheba and Dedan. 33 The sons of Midian: Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the descendants of Keturah.

34 Abraham fathered Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau and Israel. 35 The sons of Esau: Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. 36 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and of Timna,[g] Amalek. 37 The sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.

38 The sons of Seir: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. 39 The sons of Lotan: Hori and Hemam;[h] and Lotan's sister was Timna. 40 The sons of Shobal: Alvan,[i] Manahath, Ebal, Shepho,[j] and Onam. The sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. 41 The son[k] of Anah: Dishon. The sons of Dishon: Hemdan,[l] Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran. 42 The sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan.[m] The sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran.

43 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the people of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, the name of his city being Dinhabah. 44 Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. 45 Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place. 46 Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, reigned in his place, the name of his city being Avith. 47 Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. 48 Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates[n] reigned in his place. 49 Shaul died, and Baal-hanan, the son of Achbor, reigned in his place. 50 Baal-hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place, the name of his city being Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. 51 And Hadad died.

The chiefs of Edom were: chiefs Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, 52 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 53 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, 54 Magdiel, and Iram; these are the chiefs of Edom.

*A Genealogy of David*
2 These are the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, 2 Dan, Joseph, Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. 3 The sons of Judah: Er, Onan and Shelah; these three Bath-shua the Canaanite bore to him. Now Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death. 4 His daughter-in-law Tamar also bore him Perez and Zerah. Judah had five sons in all.

5 The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul. 6 The sons of Zerah: Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara, five in all. 7 The son[o] of Carmi: Achan, the troubler of Israel, who broke faith in the matter of the devoted thing; 8 and Ethan's son was Azariah.

9 The sons of Hezron that were born to him: Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai. 10 Ram fathered Amminadab, and Amminadab fathered Nahshon, prince of the sons of Judah. 11 Nahshon fathered Salmon,[p] Salmon fathered Boaz, 12 Boaz fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse. 13 Jesse fathered Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh. 16 And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. The sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.

18 Caleb the son of Hezron fathered children by his wife Azubah, and by Jerioth; and these were her sons: Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon. 19 When Azubah died, Caleb married Ephrath, who bore him Hur. 20 Hur fathered Uri, and Uri fathered Bezalel.

21 Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was sixty years old, and she bore him Segub. 22 And Segub fathered Jair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead. 23 But Geshur and Aram took from them Havvoth-jair, Kenath, and its villages, sixty towns. All these were descendants of Machir, the father of Gilead. 24 After the death of Hezron, Caleb went in to Ephrathah,[q] the wife of Hezron his father, and she bore him Ashhur, the father of Tekoa.

25 The sons of Jerahmeel, the firstborn of Hezron: Ram, his firstborn, Bunah, Oren, Ozem, and Ahijah. 26 Jerahmeel also had another wife, whose name was Atarah; she was the mother of Onam. 27 The sons of Ram, the firstborn of Jerahmeel: Maaz, Jamin, and Eker. 28 The sons of Onam: Shammai and Jada. The sons of Shammai: Nadab and Abishur. 29 The name of Abishur's wife was Abihail, and she bore him Ahban and Molid. 30 The sons of Nadab: Seled and Appaim; and Seled died childless. 31 The son[r] of Appaim: Ishi. The son of Ishi: Sheshan. The son of Sheshan: Ahlai. 32 The sons of Jada, Shammai's brother: Jether and Jonathan; and Jether died childless. 33 The sons of Jonathan: Peleth and Zaza. These were the descendants of Jerahmeel. 34 Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, but Sheshan had an Egyptian slave whose name was Jarha. 35 So Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to Jarha his slave, and she bore him Attai. 36 Attai fathered Nathan, and Nathan fathered Zabad. 37 Zabad fathered Ephlal, and Ephlal fathered Obed. 38 Obed fathered Jehu, and Jehu fathered Azariah. 39 Azariah fathered Helez, and Helez fathered Eleasah. 40 Eleasah fathered Sismai, and Sismai fathered Shallum. 41 Shallum fathered Jekamiah, and Jekamiah fathered Elishama.

42 The sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel: Mareshah[s] his firstborn, who fathered Ziph. The son[t] of Mareshah: Hebron.[u] 43 The sons of Hebron: Korah, Tappuah, Rekem and Shema. 44 Shema fathered Raham, the father of Jorkeam; and Rekem fathered Shammai. 45 The son of Shammai: Maon; and Maon fathered Beth-zur. 46 Ephah also, Caleb's concubine, bore Haran, Moza, and Gazez; and Haran fathered Gazez. 47 The sons of Jahdai: Regem, Jotham, Geshan, Pelet, Ephah, and Shaaph. 48 Maacah, Caleb's concubine, bore Sheber and Tirhanah. 49 She also bore Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah and the father of Gibea; and the daughter of Caleb was Achsah. 50 These were the descendants of Caleb.

The sons[v] of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim, 51 Salma, the father of Bethlehem, and Hareph the father of Beth-gader. 52 Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim had other sons: Haroeh, half of the Menuhoth. 53 And the clans of Kiriath-jearim: the Ithrites, the Puthites, the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; from these came the Zorathites and the Eshtaolites. 54 The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites. 55 The clans also of the scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites and the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.

*Descendants of David*
3 These are the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron: the firstborn, Amnon, by Ahinoam the Jezreelite; the second, Daniel, by Abigail the Carmelite, 2 the third, Absalom, whose mother was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah, whose mother was Haggith; 3 the fifth, Shephatiah, by Abital; the sixth, Ithream, by his wife Eglah; 4 six were born to him in Hebron, where he reigned for seven years and six months. And he reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem. 5 These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon, four by Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel; 6 then Ibhar, Elishama, Eliphelet, 7 Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, 8 Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9 All these were David's sons, besides the sons of the concubines, and Tamar was their sister.

10 The son of Solomon was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, 14 Amon his son, Josiah his son. 15 The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 The descendants of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son; 17 and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son, 18 Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; 19 and the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister; 20 and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five. 21 The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his son[w] Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah. 22 The son[x] of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six. 23 The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three. 24 The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah, and Anani, seven.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> By the house of their Fathers. So what part of that ^^^ says Heli with no sons can’t pass an inheritance through to his daughter as listed below? Based on just these 3 scriptures, how do you conclude it’s only paternally acceptable? I’m glad we are in Numbers.


It says what it says, not what you need it to say.




Spotlite said:


> Numbers 27 : 8 - And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.


Which man died without having a son so that the inheritance was passed to his daughter? Inheritance is possessions not bloodlines



Spotlite said:


> Numbers 36 8 - And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.


That is talking about possessions such as land, animals and wealth .
The inheritance of his fathers — This law was not general, to forbid every woman to marry into another tribe, as may be reasonably concluded from the practice of so many patriarchs, kings, priests, and other holy men, who have married women of other tribes, yea, sometimes of other nations; but restrained to heiresses, or such as were likely to be so. But if they had brethren they were free to marry into any tribe, yet so that, if their brethren died, the inheritance went from them to the next akin of their father’s tribe and family.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It says what it says, not what you need it to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.


When I read those^^^^ it says this - they meet on a scheduled time, they declare their pedigrees by house of their fathers. If the father has no sons, the inheritance can be passed on to his daughter, but his daughter must , marry into the tribe of the father so that the children of Israel can enjoy their fathers inheritance.

No where in there is it limited to just the paternal, there is an exception and no interpretations are needed, they are straight forward texts.

The concept of inheritance is very important in the Bible and refers not only to the passing on of land and possessions from one generation to another, but also to the earthly and spiritual gifts which God plans to give to those who are his 'children.

Ephesians 1:11 "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"

No, the others are not runners for the throne and were not candidates - the prophecy was for a virgin birth.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://findingtruth.info/2011/03/11/contradictions-part-6-jesuss-genealogy/
> Even worse is the fact that neither of these genealogies matches the Old Testament (1 Chron 1-3). Matthew’s comes closest, but it’s still different in several areas. He actually omits several names from his list: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. This might not be such a problem, but it becomes more of one when we read verse 17:
> 
> So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.​The statement here is _not true_. First of all, according to Matthew’s list, there are only 13 generations between the deportation and Christ, unless you count Jechoniah again. But the bigger problem is that Matthew presents this statement as though this were a divinely guided pattern showing us that Christ truly came at the appointed time. But he only gets these numbers by omitting people from the genealogy. Therefore, his statement is not factually true. There was no pattern in the genealogy as it is recorded in the Old Testament.
> ...





> As we said at the beginning of this post, the primary purpose for including the genealogy is to show that Christ really came from the line of David. But when the two genealogies disagree with no explanation to reconcile them


With a study of the Bible and not Wikipedia there is - Matthew is recording the actual legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, according to Jewish custom, whereas Luke, writing for a Gentile audience, gives the actual biological genealogy of Jesus through Mary. 

I pointed out that earlier with Luke`s style of writing. 





> If God had really wanted the genealogy to come out to this neat 14, 14, 14 division, why didn’t he just make it happen that way? Instead, this does nothing but confuse those who think the Bible is supposed to be completely true and inerrant.



Who is confused?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> *Numbers 1:18*
> 
> *King James Version*
> 
> 18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.


A deeper look into this -  וַיִּתְיַֽלְד֥וּ “and they declared their pedigrees” means: To bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act as midwife; specifically, to show lineage. It will be important for the passing on of inheritance.

This verse does nothing but ensure where family members come from., We still do not have a verse getting us to that “only a paternal bloodline gets the throne” theory.

I’ve studied this one for years - it’s not there, biblically. And for the Jews claiming they’re using God’s law, too, they can’t show you that biblical requirement. They point to scripture such as above that isn’t cutting the that piece of cake.

Under normal circumstances inheritance passes from father to son. There are exceptions with no sons. But the requirements are to marry into the tribe. No where outside of anti Jesus as the Messiah will you find the requirement that the right to that throne can only be passed from father to a son. A tribal kingdom would die when it came to a father with no sons.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.
> 
> And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
> 
> ...


https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5159.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> A deeper look into this -  וַיִּתְיַֽלְד֥וּ “and they declared their pedigrees” means: To bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act as midwife; specifically, to show lineage. It will be important for the passing on of inheritance.
> 
> This verse does nothing but ensure where family members come from., We still do not have a verse getting us to that “only a paternal bloodline gets the throne” theory.
> 
> ...


Who died without having any Son's that elevated the family to use Mary as the basis for pedigree?
There are rules for a woman to be used.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> A deeper look into this -  וַיִּתְיַֽלְד֥וּ “and they declared their pedigrees” means: To bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act as midwife; specifically, to show lineage. It will be important for the passing on of inheritance.
> 
> This verse does nothing but ensure where family members come from., We still do not have a verse getting us to that “only a paternal bloodline gets the throne” theory.
> 
> ...


According to Luke, Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan. Prophecy states that the line must go to David through Solomon. 
Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace _(shalom)_ from all his enemies around about, for Solomon _(Shlomo)_ will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.​And later on, David states:

And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5)​When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.

In light of the above, the fact that Moshiach will be a descendant of both David and Solomon is part of the twelfth (of the thirteen) Jewish fundamental beliefs as outlined by Maimonides.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Luke, tracing Mary's lineage back uses Joseph's name but as Son in Law.
Why wouldn't Luke flat out use Mary's name if women had legitimacy?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Luke, tracing Mary's lineage back uses Joseph's name but as Son in Law.
> Why wouldn't Luke flat out use Mary's name if women had legitimacy?


Not Jewish custom. They didn’t name the women. The “as it was supposed” is to take place of naming Mary. Not saying the use of women were or were not legitimate. It’s the norm to use the fathers house name but their are times such as Heli, the father of Mary who had no sons. With the curse of one of Joseph’s ancestors and no sons from Heli, that dynasty was dead if not for the two Numbers scriptures where God said it can pass through the daughter. 

“And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat,"”


And bullet, I’m not saying I got it right, but I’ve found nothing solid outside the Bible to view it another way.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> According to Luke, Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan. Prophecy states that the line must go to David through Solomon.
> Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace _(shalom)_ from all his enemies around about, for Solomon _(Shlomo)_ will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.​And later on, David states:
> 
> And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5)​When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.
> ...


This is well worth my looking into deeper.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Not Jewish custom. They didn’t name the women. The “as it was supposed” is to take place of naming Mary. Not saying the use of women were or were not legitimate. It’s the norm to use the fathers house name but their are times such as Heli, the father of Mary who had no sons. With the curse of one of Joseph’s ancestors and no sons from Heli, that dynasty was dead if not for the two Numbers scriptures where God said it can pass through the daughter.
> 
> “And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat,"”
> 
> ...


Please read this
https://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/sophiees-blog/category/adoption


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2021)

More Inheritance explained
https://ikhlaskhan008.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/inheritance-in-judaism-and-christianity/


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> According to Luke, Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan. Prophecy states that the line must go to David through Solomon.
> Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace _(shalom)_ from all his enemies around about, for Solomon _(Shlomo)_ will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.​And later on, David states:
> 
> And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5)​When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.
> ...





> Prophecy states that the line must go to David through Solomon.


I was hoping you`d dig into this a little deeper before you settled on this ^^^^

"He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever."

A. The throne is what is established, not the individual. Ultimately it is God`s throne and God`s Kingdom. The House of David is chosen to reign over Israel and eventually the Prince of Peace will sit on that throne -

1 Chronicles 29:23 - "Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father."

Isaiah 9: 6-7
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.


B. These, nor any other prophecy mentions that David's heirs, especially the Messiah, must trace their roots through Solomon.

Samuel 7:16 - And _your house_ and _your kingdom_ shall be established forever before you. _Your throne_ shall be established forever."

Psalm 89 34 - 37 "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: _his seed _shall endure forever, and _his throne_ as the sun before Me; it shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Selah"

Jeremiah 33:17 - "For thus says the Lord, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel"







> And later on, David states:
> 
> And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5)​When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.



When God promised David He would establish his throne forever, He also stipulated that, if his son sinned, He would "chasten him with the rod of men"

Research Solomon`s apostasy, Jeroboam, the conditional and unconditional promise - hint "I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to you" and "if you heed all that I command you, walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did, then I will be with you and build for you an enduring house, as I built for David"


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2021)

Doesnt it strike anybody as odd that you have to haggle over ancient texts to ATTEMPT to prove the validity of an entity that is supposed to be large and in charge up until this very day????
Think about why that is.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I was hoping you`d dig into this a little deeper before you settled on this ^^^^
> 
> "He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever."
> 
> ...


Spot, I appreciate your willingness to participate and all the while sticking with an apologetic style. It says a lot about why you are here and shows that you are willing to research and discuss rather than go MIA due to an inability to even attempt to back up what you say. Seriously  appreciated.

You have to take into account that the Jews had no New Testament.  All that existed for a few thousand years was the Tanach. It consists of 24 books. There was no New Testament to muddy the waters. The NT was assembled 300 years after Jesus was dead as a 2.0 re-start to introduce a new god to try to appeal to masses who were not buying into their old gods.
Anyway, the Tanach gave the Jews their laws and traditions. The requirements for Messiah are strictly adhered to from the prophecies within those texts. In order to follow the requirements You have to use the scripture that the Jews use. This is where the problem arises. Christians use 2 sets of books in order to try to link the new with the old. What you are attempting to do is include other scripture which is not prophecy. It has no bearing on what the Jews use AS prophecy. There are certain verses and those are what the Jews adhere to. There is a specific way the Jews use Maternal and Paternal and those are strictly adhered to. They do not take into account any outside influences or interpretations of what others think they mean or when others try to use different scripture to show something else is meant. The Jews take those other verses seriously,  but those other verses are meant  for other things and not a Messiah or Lineage or Prophesy.
I have provided links and specific scripture that was used ro determine prophecy prior to the existence of Jesus, during the existence of Jesus and still today almost 2000 years after Jesus is dead. Jesus does not fulfill it as is. Jesus does not fulfill it with interpretations or the inclusion of later writings. Jesus does not fulfill it by attempts to use non prophetic scripture to make him fit. Jesus does not fulfill it by having anonymous non Jewish authors who were unfamiliar with and did not understand Jewish customs, laws and traditions trying to intertwine some aspects of Judaism but sprucing it up to make a new god that fits a wider audience. It just does not work if the original scripture is not adhered to. It just does not work when independent authors works which were meant for smaller specific audiences are assembled together and used to unite the masses.

I personally don't believe any of it. But I have no problem discussing it using scripture. Which other aspect of unfulfilled prophecy would you like to discuss next?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Doesnt it strike anybody as odd that you have to haggle over ancient texts to ATTEMPT to prove the validity of an entity that is supposed to be large and in charge up until this very day????
> Think about why that is.






> Think about why that is.


Eve ate that apple


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Doesnt it strike anybody as odd that you have to haggle over ancient texts to ATTEMPT to prove the validity of an entity that is supposed to be large and in charge up until this very day????
> Think about why that is.


Again, this is how it has to be done when discussing fiction. Look up Star Wars forums or Star Trek, The Walking Dead, Superhero Marvel vs DC or anything along those lines. The names of the subjects differ but the discussions are the same. 
Reality rules and if any of what Spot and I are talking about were truthful there would be no need to talk about it. It would be. Universally. Without question. Like the Sun in the sky every single day. 
There is no point in discussing what is because it already is.
We are discussing what ain't and trying to make it sound as if it is.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Eve ate that apple


That was freaking funny


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Eve ate that apple


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Again, this is how it has to be done when discussing fiction. Look up Star Wars forums or Star Trek, The Walking Dead, Superhero Marvel vs DC or anything along those lines. The names of the subjects differ but the discussions are the same.
> Reality rules and if any of what Spot and I are talking about were truthful there would be no need to talk about it. It would be. Universally. Without question. Like the Sun in the sky every single day.
> There is no point in discussing what is because it already is.
> We are discussing what ain't and trying to make it sound as if it is.


I wish we had a more diverse group of "believers" (other religions and beliefs).
Would be cool to see the various ancient texts and/or traditions all being presented as proof/justification for their individual beliefs.
Its easy to forget that there a whole lot more beliefs than just Christian/Jews/AAs.
Hopefully it wouldnt turn into WW3 !


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Regarding Miracles...
> From: https://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/
> 
> missionaries, like Jews for Jesus, profess that Jesus is the Jewish messiah.
> ...


Whew, alot here. Rather than set us on a course of back n forth, that I prefer not to do, lets pick one of these items and campfire discuss it. Since, I don't hold to every word of the scriptures, I would consider me to be a frustrating card game , LOL, because, I play my wild card often, the card where I don't believe a Jack is a Jack. Even our OT has issues. So, I look at the context, what the people, of that time, were looking for. For example, was it Isiah, "prince of peace, mighty God", was never interpreted as the Messiah being God. The verse, "And the Virgin will be with child" never set an expectation of a miraculous birth. So regardless of how we in modern days have tried to shape the past with our interpretation and doctrine forcing, it only matters as to how they were given the prophecy and how it was conveyed, in that time period.  I think you would agree, that they knew better than we do about their prophecy's. Our [modern apologetic s] attempts at word games now just sends us down rabbit trails that lead no where. 

LOL, however, dang, I know how this looks.... After just declaring they know the expectations [implying Jesus was not eliminated from meeting their expectations, likely the closest to ever meet them] I now say they got it wrong. I need my hard hat now so I don't get stoned in the head. All of the NT reveals that these prophesy's are spiritual, not literal, until the last days.  For example, they expected him to conquer the Romans, seeing that as their only need. The NT implies  that he conquered death. Another, They expected that he rebuild the temple.  The NT implies that he did build a temple that God came to dwell in. [Modern day Christianity has clouded the air so bad with their Jesus as God that the scriptures are not able to be looked at without this mindset.] Regardless of how we interpret the NT now, one could easily say that the NT was written with a mindset of trying to make Jesus fit the expectations of the Messiah, as if it were reverse engineering. And I agree 100% that it looks this way. Was it reverse engineering? I believe it to be both? Truth with outside influence. Example, Matthew tried to help the sell with his 14, 14, 14. But he did more harm than good. 

If you would like to go through the prophesy's one by one, I will be glad to point to how the NT has addressed each in the spiritual sense. However, I expect that would be frustrating, because from your perspective, it seemingly would be me trying to manipulate what you see as facts.

$$ But... my point, whether you or I accept that  fulfillment of prophesy is and was accomplished in a spiritual sense, I hope you agree with my point that the NT writers were trying to sell it as such.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

Lots of agreement there 1gr8
Especially the Literal in the OT vs the spiritual in the NT


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I wish we had a more diverse group of "believers" (other religions and beliefs).
> Would be cool to see the various ancient texts and/or traditions all being presented as proof/justification for their individual beliefs.
> Its easy to forget that there a whole lot more beliefs than just Christian/Jews/AAs.
> Hopefully it wouldnt turn into WW3 !


LOL, I feel like we need to start a different thread, due to my beliefs not being orthodox. Add in a few more, Bullet would deserve a raise $


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

Unlike drive thru window fast food employees I am realistic in knowing that my productivity is worth minimum wage!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I feel like we need to start a different thread, due to my beliefs not being orthodox. Add in a few more, Bullet would deserve a raise $



Bullet definitely does his research. We might have to chip in and upgrade his computer if we added any more religions.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Bullet definitely does his research. We might have to chip in and upgrade his computer if we added any more religions.


All this is done on a 4yr old not so smart , smart phone and two thumbs.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Bullet definitely does his research. We might have to chip in and upgrade his computer if we added any more religions.


I think he is a retired religion professor in disguise


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

Ok, revisiting this. I will put my Bart Erhman hat on, meaning, I'm not taking a stance on whether I believe it or not, just referring to what the book says. So, my point earlier $, that the NT writers were trying to "sell" the idea that all the OT prophesy's for the coming Messiah were fulfilled in the spirtual sense.... If you can agree with that, let's break that down. The gospels and Acts are trying  to "sell it'. However, it's different, with, let's say Paul. His is packaged differently. It's what he teaches. His letters are mostly written to the "church" from which he had moved on from, focusing on encouragement and addressing issues that they may be dealing with at the time. but we have enough context to see what he was teaching. My point, what Paul was teaching, is that the fulfillment of prophesy was in the spiritual. Thus even though it has evolved to much different today, this was "Christianity".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Ok, revisiting this. I will put my Bart Erhman hat on, meaning, I'm not taking a stance on whether I believe it or not, just referring to what the book says. So, my point earlier $, that the NT writers were trying to "sell" the idea that all the OT prophesy's for the coming Messiah were fulfilled in the spirtual sense.... If you can agree with that, let's break that down. The gospels and Acts are trying  to "sell it'. However, it's different, with, let's say Paul. His is packaged differently. It's what he teaches. His letters are mostly written to the "church" from which he had moved on from, focusing on encouragement and addressing issues that they may be dealing with at the time. but we have enough context to see what he was teaching. My point, what Paul was teaching, is that the fulfillment of prophesy was in the spiritual. Thus even though it has evolved to much different today, this was "Christianity".


Since Paul never crossed paths with Jesus and Paul never spent time with Jesus what was Paul teaching the church? What qualified Paul to be a Jesus expert?
Is it possible that Paul was trying to take the church in a new direction and started a new religion in the process?
What was being said about Jesus before Paul? The Gospels seemed to embellish in the basis that Paul set.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

Post 594, I find it interesting that this link , whoever owns this site, is ignorant of this issue. I use the word ignorant in it's proper form, just as I am ignorant of how to write computer code. Jesus was said to be a prophet, likened to moses, I recall, twice in the NT? The prophesy's don't mention miracles.... but the context does. When Moses said to God when God was sending him to lead the people out of captivity, "how will they know that it is you sending me", [why should they believe me] "this is  how they will know that it is I who am sending you" [miracles] Moses was to led the chosen to the promise land. Same with Jesus, "come follow me" "where I am going, you can't come now but you will"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> Post 594, I find it interesting that this link , whoever owns this site, is ignorant of this issue. I use the word ignorant in it's proper form, just as I am ignorant of how to write computer code. Jesus was said to be a prophet, likened to moses, I recall, twice in the NT? The prophesy's don't mention miracles.... but the context does. When Moses said to God when God was sending him to lead the people out of captivity, "how will they know that it is you sending me", [why should they believe me] "this is  how they will know that it is I who am sending you" [miracles] Moses was to led the chosen to the promise land. Same with Jesus, "come follow me" "where I am going, you can't come now but you will"


If you were writing about a guy that you think should or want to make it seem like he would fulfill prophecy in order to promote a new religion or at least try to change an existing religion wouldn't it be wise to give the new figure some qualities of the  hero's that the old religion is centered around?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Since Paul never crossed paths with Jesus and Paul never spent time with Jesus what was Paul teaching the church? What qualified Paul to be a Jesus expert?
> Is it possible that Paul was trying to take the church in a new direction and started a new religion in the process?
> What was being said about Jesus before Paul? The Gospels seemed to embellish in the basis that Paul set.


LOL, I will show you my view and you will never find one like it... Jesus never taught anything. Jesus did not go around passing out the keys to the kingdom. It was not up to him. He spoke in parables. If you cross reference the red lettering, it repeats itself so much that we really don't have much from Jesus. They, you know who, will fight me on this, but ask yourself why if you agree? Why did he constantly say, those whom the Father sends..... will come to me. Why was there things Paul was not permitted to tell. The Kingdom is for the chosen, chosen by God, just like he chose the Israelite's out of captivity,  he choses today whom he will reveal himself to. I don't get to pass out those keys. i don't get to chose, and I have to be careful that I don't blaspheme the HS by giving what has been given to me. Same with Jesus. He was very careful about what he said.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, I will show you my view and you will never find one like it... Jesus never taught anything. Jesus did not go around passing out the keys to the kingdom. It was not up to him. He spoke in parables. If you cross reference the red lettering, it repeats itself so much that we really don't have much from Jesus. They, you know who, will fight me on this, but ask yourself why if you agree? Why did he constantly say, those whom the Father sends..... will come to me. Why was there things Paul was not permitted to tell. The Kingdom is for the chosen, chosen by God, just like he chose the Israelite's out of captivity,  he choses today whom he will reveal himself to. I don't get to pass out those keys. i don't get to chose, and I have to be careful that I don't blaspheme the HS by giving what has been given to me. Same with Jesus. He was very careful about what he said.


To me, what Jesus said was not recorded until at least 20 years later. I don't know if Jesus said them or if they are said by the author and credited to Jesus. I can see why an author would want to keep things simple, which even at simple, leaves so many questions open to scrutiny and interpretation.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If you were writing about a guy that you think should or want to make it seem like he would fulfill prophecy in order to promote a new religion or at least try to change an existing religion wouldn't it be wise to give the new figure some qualities of the the hero's that the old religion is centered around?


He was the hero. Paul said I glory in Christ Jesus my Lord. Looking at what he did.... if he were a man, could you see how he could be the hero.?  I may address the other points. However, I just deleted my initial response. I have come to believe that I am not supposed to try to pass out those keys.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

Paul flat out states that he did not confer with Flesh and Blood that it came to Revelation to him by Jesus.

Sounds Joseph Smith ish to me.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Paul flat out states that he did not confer with Flesh and Blood that it came to Revelation to him by Jesus.
> 
> Sounds Joseph Smith ish to me.


I agree,it does


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2021)

After three years Paul went to Jerusalem to talk to Peter. For 15 days.
So for the years prior to that I am picturing Paul writing about direct conversations that Jesus had with people, describing places , telling about interactions and reactions....with a apparition of Jesus sitting on a chair saying  "Saul, write this down..."
Like J. Peterman from Seinfeld


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think he is a retired religion professor in disguise


Or should be.
He may have missed his calling.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 25, 2021)

I need to quit posting.... post removed


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Paul flat out states that he did not confer with Flesh and Blood that it came to Revelation to him by Jesus.
> 
> Sounds Joseph Smith ish to me.


I wonder why Paul's revelation was accepted but not Joseph Smith?
Paul should had said "I'm the last apostle and prophet, don't listen to any new ones after me."

I've always wondered when Jesus or Paul or John said "Scripture says" what scripture was that? They didn't have the New Testament.


----------



## Israel (Jul 25, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder why Paul's revelation was accepted but not Joseph Smith?
> Paul should had said "I'm the last apostle and prophet, don't listen to any new ones after me."
> 
> I've always wondered when Jesus or Paul or John said "Scripture says" what scripture was that? They didn't have the New Testament.


What do you mean...lotsa folks "accepted" Joseph Smith and his writings...there's practically a whole state developed around his support.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spot, I appreciate your willingness to participate and all the while sticking with an apologetic style. It says a lot about why you are here and shows that you are willing to research and discuss rather than go MIA due to an inability to even attempt to back up what you say. Seriously  appreciated.
> 
> You have to take into account that the Jews had no New Testament.  All that existed for a few thousand years was the Tanach. It consists of 24 books. There was no New Testament to muddy the waters. The NT was assembled 300 years after Jesus was dead as a 2.0 re-start to introduce a new god to try to appeal to masses who were not buying into their old gods.
> Anyway, the Tanach gave the Jews their laws and traditions. The requirements for Messiah are strictly adhered to from the prophecies within those texts. In order to follow the requirements You have to use the scripture that the Jews use. This is where the problem arises. Christians use 2 sets of books in order to try to link the new with the old. What you are attempting to do is include other scripture which is not prophecy. It has no bearing on what the Jews use AS prophecy. There are certain verses and those are what the Jews adhere to. There is a specific way the Jews use Maternal and Paternal and those are strictly adhered to. They do not take into account any outside influences or interpretations of what others think they mean or when others try to use different scripture to show something else is meant. The Jews take those other verses seriously,  but those other verses are meant  for other things and not a Messiah or Lineage or Prophesy.
> ...


I wanted to follow up on a couple of things.



> You have to take into account that the Jews had no New Testament.  All that existed for a few thousand years was the Tanach. It consists of 24 books


Included in those 24 books are Genesis and Isaiah.



> What you are attempting to do is include other scripture which is not prophecy





The fallacy of the Jewish “Jesus as the Messiah” rejection is this - the candidate must descend from the paternal side / and the virgin birth. You can’t have both.

Isaiah prophecy is a virgin birth. Genesis described a woman as a virgin - no man had known her. So the stance that virgin means young woman isn’t valid since both these Books are contained within their “law”




> Which other aspect of unfulfilled prophecy would you like to discuss next?



Maybe God just said ok David is dead and since the rest of y’all think you have it figured out - I will send the Messiah but not the way you (The Jews or the anyone else) dictate or interpret it?

Lol I’m taking a break for a few days.


----------



## ky55 (Jul 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> All this is done on a 4yr old not so smart , smart phone and two thumbs.


That’s a miracle.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I wanted to follow up on a couple of things.
> 
> 
> Included in those 24 books are Genesis and Isaiah.
> ...


High quality Apologetics 
Neither side is going to "win" of course but thats ^ how Apologetics is done.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 26, 2021)

ky55 said:


> That’s a miracle.


Bullets been waiting for a "sign". Maybe......
I'd sure put it in the miracle category


----------



## Israel (Jul 26, 2021)

Rarely were the prophets words received, and even less, understood.

Is 58


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I wanted to follow up on a couple of things.
> 
> 
> Included in those 24 books are Genesis and Isaiah.
> ...


Spot, what is the name of your Messiah? Is he named Immanuel? Because in the reference you are using to "prove" your point, you just disproved your point if you are suggesting that the prophecy gets the virgin birth correct but misses the name by a long shot.
But anyway, what is written in Isaiah has nothing to do with a messiah.

If you actually read the links that I provided you will know that the Jews do not use the 1st Five books(Torah)of their Tanach as prophecy for the Messiah.

Let me provide another link which specifically addresses your use of Isaiah. 
https://jamesbishopblog.com/2018/05/27/why-isaiah-714-is-not-a-prophecy-of-jesus-virgin-birth/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Bullets been waiting for a "sign". Maybe......
> I'd sure put it in the miracle category


The signs I've been getting are more Bill Engvall in quality


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spot, what is the name of your Messiah? Is he named Immanuel? Because in the reference you are using to "prove" your point, you just disproved your point if you are suggesting that the prophecy gets the virgin birth correct but misses the name by a long shot.
> But anyway, what is written in Isaiah has nothing to do with a messiah.
> 
> If you actually read the links that I provided you will know that the Jews do not use the 1st Five books(Torah)of their Tanach as prophecy for the Messiah.
> ...


Read Isaiah 8 - hint; Who is Immanuel? (God is with us.)

Why would there be a passage about a sign / virgin birth that the House of David needs to hear? Read verse 13

Now this whole other thing about God robed in flesh, dwelt among us, I and my Father are one, etc……..a whole nother topic.

I’ve read all those links but, there are twenty two Messianic prophesies in the book of Isaiah and each one points to who Jesus / God is with us.

When you leave the links alone and stop reading others thoughts, you’ll see the big picture of the entire message that the Jews refuse because it didn’t happen the way they thought.

Also worth noting -
Prof. Beck researched this and stated - “I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin”

I’m inclined to agree with Walt here “Neither side is going to "win" of course”

It’s an office day for me, been on the road every day for a couple of weeks - catching up here so my future MIA is for a good cause.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Read Isaiah 8 - hint; Who is Immanuel? (God is with us.)
> 
> Why would there be a passage about a sign / virgin birth that the House of David needs to hear? Read verse 13
> 
> ...


The link I provided addresses it all.

And a virgin is a woman who has not had sex previously.  It does not say that the woman will never have sex to produce the messiah, it is saying that the Messiah will come from a woman who has no other children and has never had sex prior to being the woman that has sex with a descendant of David who will produce the seed to make the Messiah.

It wasnt until the 1800s that it was realized that women carried the egg.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/almah.html


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

https://weareisrael.org/spiritual-seed-2/male-child/betulah-vs-almah/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

Israel said:


> Rarely were the prophets words received, and even less, understood.
> 
> Is 58


Glad to see you back.
Can you explain who gets to receive and who does not? Like in this thread for example, are you able to discern who is able and who is unable to receive and understand the words of the prophets?

I an apologetic way can you explain if the Jews or the Christians are more capable of understanding the prophets and their prophecies?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The link I provided addresses it all.
> 
> And a virgin is a woman who has not had sex previously.  It does not say that the woman will never have sex to produce the messiah, it is saying that the Messiah will come from a woman who has no other children and has never had sex prior to being the woman that has sex with a descendant of David who will produce the seed to make the Messiah.
> 
> It wasnt until the 1800s that it was realized that women carried the egg.






> But anyway, what is written in Isaiah has nothing to do with a messiah.





> it is saying that the Messiah will come from a woman who has no other children and has never had sex prior to being the woman that has sex with a descendant of David who will produce the seed to make the Messiah.







> it is saying that the Messiah will come from a woman who has no other children and has never had sex prior to being the woman that has sex with a descendant of David who will produce the seed to make the Messiah.



A stand alone verse, I can see how one can elude to that. The problem with a paternal descendant is this Messiah has to be sinless - the Jews have their way of making sacrificial offerings and this is going to drastically change that for them, I can see and understand their rejection here. The issue with their sacrificial offerings is it only pushed the sins aside and there was no removal for certain sins.

A Messiah to come would cover those sins for all. If the Messiah comes through a paternal line then the natural sin of man is passed on and that renders him unacceptable because naturally, he is with sin. Natural sin is only passed on through the fathers.

Their rejection makes sense, but that does not mean they are right, either.



> It wasnt until the 1800s that it was realized that women carried the egg.



But written before man knew that woman carried the egg, was Genesis. Male / female - be fruitful and multiply.  Jews used the same Book 2000 years ago, or more - maybe 8th/7th centuries BCE - 2nd/1st centuries BCE? Well before the 1800`s.?

That same Book spoke about childless / barren women. They may not have known the woman carried the egg, but they knew they had to get the seed of a man into a woman.

Off to pick up both Grandboys, hit the happy meal line and land in the ammo section for the new shipments that came in today.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> A stand alone verse, I can see how one can elude to that. The problem with a paternal descendant is this Messiah has to be sinless - the Jews have their way of making sacrificial offerings and this is going to drastically change that for them, I can see and understand their rejection here. The issue with their sacrificial offerings is it only pushed the sins aside and there was no removal for certain sins.
> 
> A Messiah to come would cover those sins for all. If the Messiah comes through a paternal line then the natural sin of man is passed on and that renders him unacceptable because naturally, he is with sin. Natural sin is only passed on through the fathers.
> 
> ...


I am just using the scripture that you are providing.
Like I said many times, I am not making things up as I go, I am answering what you are giving me whether or not it has anything to actually do with what the requirements for messiah are.
If you give me a verse from Isaiah I address a verse from Isaiah.  The fact that the verse was about something else and the word used means something else is all points that back up what I am trying to get across.
The links I provided addresses all that. If you read them you wouldn't have to question me

Edited to add "links" instead of "lines"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> A stand alone verse, I can see how one can elude to that. The problem with a paternal descendant is this Messiah has to be sinless - the Jews have their way of making sacrificial offerings and this is going to drastically change that for them, I can see and understand their rejection here. The issue with their sacrificial offerings is it only pushed the sins aside and there was no removal for certain sins.
> 
> A Messiah to come would cover those sins for all. If the Messiah comes through a paternal line then the natural sin of man is passed on and that renders him unacceptable because naturally, he is with sin. Natural sin is only passed on through the fathers.
> 
> Their rejection makes sense, but that does not mean they are right, either.


Where does it say that the Messiah must be sinless?





Spotlite said:


> But written before man knew that woman carried the egg, was Genesis. Male / female - be fruitful and multiply.  Jews used the same Book 2000 years ago, or more - maybe 8th/7th centuries BCE - 2nd/1st centuries BCE? Well before the 1800`s.?
> 
> That same Book spoke about childless / barren women. They may not have known the woman carried the egg, but they knew they had to get the seed of a man into a woman.


Yes, precisely until less then 200 years ago people knew a woman was needed to carry a child. They thought the man was responsible for all of the ingredients that made that happen. It is another reason why women were not counted on to continue blood lines and lineage.



Spotlite said:


> Off to pick up both Grandboys, hit the happy meal line and land in the ammo section for the new shipments that came in today.


That is a treat. Enjoy


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Where does it say that the Messiah must be sinless?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> Where does it say that the Messiah must be sinless?



Isaiah is a good start. It is in the passages. More importantly, it is the natural sin we are all born with. Every man is born with it, for the purpose of a Messiah it does not make sense for him to enter the world with sin if he is supposed to cover sin?

This is not a story you have to believe is true to acknowledge that it would be useless to send someone to cover sins of others if they are carrying sin themselves. Even if the story was Uncle Buck sends Billy to show his buddies how to get out of debt when Billy is borrowing to live pay day to pay day.



> Yes, precisely until less then 200 years ago people knew a woman was needed to carry a child. They thought the man was responsible for all of the ingredients that made that happen. It is another reason why women were not counted on to continue blood lines and lineage.



Who carries which the ingredients are not in question. Outside of a miracle and with the exception of today`s technology, the woman is not carrying anything but her egg if she is a virgin. We have covered the ways inheritance can pass through the daughter so that the family lineage can continue - even the Jews accept that.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Isaiah is a good start. It is in the passages. More importantly, it is the natural sin we are all born with. Every man is born with it, for the purpose of a Messiah it does not make sense for him to enter the world with sin if he is supposed to cover sin?


Isaiah is not Messianic prophecy for the Jews.  They didnt use it as such then. Jesus, being a Jew didnt use it as such. And they don't use it now.
If you want to point out specific verses we can discuss it but the link I provided earlier explains Isaiah.



Spotlite said:


> This is not a story you have to believe is true to acknowledge that it would be useless to send someone to cover sins of others if they are carrying sin themselves. Even if the story was Uncle Buck sends Billy to show his buddies how to get out of debt when Billy is borrowing to live pay day to pay day.


That is the Christian spin on it.





Spotlite said:


> Who carries which the ingredients are not in question. Outside of a miracle and with the exception of today`s technology, the woman is not carrying anything but her egg if she is a virgin. We have covered the ways inheritance can pass through the daughter so that the family lineage can continue - even the Jews accept that.


The one link that I asked you to Please read broke it down as to what the female and male lineage is, means and what they do and do not cover.
It cannot be be better explained than that in any more detail.
You not accepting it and continuing on as if it says something that agrees with the female line as being accepted to prove lineage to David is just being ignorant of the information provided to you.
Certain circumstances must be in place for it to fall to a woman. There were too many fathers that had sons which had male nephews and cousins, basically too many males in line ahead of Mary for it to fall on her.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Isaiah is not Messianic prophecy for the Jews.  They didnt use it as such then. Jesus, being a Jew didnt use it as such. And they don't use it now.
> If you want to point out specific verses we can discuss it but the link I provided earlier explains Isaiah.
> 
> 
> ...


I don’t like the phrase often resorted to - “we will have to agree to disagree” on some issues here because I think it’s a cop out, but I recognize when I’ve exhausted my capabilities to be productive. 

Got my Grandboys, they’re learning to crow like a rooster. I got them a rooster named Biscuit and we’re going to throw him some crackers and crow with him.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 26, 2021)

Emanuel, god with us, was never "in the flesh". NT invention from those who do


1gr8bldr said:


> I simply think that any lineage coming from the mother is reverse engineering from those whom tried to make Jesus fit their doctrine. In Jesus day, women were not considered of much standing. We heard "son of" often in the OT and new... and it was never the mother's name given. I don't see how anyone could justify this idea with anything from biblical days or our modern bible.  Another example of reverse engineering.... The story of the so called "virgin"... the story has been changed to fit. The word is simply "maiden" and it's use had no intentions and was insignificant. The king was told he would be given a sign.... that sign.... that he, against all odds, would defeat his oppressors. In that day, it was man power. The size of the "army" or better yet, how many men.... It would take generations and generations to grow his man power. ... this being the kings handicap and only means of victory.... but God said the sign that would prove that I am in this.... is that in the amount of time from conception to birth, 9 months, i will carry you to defeat your oppressors. The sign is a time period, not a maiden or virgin. Why give a sign that no one could verify?. No one would know who is a virgin and who is not. It's not much of a 'sign'. Jesus was the literal son of David, adopted son of God. The King would know that if he had victory in 9 months.... God did it, not my wit, strategy, etc.... all God. A sign that God was with him


 Notice in the pasted verse I give... another time period sign. This verifies that "time period signs" is more likely than a sign that no one can verify
8 The Lord said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.”[a] 2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me. 3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 26, 2021)

It's strange to think all the genealogy and lineage in the Bible is male except when it comes to Jesus. Even the first human was a man.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2021)

Even one NT author uses Joseph as Son in Law instead of making it about Mary. Matthew and Luke use the male. The Jews had their set prophecies and the NT has tried to cram 10lbs of manure into a 5lb bag expecting people not to notice the mess strewn about that just does not fit. Christians keep trying to stuff it back into the bag ignoring that each shove spills an equal amount back out because it all just cannot and does not fit.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 27, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's strange to think all the genealogy and lineage in the Bible is male except when it comes to Jesus. Even the first human was a man.





> It's strange to think all the genealogy and lineage in the Bible is male


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality


This link provides the role of matrilineal descent in Judaism. It means if your mother is Jewish, her children will be Jewish. It is quite an in depth explanation with examples.
You can stop reading when you get to the part where it says.
"There are other things in Jewish law that principally follow the paternal line—tribal rights, inheritance, and more."
It is a ways down.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish/Why-Is-Jewishness-Matrilineal.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2021)

"
According to traditional Jewish law, a person’s Jewish status is passed down through the mother. It is perhaps worth noting that in the biblical period, evidence points toward the custom of patrilineal descent, where children received their Israelite and tribal affiliation through their fathers. Patrilineal descent continues to be the practice of the community of Karaite Jews, whose Jewish legal framework differs significantly from rabbinic law and practice.

The tradition of matrilineal descent dates back at least to late antiquity. Why rabbinic Judaism embraced matrilineal descent is not entirely known. The often-repeated (though not necessarily true) reason given is that the identity of the mother is always certain, but not that of the father. Alternatively, it may have been influenced by the Roman legal system for determining personal status or from earlier rabbinic discussions regarding animals."


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> This link provides the role of matrilineal descent in Judaism. It means if your mother is Jewish, her children will be Jewish. It is quite an in depth explanation with examples.
> You can stop reading when you get to the part where it says.
> "There are other things in Jewish law that principally follow the paternal line—tribal rights, inheritance, and more."
> It is a ways down.
> https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish/Why-Is-Jewishness-Matrilineal.htm


My only point is we aren’t Jewish - maybe we don’t fully understand every aspect of their law, loop holes, exceptions, etc. We hear different views from different Jews and if they each differ in a way, I’m not sure we could ever figure it out enough to take a solid stance.,


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2021)

"I will give what I understand to be the rule according to Orthodox Judaism. A child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish and will always remain so; a child born to a non-Jewish woman is not Jewish, although such a person may take the utterly irreversible step of becoming Jewish if he or she undergoes a sincere conversion under the auspices of a fully qualified Orthodox Rabbinical Court. Conversion is usually discouraged, but there are people born not Jewish who find that they simply cannot survive without the Torah, the Jewish commandments, and full membership in the Jewish People.

Among those born to Jewish mothers, TRIBAL status depends upon the father (the laws for a Kohen are considerably more complex and go beyond the scope of this short response, but suffice it to say that a male Kohen has additional marital restrictions placed upon him, and if he marries outside these restrictions, the future generations that issue from him are not, properly speaking, Kohanim anymore). A convert (even one born to a Jewish father) OR someone born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father, although fully Jewish, is therefore not a member of any tribe."

"Many laws of the Torah address the father/child relationship, for example, A Kohein, Levi, can only be passed on through the father. The laws of inheritance primarily apply from father to son. A Jewish father is obligated to educate his children in the laws of the Torah, a mother doesn’t have that kind of obligation. A Jewish child whenever possible deserves to be raised by both a Jewish father & mother."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2021)

https://mymorningmeditations.com/20...erit-lineage-from-his-adoptive-father-joseph/


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality


I'm not denying the maternal lineage in Judaism. I'm just seeing more about the paternal line in Scripture, Adam, two sons, Noah, his sons, Abraham and his sons, etc.
Then if we continue with David, it's still a paternal line. Also I read where the priesthood is paternal in Judaism.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 27, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not denying the maternal lineage in Judaism. I'm just seeing more about the paternal line in Scripture, Adam, two sons, Noah, his sons, Abraham and his sons, etc.
> Then if we continue with David, it's still a paternal line. Also I read where the priesthood is paternal in Judaism.


It isn’t that the maternal lineage can’t be used, it’s the woman’s name isn’t recorded.

But think about that for a second, IF this is the Son of God, it’s ultimately God’s throne / the paternal side is met. Scripture says that Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord. Mary is still a seed from David.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> "I will give what I understand to be the rule according to Orthodox Judaism. A child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish and will always remain so; a child born to a non-Jewish woman is not Jewish, although such a person may take the utterly irreversible step of becoming Jewish if he or she undergoes a sincere conversion under the auspices of a fully qualified Orthodox Rabbinical Court. Conversion is usually discouraged, but there are people born not Jewish who find that they simply cannot survive without the Torah, the Jewish commandments, and full membership in the Jewish People.
> 
> Among those born to Jewish mothers, TRIBAL status depends upon the father (the laws for a Kohen are considerably more complex and go beyond the scope of this short response, but suffice it to say that a male Kohen has additional marital restrictions placed upon him, and if he marries outside these restrictions, the future generations that issue from him are not, properly speaking, Kohanim anymore). A convert (even one born to a Jewish father) OR someone born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father, although fully Jewish, is therefore not a member of any tribe."
> 
> "Many laws of the Torah address the father/child relationship, for example, A Kohein, Levi, can only be passed on through the father. The laws of inheritance primarily apply from father to son. A Jewish father is obligated to educate his children in the laws of the Torah, a mother doesn’t have that kind of obligation. A Jewish child whenever possible deserves to be raised by both a Jewish father & mother."



Good stuff here, Bullet.   I'd like to add that if a man died with no sons, his daughters would inherit, but had to marry within their tribe to keep the land in the tribe.

(sorry for jumping in to this late in the game.   i almost never comment on a thread that I haven't been a part of from the beginning  lol)    carry on


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 27, 2021)

The writer of Luke was a plagerizer. He knew nothing of which he wrote. He had a copy of Mark and Q in front of him. He reverse engineered the stories to fit the movement he was a part of. He filled in gaps and tried to "fix" things. The virgin birth was the product of a later misinterpretation of Isiah. Did Paul ever mention a miraculous birth. Does this look like the viewpoint from a mother whom knew she was impregnated without sex ? If she was pregnant without sex, she would never think Jesus was out of his mind.

20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 *When his family*[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, *“He is out of his mind.”*

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

31 Then Jesus’* mother *and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 27, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> The writer of Luke was a plagerizer. He knew nothing of which he wrote. He had a copy of Mark and Q in front of him. He reverse engineered the stories to fit the movement he was a part of. He filled in gaps and tried to "fix" things. The virgin birth was the product of a later misinterpretation of Isiah. Did Paul ever mention a miraculous birth. Does this look like the viewpoint from a mother whom knew she was impregnated without sex ? If she was pregnant without sex, she would never think Jesus was out of his mind.
> 
> 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 *When his family*[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, *“He is out of his mind.”*
> 
> ...



If Jesus isn’t the Messiah - Since the entire New Testament is banking on it, without Jewish blood, how are you saved? 

The Jews pray daily but say the sacrifices will be required again when the 3rd Temple is built.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> If Jesus isn’t the Messiah - Since the entire New Testament is banking on it, without Jewish blood, how are you saved?
> 
> The Jews pray daily but say the sacrifices will be required again when the 3rd Temple is built.


Is it possible that one religion is just as much of a snake oil than the next?
Placebo?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Is it possible that one religion is just as much of a snake oil than the next?
> Placebo?


"Religion" is a broad statement with open ended cow trails lol. David Koresh was considered religious by some.

But, is it just as possible as the bewilderment of one, or all religion(s)? (We are non Jewish people debating Jewish doctrine / law)


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> "Religion" is a broad statement with open ended cow trails lol. David Koresh was considered religious by some.
> 
> But, is it just as possible as the bewilderment of one, or all religion(s)? (We are non Jewish people debating Jewish doctrine / law)


I don't know how you (or anyone) can tell the difference between Koresh and the Characters/Authors in and of the Bible regarding anything further than what is allowed to be portrayed.

Regarding Jewish doctrine/law it seems as though some are posting what they are right from source and others are trying to make it what they need it to be.

Jesus was Jewish. His family and friends were Jewish. All that we talk about happened in ancient Israel. It is more likely than not the majority of Jews in that era were following Jewish doctrine/law.
It took decades to hundreds of years after the death of a Jewish man to turn him, personally,  into a non Jewish religion. The authors  and writings which are responsible for that show what twisting, tweaking and flat out ignorance of Jewish customs it took to do that.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I don't know how you (or anyone) can tell the difference between Koresh and the Characters/Authors in and of the Bible regarding anything further than what is allowed to be portrayed.
> 
> Regarding Jewish doctrine/law it seems as though some are posting what they are right from source and others are trying to make it what they need it to be.
> 
> ...


Don’t take this the wrong way because it’s not meant to be anything demeaning - but that statement amplifies the following statement:


> is it just as possible as the bewilderment of one, or all religion(a)?



The spirit of God is how you know the difference and understand how the Gentiles were allowed to be grafted in.


Denying it doesn’t make it non existent.

My question that led to this was aimed at those non Jewish claiming salvation but denying Jesus as a Messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Don’t take this the wrong way because it’s not meant to be anything demeaning - but that statement amplifies the following statement:
> 
> 
> The spirit of God is how you know the difference and understand how the Gentiles were allowed to be grafted in.
> ...


If the spirit of a god was unique to one religion and visible to the rest there would be no bewilderment. 
Since it is not, the claims made saying such are nothing more than claims.
People can and certainly do say whatever they want.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If the spirit of a god was unique to one religion and visible to the rest there would be no bewilderment.
> Since it is not, the claims made saying such are nothing more than claims.
> People can and certainly do say whatever they want.


Religion doesn’t have anything to do with it, religion is a man product.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Religion doesn’t have anything to do with it, religion is a man product.


If you were raised without any religious or religions influences. If you were secluded from having any knowledge about gods or a god and you had your spiritual experience....WHO would you say it was from?
Religion has everything to do with it, in fact religions are the result of people trying to explain the unexplainable. Religion IS the vessel used for someone else telling you WHO was responsible for your experience.

Without religion Jesus or whoever/whatever happened to you would have had to flash a badge and show some paperwork in order for you to not assume who or what it is/was.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If you were raised without any religious or religions influences. If you were secluded from having any knowledge about gods or a god and you had your spiritual experience....WHO would you say it was from?
> Religion has everything to do with it, in fact religions are the result of people trying to explain the unexplainable. Religion IS the vessel used for someone else telling you WHO was responsible for your experience.
> 
> Without religion Jesus or whoever/whatever happened to you would have had to flash a badge and show some paperwork in order for you to not assume who or what it is/was.


Exactly why when I came to reject religion as man made, I also had to suspend the belief in the Christian Gods existence. Tried not to, didnt want to, attempted to get around it for a long time.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If you were raised without any religious or religions influences. If you were secluded from having any knowledge about gods or a god and you had your spiritual experience....WHO would you say it was from?
> Religion has everything to do with it, in fact religions are the result of people trying to explain the unexplainable. Religion IS the vessel used for someone else telling you WHO was responsible for your experience.
> 
> Without religion Jesus or whoever/whatever happened to you would have had to flash a badge and show some paperwork in order for you to not assume who or what it is/was.


I get your point but with the “experience” I’m speaking about - it doesn’t require or look for someone, or religion to explain it. It happens exactly the way scripture says it does. It’s not going to jump on you as a surprise so you’ll know. 

Nowhere in the Bible is anyone identified by a “religious” affiliation. They’re either followers of Christ or they’re not.

That name over the church door doesn’t do anything but give you an idea of the doctrine they believe is accurate  - religion / man did that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I get your point but with the “experience” I’m speaking about - it doesn’t require or look for someone, or religion to explain it. It happens exactly the way scripture says it does.
> 
> Nowhere in the Bible is anyone identified by a “religious” affiliation. They’re either followers of Christ or they’re not.
> 
> ...





> It happens exactly the way scripture says it does.


You shot yourself in the foot right there ^


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> You shot yourself in the foot right there ^


Nope. You think I did.

Man “writers” didn’t explain this part. They stated what happened to them. If it happens to you, you’ll know exactly what it is.

It’s not a “recipe” or a formula - but you relate to it., no explanation needed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. You think I did.
> 
> Man “writers” didn’t explain this part. They stated what happened to them. If it happens to you, you’ll know exactly what it is.


Scripture = religion.
If you werent exposed to religion first you wouldnt know what scripture says.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I get your point but with the “experience” I’m speaking about - it doesn’t require or look for someone, or religion to explain it. It happens exactly the way scripture says it does. It’s not going to jump on you as a surprise so you’ll know.


Uhhhh, ummmmmm the scripture thing just popped you bubble.



Spotlite said:


> Nowhere in the Bible is anyone identified by a “religious” affiliation. They’re either followers of Christ or they’re not.


You really need to read more of the Bible



Spotlite said:


> That name over the church door doesn’t do anything but give you an idea of the doctrine they believe is accurate  - religion / man did that.


Not a single one of them would know about doctrine or have a name if it was left up to spiritual experiences to tell them who, what, where,when, why


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. You think I did.
> 
> Man “writers” didn’t explain this part. They stated what happened to them. If it happens to you, you’ll know exactly what it is.
> 
> It’s not a “recipe” or a formula - but you relate to it., no explanation needed.


So "matthew" was there?
"Luke" was there?
Paul...they were all there to record Jesus's actions, words, reactions, reanimation,  miracles....?
I honestly did not know that. 

I understand that you are (seemingly) limiting your point to some of the writers spiritual experiences...but it all goes hand in hand. Written and oral religion was around before the authors which already gave them something to go off of.

Amazing that none of the OT writers had a visit from Jesus but they speak of visits from the God of that era.
Conversely,  no burning bushes and talking Donkeys in the NT...its all about another,  well the same, well sometimes as needed...god by a different name, look and flavor.

It takes a special type of writer to penn such stuff. The contents are not apologetic but rather imaginative stories inspired by people, places and things. It often is not accurate or not true but they say it the best they understand it and was made for smaller audiences. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  (Ask Israel, he conveniently takes extended vacations here when asked to participate apologetically where he has to explain himself instead of just the Ronco way of say it and forget it). Nobody was asking Matthew to back it up.
Stick the authors of the Gospels on different secluded islands at birth, islands that hold no tales of gods, and I'd bet they still write about something that inspired them, but it wouldn't be the gospels you reference today.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Scripture = religion.
> If you werent exposed to religion first you wouldnt know what scripture says.


My view is scripture works. And, it’s not because a “Joseph Smith” or a “Billy Graham” says it does.  

My statement was “Nowhere in the Bible is anyone identified by a “religious” affiliation” - meaning there were no Catholics, Baptist, etc. (religions) 

Once we had the “inherent Word of God” - the different doctrines coming out of that resulting in the “who’s right / wrong” debates is religion to me. 

Technically, I guess you’d be correct - I shot myself in the foot, if you’re counting scripture as religion. I don’t because of what I just stated ^^^^

The older I get, I’m sure the smarter I will get - don’t give up on me just yet


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Uhhhh, ummmmmm the scripture thing just popped you bubble.
> 
> 
> You really need to read more of the Bible
> ...





> Uhhhh, ummmmmm the scripture thing just popped you bubble.


You didn’t know until Walt told us 



> You really need to read more of the Bible



I will give you Jews. Everything else was Gentile. Outside of that, you’re either a follower or Christ or not. There were no “denominations”. The letters to the churches in the NT were not different denominations, they shared the same doctrine.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You didn’t know until Walt told us
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you Jews. Everything else was Gentile. Outside of that, you’re either a follower or Christ or not. There were no “denominations”. The letters to the churches in the NT were not different denominations, they shared the same doctrine.


I don't know where denominations came into play here or now why it has.
But if the churches all agreed there would not have been any need for the letters.
https://blog.churchsource.com/the-3-minute-cheat-sheet-for-understanding-pauls-letters/


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So "matthew" was there?
> "Luke" was there?
> Paul...they were all there to record Jesus's actions, words, reactions, reanimation,  miracles....?
> I honestly did not know that.
> ...


You’ve completely misunderstood the NT and the prophecies of the OT if that’s ^^^ what you got out of it. 

A good read.
https://www.quora.com/Did-any-of-the-Gospel-writers-actually-meet-Jesus-which-ones.

DATING THE GOSPELS

The problem is that the question of dating is based more on theory than on direct evidence. There is no note at the bottom of manuscripts of Mark’s gospel saying, “I, Mark, finished this on ides of March, 64 AD.” So other information has to make do.

You’re disputing that ^^^ with what?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I don't know where denominations came into play here or now why it has.
> But if the churches all agreed there would not have been any need for the letters.


It’s been a man problem. The letters are Mrs fir teachings, not that they were disagreeing with one another’s doctrine. 

But yes, you’d think they’d agree. The scripture says take up your cross and follow me. Meaning did out to yourself, get yourself out of the way. Men keep their ideas in the mix and you end up with different denominations  / doctrines.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You’ve completely misunderstood the NT and the prophecies of the OT if that’s ^^^ what you got out of it.
> 
> A good read.
> https://www.quora.com/Did-any-of-the-Gospel-writers-actually-meet-Jesus-which-ones.
> ...


I think that you know that I capable of getting more than that out of it.

Dating the Gospels is just one part of it. The lack of cultural knowledge, laws and geographical locations show that if these people wrote their stories the day after Jesus died, they were nowhere near that area and were not part of it.

I had no idea we were discussing the dates of the Gospels at all until you just brought it up. Dates can also be much later and I can show those links if you'd like.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think that you know that I capable of getting more than that out of it.
> 
> Dating the Gospels is just one part of it. The lack of cultural knowledge, laws and geographical locations show that if these people wrote their stories the day after Jesus died, they were nowhere near that area and were not part of it.
> 
> I had no idea we were discussing the dates of the Gospels at all until you just brought it up. Dates can also be much later and I can show those links if you'd like.


I only mentioned it because you asked this -
“So "matthew" was there?
"Luke" was there?”

You know where I stand with links lol. The WWW has the answer you want. Those sources don’t mean much anyway,


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> If Jesus isn’t the Messiah - Since the entire New Testament is banking on it, without Jewish blood, how are you saved?
> 
> The Jews pray daily but say the sacrifices will be required again when the 3rd Temple is built.


Jesus is the messiah. Just because Luke was zealous to write about things he did not know, it does not disqualify Jesus from being the messiah. The NT is full of embellishments. Peter never whacked off someone's ear with a sword, and then those same soldiers seeing the miracle that Jesus performed, then go on to beat him and mock him. That is the result of stories passed down orally. They get embellished. But, strangely,  glad they at least  did write them down when they did... otherwise the stories may have been embellished further. The NT in a sense, did somewhat become an end to the  embellishments.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> My view is scripture works. And, it’s not because a “Joseph Smith” or a “Billy Graham” says it does.
> 
> My statement was “Nowhere in the Bible is anyone identified by a “religious” affiliation” - meaning there were no Catholics, Baptist, etc. (religions)
> 
> ...


Its not a matter of being smart/not smart or if Scripture works or not.....
The reason you picked up the Bible to read the Scripture is because you were predisposed to the Christian religion. You already knew the Bible existed, you already knew there was Scripture in it and you knew,  because here where we live, that was the book you were supposed to go to. 
All that is because you were exposed to religion , in this case Christianity, first.
Did ya think the Bible might be a cookbook when you picked it up?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> If Jesus isn’t the Messiah - Since the entire New Testament is banking on it, without Jewish blood, how are you saved?
> 
> The Jews pray daily but say the sacrifices will be required again when the 3rd Temple is built.


You may be unaware of my beliefs? I believe Jesus is the son of Joseph, in David's lineage. That he is the messiah. That he became the "Son of God" through adoption, because God was pleased. That he was baptized, died and raised from the dead to become the "firstborn of many brother's".


----------



## M80 (Aug 7, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, but he would have argued about it with Christ.


I laughed pretty hard at this ??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not a matter of being smart/not smart or if Scripture works or not.....
> The reason you picked up the Bible to read the Scripture is because you were predisposed to the Christian religion. You already knew the Bible existed, you already knew there was Scripture in it and you knew,  because here where we live, that was the book you were supposed to go to.
> All that is because you were exposed to religion , in this case Christianity, first.
> Did ya think the Bible might be a cookbook when you picked it up?



Does the circumstances in which one finds truth alter the nature of the truth.  We’ve got that thread going regarding math as a language.  One is much more prone to learn about math here in this culture as say a country/culture where education is not available to the mass public.  Does that have any bearing on the validity of mathematical principles?  Same principle regarding the validity of Christianity.  Just because it’s more or even less prevalent in one society has no bearing on its validity.  To argue so is very, very close to arguing: because I believe it, it’s true.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Does the circumstances in which one finds truth alter the nature of the truth.  We’ve got that thread going regarding math as a language.  One is much more prone to learn about math here in this culture as say a country/culture where education is not available to the mass public.  Does that have any bearing on the validity of mathematical principles?  Same principle regarding the validity of Christianity.  Just because it’s more or even less prevalent in one society has no bearing on its validity.  To argue so is very, very close to arguing: because I believe it, it’s true.


Nobody can argue how prevalent Christianity is (or any of the major religions for that matter). It is the validity that has always been in question.
The validity of 2+2=4 has been shown whether it is written numbers, amounts of rocks, totals of family members, etc. The validity of 2+2=4 and therefore = God has yet to be determined let alone validated. 
While taking an Algebra test and the problem was X+5=10 has anyone here ever written down X= Jesus and gotten the answer marked correct?
One has nothing to do with the other unless and until someone writes in ANY god they worship in order to incorrectly make that assumption and literally fill the blank gap.
Animals and birds can do math. It takes a human to assume a god is responsible for the mathematics itself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Does the circumstances in which one finds truth alter the nature of the truth.  We’ve got that thread going regarding math as a language.  One is much more prone to learn about math here in this culture as say a country/culture where education is not available to the mass public.  Does that have any bearing on the validity of mathematical principles?  Same principle regarding the validity of Christianity.  Just because it’s more or even less prevalent in one society has no bearing on its validity.  To argue so is very, very close to arguing: because I believe it, it’s true.





> Does the circumstances in which one finds truth alter the nature of the truth.


Truth can be relative to the person. An easy example would be - you believe its true God created the world. I dont believe thats true. Its possible but hasnt been proven to be true. 
So Im going to change "truth" to "fact".
So my answer would be no. A fact is a fact is a fact. 


> One is much more prone to learn about math here in this culture as say a country/culture where education is not available to the mass public.  Does that have any bearing on the validity of mathematical principles?


Nope no bearing on the validity of mathmetical principles. Example - I never got past your basic math. Algebra, Trig etc. looks like Chinese writing to me. That has no bearing on the validity of Algebra, Trig etc.


> Same principle regarding the validity of Christianity.


Not the same principle. Completely different principle. Christianity is a BELIEF "system". 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what you believe 1 + 1 equals. 


> Just because it’s more or even less prevalent in one society has no bearing on its validity.


Validity to that particular society. Lots of religions, gods, beliefs etc. Each as valid to that particular society as Christianity is to you.


> To argue so is very, very close to arguing: because I believe it, it’s true.


Happens all the time. On lots of subjects. Including belief in God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Truth can be relative to the person. An easy example would be - you believe its true God created the world. I dont believe thats true. Its possible but hasnt been proven to be true.
> So Im going to change "truth" to "fact".
> So my answer would be no. A fact is a fact is a fact.
> 
> ...



I was debating what I took as your point that I understood as:  You were born in America which is predominantly Christian, hence that's why you believe the way you do, but it doesn't make your beliefs true.  That was what I understood your point to be.  I was simply pointing out that geographic location has no bearing on truth no more than one's personal beliefs do.  Maybe I read your post wrong and headed off in the wrong direction.

I do not believe truth is relative.  I equate truth to the correct understanding of facts as they exists.  We may just have to disagree here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The validity of 2+2=4 has been shown whether it is written numbers, amounts of rocks, totals of family members, etc. The validity of 2+2=4 and therefore = God has yet to be determined let alone validated.



by you.  There's billions that would disagree.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

Facts change. The earth is not flat. The sun does not orbit the earth. Some facts have been constant and others have been facts until new information has been discovered,  tested, replicated,  tested again and then accepted as being the best answer we have at this point in time.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> by you.  There's billions that would disagree.


No doubt billions would disagree. All that proves is that they believe differently (nothing new about that). I'll ask them and you to show me that math then. Which equation equals a god?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was debating what I took as your point that I understood as:  You were born in America which is predominantly Christian, hence that's why you believe the way you do, but it doesn't make your beliefs true.  That was what I understood your point to be.  I was simply pointing out that geographic location has no bearing on truth no more than one's personal beliefs do.  Maybe I read your post wrong and headed off in the wrong direction.
> 
> I do not believe truth is relative.  I equate truth to the correct understanding of facts as they exists.  We may just have to disagree here.


Oh ok. No I was responding to something about separating "religion" and God.
But what you understood my point to be is also true.
I think you are using the word "truth" and equating it with "fact".
Geographic location has no bearing on "fact".
Geographic location can have a bearing on "truth".
Here in the USA the predominant "truth" is the Christian God created the earth.
In other geographic locations the predominant "truth" is the Christian God didnt do squat. Different geographic locations can and are taught differently of what the "truth" is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 9, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Here in the USA the predominant "truth" is the Christian God created the earth.
> In other geographic locations the predominant "truth" is the Christian God didnt do squat. Different geographic locations can and are taught differently of what the "truth" is.



We have a different definition of truth.  Like I previously stated, I understand truth is the correct interpretation of facts.  I think that's where we differ.  As I understand you , "truth" by your definition, it simply "an" interpretation of facts that can vary with circumstance.  Am I correct in my understanding of your definition?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 9, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The validity of 2+2=4 has been shown whether it is written numbers, amounts of rocks, totals of family members, etc. The validity of 2+2=4 and therefore = God has yet to be determined let alone validated.



I understood your point in making the above statement to be along the lines of "I can believe 2+2=4, because it is reproduceable. I can see it."  My reply was simply to point out that iffffff that's your criteria for for believing something, reproducibility, then belief in God has been proven to be reproducible by billions of people.  The fact that you, yourself haven't been able to reproduce the results has no bearing on the fact that the results are considered reproducible by those billions of people that have.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I understood your point in making the above statement to be along the lines of "I can believe 2+2=4, because it is reproduceable. I can see it."  My reply was simply to point out that iffffff that's your criteria for for believing something, reproducibility, then belief in God has been proven to be reproducible by billions of people.  The fact that you, yourself haven't been able to reproduce the results has no bearing on the fact that the results are considered reproducible by those billions of people that have.



Reproducibility has nothing to do with it. Billions of people have been shown to believe in other gods....according to you that is also some sort of reproducibility that proves something. It does prove that people are capable of believing in things. It does not prove that what they believe in has any truth which validates the existence of what they believe in.
Math works for some things because we create the Axioms to make it fit for our intended purposes. We "make" equations to suit. We can put a bunch of Numbers and Letters and Parentheses and other Mathematical signs together to explain Speed, Distance, Weights, Trajectory, Amounts, Mass etc etc. It works because we invent it to work.

There is no mathematical formula for Love, God, Happiness, Sadness, Emotions, Ideas , Beliefs, What is inside a Blackhole or thousands of other examples. Math is orderly for what we make it ordely for. It serves our purposes and needs for some things.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We have a different definition of truth.  Like I previously stated, I understand truth is the correct interpretation of facts.  I think that's where we differ.  As I understand you , "truth" by your definition, it simply "an" interpretation of facts that can vary with circumstance.  Am I correct in my understanding of your definition?


Nope. But I think we are getting closer.


> an" interpretation of facts that can vary with circumstance.


A fact is a fact whether its interpreted correctly or incorrectly and doesnt vary with circumstances. Unless things change and the old fact gets replaced with new fact.
Truth does not necessarily have to be based on facts. Your God vs. their God.
Both are considered to be truth by the ones who believe in them.. Neither are fact.


> I understand truth is the correct interpretation of facts.


I would say yes that true.
But people also think things are true without any facts.
If we were to take people out of it, your definition is probably completely correct.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I understood your point in making the above statement to be along the lines of "I can believe 2+2=4, because it is reproduceable. I can see it."  My reply was simply to point out that iffffff that's your criteria for for believing something, reproducibility, then belief in God has been proven to be reproducible by billions of people.  The fact that you, yourself haven't been able to reproduce the results has no bearing on the fact that the results are considered reproducible by those billions of people that have.





> then belief in God has been proven to be reproducible by billions of people.


That actually makes sense to me. 
Christian schools, Saturday/Sunday classes, Christian parents etc all work to reproduce the belief in God. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
And of course other religions successfully (or not) reproduce the belief in their God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Reproducibility has nothing to do with it. Billions of people have been shown to believe in other gods....according to you that is also some sort of reproducibility that proves something. It does prove that people are capable of believing in things. It does not prove that what they believe in has any truth which validates the existence of what they believe in.
> Math works for some things because we create the Axioms to make it fit for our intended purposes. We "make" equations to suit. We can put a bunch of Numbers and Letters and Parentheses and other Mathematical signs together to explain Speed, Distance, Weights, Trajectory, Amounts, Mass etc etc. It works because we invent it to work.
> 
> There is no mathematical formula for Love, God, Happiness, Sadness, Emotions, Ideas , Beliefs, What is inside a Blackhole or thousands of other examples. Math is orderly for what we make it ordely for. It serves our purposes and needs for some things.





> It works because we invent it to work.


Thats ^ whats missing from the "math works because God..." argument.


----------



## M80 (Aug 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Nobody can argue how prevalent Christianity is (or any of the major religions for that matter). It is the validity that has always been in question.
> The validity of 2+2=4 has been shown whether it is written numbers, amounts of rocks, totals of family members, etc. The validity of 2+2=4 and therefore = God has yet to be determined let alone validated.
> While taking an Algebra test and the problem was X+5=10 has anyone here ever written down X= Jesus and gotten the answer marked correct?
> One has nothing to do with the other unless and until someone writes in ANY god they worship in order to incorrectly make that assumption and literally fill the blank gap.
> Animals and birds can do math. It takes a human to assume a god is responsible for the mathematics itself.


I’m going to ease in. What makes 2+2=4. Who came up with that? It’s just what we have been taught that was right. You see 2 objects and add 2 more and that makes 4. It’s simple math but who ever said that was correct. Why do we even have the number 2 or 4. It’s just what we have been told is right so we “believe” that to be right. What if someone argued that 2+2=5. We would argue that that is incorrect but where did math come from. How can we trust that’s correct unless we “believe” that is correct. People live their life believing in this system of Math because it works so we believe in it. 
  How is God any different from that. Some say God isn’t real because they don’t “believe” in him. They want to see him or touch him or prove him. Some “believe” in God and take it further to “believe” in Jesus Christ. The devils believe there is one God and tremble but they won’t make it to heaven. It’s about believing in Jesus and realizing we are wrong and Jeuse is the only answer. For me I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Could I confirm it when I was a lost man, no sir. When the Lord convicted me of my sins I believed what the Word of God said and accepted him into my heart. That’s when I could finally see for myself and feel him in my heart once I was born again. My soul was quickened(made alive) to where I understood. A dead soul can’t understand or see the truth until it’s alive.
  So math isn’t any difference than God. We believe the math is correct because that’s what we believe. We see that 2+2=4 but we’ve got to question where did the numbers even come from. How can we really now if it’s the truth. We can’t but yet we believe it to be so we are satisfied. Why is it so hard to believe in Jesus, that he died for our sins and wants us to be with him for eternity. Everyone believes in something. Why not Jesus.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Reproducibility has nothing to do with it.



Oooooook then. This is gonna go nowhere.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> A fact is a fact whether its interpreted correctly or incorrectly and doesnt vary with circumstances.



Agreed



WaltL1 said:


> Unless things change and the old fact gets replaced with new fact.



That's a head scratcher to me.  Give me an example of this.




WaltL1 said:


> Truth does not necessarily have to be based on facts.



Huh???  Now this is where we part ways, because I totally don't get this.  Again, an example may help.  Let's leave the "G" man out of it for now and just give me a working example before we go there or here:


WaltL1 said:


> But people also think things are true without any facts.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> That's a head scratcher to me.  Give me an example of this.


Years ago it was considered to be a fact that bloodletting was the correct treatment for all sorts of illnesses. Seizures, mental illnesses, common cold etc. etc.
The more we learned (science), it was proven that fact was incorrect and was replaced with new facts. You work in the medical field dont you? If a patient came in with seizures would you start draining blood out of them? They used to.


> Huh???  Now this is where we part ways, because I totally don't get this.  Again, an example may help.  Let's leave the "G" man out of it for now and just give me a working example before we go there or here:


Its the people thing. People consider things to be a fact and true when there are no or not enough facts to back it up.
Take people out of the equation and yes a fact isnt a fact unless its true. The truth is not true unless its a fact.
You are technically correct. Im adding in people which screws up your technically correct definition.
Example - you believe its true and a fact that God created the world/universe.
There are no or not enough facts to back that up but you still believe its true and a fact.
If we went with your technically correct definition it would show that its not true and therefore not a fact because there are no or not enough facts to back it up..
Again - you are technically correct.
I'm adding in people which screws it up/complicates it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oooooook then. This is gonna go nowhere.


Right, because it does not align with the point you are basing your stance on. I explained why after that line you quoted.


----------



## Israel (Aug 10, 2021)

> But people also think things are true without any facts


.


When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

There was a time that I cannot pinpoint except by its clarity, it could have been 50...60 years ago, (maybe even more remote...or recent?) and there are no particular events associated with it, no ambiance in recollection that I might say..."it really hit me when I was in college...or out fishing one day"...I just know that when it hit me...hit me it did.

And it was sudden, like a balloon exploding...for I don't recall it as being gradual...and it was in the bursting of that balloon through which I recognized, by the sudden change in light...that I realized I had carried this illusion that was so pervasive...and false...and through which almost every single perception of "the world" filtered to me...that it was immediately shocking. 

It's kinda laughable to say it cause I am pretty sure most know it. But before the balloon burst I had a deep sense by assumption that the world was being run by...somehow...somewhere...a wheelhouse in which wise, benevolent men were seeing to the affairs of it...that ultimately they were entrusted and keeping a trust to keep this thing "too big to fail"...from failing. Sure, there were periodic and deep disagreements...but when all was said and done...some group was keeping things on a fairly even keel. And they were wise enough to minister right justice to the deviants (like Hitler) who sought too much of chaos and got reined in. (I am a boomer)

It sounds silly to say it, doesn't it? But I really had that sense...if I just kinda kept in some sort of step, reasonable men could be trusted to keep all the big wheels turning. There was fairness, there was truth, there was justice...even if hard to see at particular times...that was ultimately ensured. Someone or some party of someones...was in the world...and at the wheel.

BOOM!


It was at first kinda scary...the wisest were not much different than most, no more "fair" than myself, no more benevolent or just than me, and no more caring of the "common estate" of anyone than I was rising from my bed and wondering what was for my breakfast.

Somewhere, somehow, at some time, the facts started to pour out.

Now, don't mistake this for my appraisal that there are no honorable men, nor that I consider myself in any way their equals...but it may have been in the realization of how very rare honorable men are...and how for the most part that quality of being remarkably free of selfish ambitions is, to me, one of their hallmarks.

And generally what "rises to the top" among men has far more to do with stepping on throats and bodies than with any nobility. Then...I was more amazed at how it has lasted at all.

Who's at the wheel???!!!!!

Shocked! Shocked I say to discover.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

Israel said:


> .
> 
> 
> When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
> ...





> It's kinda laughable to say it cause I am pretty sure most know it. But before the balloon burst I had a deep sense by assumption that the world was being run by...somehow...somewhere...a wheelhouse in which wise, benevolent men were seeing to the affairs of it...that ultimately they were entrusted and keeping a trust to keep this thing "too big to fail"...from failing. Sure, there were periodic and deep disagreements...but when all was said and done...some group was keeping things on a fairly even keel. And they were wise enough to minister right justice to the deviants (like Hitler) who sought too much of chaos and got reined in.


I used to have that same assumption.
Boy has that assumption been proven wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

mwilliams80 said:


> I’m going to ease in. What makes 2+2=4. Who came up with that? It’s just what we have been taught that was right. You see 2 objects and add 2 more and that makes 4. It’s simple math but who ever said that was correct. Why do we even have the number 2 or 4. It’s just what we have been told is right so we “believe” that to be right. What if someone argued that 2+2=5. We would argue that that is incorrect but where did math come from. How can we trust that’s correct unless we “believe” that is correct. People live their life believing in this system of Math because it works so we believe in it.


Yes, people assign a letter, word or number...we make the definitions. 4 could be 5, apple could be lion if we so chose those for those applications.
But if you have a certain amount of beers in one hand and a certain amount of beers in another hand and place them all on a tray together there will still be a certain quantity of total beers on that tray no matter what name or number is given to them.



mwilliams80 said:


> How is God any different from that.


God is an assertion without a quantity.
Take those beers in each hand for example. 
Here we have ?? and over here we have ??. Place all of them on a tray and you say we have  ?????



mwilliams80 said:


> Some say God isn’t real because they don’t “believe” in him. They want to see him or touch him or prove him. Some “believe” in God and take it further to “believe” in Jesus Christ.


It is also true that some say God is real for the exact opposite reasons.
Point being, a person cannot prove that something does not exist.  The very fact that no evidence of the thing is available IS the proof of non existence. 
On the other hand someone who says a thing does exist should be able to back up their claim with examples.

"BELIEVING " something exists is another thing entirely, as beliefs are only limited to what an individual can conjure up in their mind.



mwilliams80 said:


> The devils believe there is one God and tremble but they won’t make it to heaven.


Here you are introducing not only Devils, but you are asserting that you somehow know they tremble.
Explain how you know this.



mwilliams80 said:


> It’s about believing in Jesus and realizing we are wrong and Jeuse is the only answer. For me I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Could I confirm it when I was a lost man, no sir. When the Lord convicted me of my sins I believed what the Word of God said and accepted him into my heart. That’s when I could finally see for myself and feel him in my heart once I was born again. My soul was quickened(made alive) to where I understood. A dead soul can’t understand or see the truth until it’s alive.


All that is a personal testimonial of what works for you and then you take it one step more in trying to portray that it is universally true.


mwilliams80 said:


> So math isn’t any difference than God. We believe the math is correct because that’s what we believe. We see that 2+2=4 but we’ve got to question where did the numbers even come from.


No, I've showed you that God is not like math because nobody can show that God in fact is.


mwilliams80 said:


> How can we really now if it’s the truth. We can’t but yet we believe it to be so we are satisfied. Why is it so hard to believe in Jesus, that he died for our sins and wants us to be with him for eternity. Everyone believes in something. Why not Jesus.


In my case, it sounds like a ridiculous tale that adults believe in in order to deal with their own mortality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

mwilliams80 said:


> I’m going to ease in. What makes 2+2=4. Who came up with that? It’s just what we have been taught that was right. You see 2 objects and add 2 more and that makes 4. It’s simple math but who ever said that was correct. Why do we even have the number 2 or 4. It’s just what we have been told is right so we “believe” that to be right. What if someone argued that 2+2=5. We would argue that that is incorrect but where did math come from. How can we trust that’s correct unless we “believe” that is correct. People live their life believing in this system of Math because it works so we believe in it.
> How is God any different from that. Some say God isn’t real because they don’t “believe” in him. They want to see him or touch him or prove him. Some “believe” in God and take it further to “believe” in Jesus Christ. The devils believe there is one God and tremble but they won’t make it to heaven. It’s about believing in Jesus and realizing we are wrong and Jeuse is the only answer. For me I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Could I confirm it when I was a lost man, no sir. When the Lord convicted me of my sins I believed what the Word of God said and accepted him into my heart. That’s when I could finally see for myself and feel him in my heart once I was born again. My soul was quickened(made alive) to where I understood. A dead soul can’t understand or see the truth until it’s alive.
> So math isn’t any difference than God. We believe the math is correct because that’s what we believe. We see that 2+2=4 but we’ve got to question where did the numbers even come from. How can we really now if it’s the truth. We can’t but yet we believe it to be so we are satisfied. Why is it so hard to believe in Jesus, that he died for our sins and wants us to be with him for eternity. Everyone believes in something. Why not Jesus.





> It’s simple math but who ever said that was correct.


Man did. Man made up the math formulas. Thats one of them.
Same with up and down. Man decided we would call that up and call that down. Left and right, forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise... all assigned by man.


> How is God any different from that.


You may have a point there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> The truth is not true unless its a fact.



If this is your definition of truth, then we are in agreement.



WaltL1 said:


> You are technically correct. Im adding in people which screws up your technically correct definition.



People, more specifically people's beliefs in what is true (given your above definition), don't alter what is true.  Truth stands on it's own, outside "perceived" reality.  I'm pretty sure we are in agreement that beliefs don't make something true or untrue.



WaltL1 said:


> Example - you believe its true and a fact that God created the world/universe.
> There are no or not enough facts to back that up*(for you)* but you still believe its true and a fact.



This takes us back to my initial point.....i think.  Just because *you* (or me for that matter) don't have enough facts to back up accepting X as true, it doesn't mean it isn't.  Since the dawn of man, billions of people *have* found X as true.  Ifffff I'm a rational person, I have to weigh that in my thought process:  Billions find X to be true, I can't.  Why?  Why the disparity?  These are the questions I would ask myself.  I hope I would not be so prideful that I would find X false (and hence billions of people spread over the face of the earth down through the ages wrong) without making dang sure the problem wasn't with me.  It' takes a pretty big ego to doubt most of humanity.   The old saying "If you been married 9 times it might be you." comes to mind.



WaltL1 said:


> If we went with your technically correct definition it would show that its not true and therefore not a fact *because there are no or not enough facts to back it up*..
> Again - you are technically correct.



Agree right up to the "because".
With all due respect, "no or not enough facts has no bearing on truth".  It speaks to understanding, available facts, or both (or lack thereof).  I certainly don't understand the moderately advanced laws of physics, but they are true none-the-less.  I lack both understanding and facts regarding them, but I accept them as true and valid because rational people a heck of a lot brighter than me have found them true.  They are reproducible also, just not by me.  The fault lies in me, not the facts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> That actually makes sense to me.
> Christian schools, Saturday/Sunday classes, Christian parents etc all work to reproduce the belief in God. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
> And of course other religions successfully (or not) reproduce the belief in their God.



It is what it is, but again those circumstances have no bearing over whether X is true or false.  See above.


----------



## M80 (Aug 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Yes, people assign a letter, word or number...we make the definitions. 4 could be 5, apple could be lion if we so chose those for those applications.
> But if you have a certain amount of beers in one hand and a certain amount of beers in another hand and place them all on a tray together there will still be a certain quantity of total beers on that tray no matter what name or number is given to them.
> 
> 
> ...



“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬


----------



## M80 (Aug 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Man did. Man made up the math formulas. Thats one of them.
> Same with up and down. Man decided we would call that up and call that down. Left and right, forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise... all assigned by man.
> 
> You may have a point there.


Nice reverse there on the end quote. I hope and pray one day y’all can see the light and believe cause that’s the only way you will ever see.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

mwilliams80 said:


> “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
> ‭‭James‬ ‭2:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬


"Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound..."

When you use a book as it's own source then anything can be true.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

mwilliams80 said:


> Nice reverse there on the end quote. I hope and pray one day y’all can see the light and believe cause that’s the only way you will ever see.


I am concerned for you and hope you see the light someday also.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

mwilliams80 said:


> Nice reverse there on the end quote. I hope and pray one day y’all can see the light and believe cause that’s the only way you will ever see.





> Nice reverse there on the end quote.


Thank you. I'll be here all week 


> I hope and pray one day y’all can see the light and believe cause that’s the only way you will ever see.


If your hopes and prayers are genuine... then thanks.
But me seeing the light isnt going to change the history of mathematics.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound..."
> 
> When you use a book as it's own source then anything can be true.


When I was a kid I put on my Superman costume from Halloween, climbed up in a tree and jumped.
Figured out pretty quick I wasnt Superman.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I used to have that same assumption.



I never did.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> When I was a kid I put on my Superman costume from Halloween, climbed up in a tree and jumped.
> Figured out pretty quick I wasnt Superman.


You didn't hail from Krypton!
It is a real place, I read it in a book and the book said it is real. If you don't believe me I can show you a passage in the same book. ?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If this is your definition of truth, then we are in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where you added the for you in red -
"I" dont have anything to do with it. The existence of God or gods has not been proven to be true and a fact by anybody. Its not an universal fact. Its a belief. 
Facts become facts because they are tested, proven, retested, re-proven,.......


> Since the dawn of man, billions of people *have* found X as true.  Ifffff I'm a rational person, I have to weigh that in my thought process:  Billions find X to be true, I can't.  Why?  Why the disparity?  These are the questions I would ask myself.  I hope I would not be so prideful that I would find X false (and hence billions of people spread over the face of the earth down through the ages wrong) without making dang sure the problem wasn't with me.



Solid advice.
Have you considered that there are more people that DONT believe in the Christian God than do? And that were religious beliefs in other gods long before Christianity existed?
Yes, solid advice.


> I'm pretty sure we are in agreement that beliefs don't make something true or untrue.


Yup we agree on that.  Do you apply that to your beliefs? I do. Thats why I identify as Agnostic.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You didn't hail from Krypton!
> It is a real place, I read it in a book and the book said it is real. If you don't believe me I can show you a passage in the same book. ?





> I read it in a book and the book said it is real. If you don't believe me I can show you a passage in the same book.


But.............................ironically, that`s not why its real................

Now back to using up my new reload supplies I found. Not crazy about ballistic tips but that`s all I could find this go around.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> But.............................ironically, that`s not why its real................
> 
> Now back to using up my new reload supplies I found. Not crazy about ballistic tips but that`s all I could find this go around.


Don't go full Izzy..
Why is it "real"?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Don't go full Izzy..
> Why is it "real"?


It’s that “great phenomenon” that changes / transforms a man’s life. Not the type where a man has an emotional self check and just starts doing “better”, it’s a complete transformation where the old man dies. One can read the book all they want and believe all they want but until that phenomenon occurs it’ll never be “real” to them even though they can believe it’s real.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Where you added the for you in red -
> "I" dont have anything to do with it. The existence of God or gods has not been proven to be true and a fact by anybody.
> 
> 
> ...





> Where you added the for you in red


 that was supposed to emphasize the fact the you had not found it true.  That's all.



> The existence of God or gods has not been proven to be true and a fact by anybody.



Patently untrue.  It's accurate to say "The existence of God(s) has not been proven to be true *to me*."  Myself along with billions of others have found the existence of God to proven to be true, so you can't accurately make such a blanket statement.  This is the whole point of my original post regarding this.



> Its not an universal fact.



In what regard........that you don't accept it?  I mean, what is your definition for "universal" here?



> Its a belief.



Yes, but that's vague.  We already agree that beliefs don't establish facts.  Best case scenario:  beliefs reflect accurate interpretation of facts.



> Facts become facts because they are tested, proven, retested, re-proven,.......



If this is the case, any religion, any denomination, any set of beliefs fit this criteria if it's held by just a handful of people.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> It’s that “great phenomenon” that changes / transforms a man’s life. Not the type where a man has an emotional self check and just starts doing “better”, it’s a complete transformation where the old man dies. One can read the book all they want and believe all they want but until that phenomenon occurs it’ll never be “real” to them even though they can believe it’s real.


We both know those types of experiences happen in many religions and outside of many religions for reasons that vary as widely as the moments. I knew a hunter who killed more game than the next ten guys combined who had a super buck in his Xhairs and just said bang. He hunted that buck for a few years and when it all came together he couldn't pull the trigger. Never hunted again. He told me he had an epiphany, a moment in nature that changed him.
In a person's lifetime almost everyone has a life altering moment.
Where in any of that is a god specified?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> that was supposed to emphasize the fact the you had not found it true.  That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are making a great case that all the members of all the different religions are proof that all the gods they worship exist on equal ground.
Can you give examples that back up your claims about the existence of your god to be true?
We have established that you and others believe in a god. What factual evidence can you now provide that shows what you believe in exists?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> that was supposed to emphasize the fact the you had not found it true.  That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> It's accurate to say "The existence of God(s) has not been proven to be true *to me*."  Myself along with billions of others have found the existence of God to proven to be true, so you can't accurately make such a blanket statement.  This is the whole point of my original post regarding this.


You are under the false impression that because X number of people who believe something makes it a fact.
I'll point out again that MORE people DONT believe in the Christian God than do.
So if your criteria is X number of people = truth/facts then you lose.


> In what regard........that you don't accept it?  I mean, what is your definition for "universal" here?


Doesnt matter what I accept or dont accept. If the existence of a god has been proven to be fact, whether I accept it or not makes 0 difference. Have pointed this out in several different ways but you go right back to it.


> I mean, what is your definition for "universal" here?


Proven. Recognized world wide as fact.


> Best case scenario:  beliefs reflect accurate interpretation of facts.


Completely False.
Again, people believe alot of things that can NOT be proven to be true using facts.
I think we have taken this to its end. You keep repeating the same things, I keep showing you why they are not accurate and then you repeat them again.
You have just got to accept that you BELIEVE something that can not be proven to be a fact. Except to those who BELIEVE the same as you do.
I dont get why that seems to be unpalatable to you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You are making a great case that all the members of all the different religions are proof that all the gods they worship exist on equal ground.
> Can you give examples that back up your claims about the existence of your god to be true?
> We have established that you and others believe in a god. What factual evidence can you now provide that shows what you believe in exists?





> You are making a great case that all the members of all the different religions are proof that all the gods they worship exist on equal ground.


SFD doesnt see that. He is only applying it to what he believes and doesnt think it would also apply to other peoples beliefs.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You are making a great case that all the members of all the different religions are proof that all the gods they worship exist on equal ground.



Wrong.  



> that all the members of all the different religions are proof



Never said nor implied.  In fact, not even in the same ballpark as what is being discussed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD doesnt see that. He is only applying it to what he believes and doesnt think it would also apply to other peoples beliefs.



Y'all need to step back and re-read what I've typed without any pretense or attempt to paint me into a corner, because how you arrive at this:



> You are making a great case that all the members of all the different religions are proof that all the gods they worship exist on equal ground.


 from this:



> Facts become facts because they are tested, proven, retested, re-proven,.......



to which my reply was



> If this is the case, any religion, any denomination, any set of beliefs fit this criteria if it's held by just a handful of people.



is beyond me.  If anything I was arguing against your broad interpretation of "facts" and in direct contradiction to what Bullet surmised from the discussion, and to which you agreed with him.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Y'all need to step back and re-read what I've typed without any pretense or attempt to paint me into a corner, because how you arrive at this:
> 
> from this:
> 
> ...





> Y'all need to step back and re-read what I've typed without any pretense or attempt to paint me into a corner,


I think therein ^ lies the problem. You are convinced we are attempting to paint you into a corner. We dont need to. You'll never believe it but its your own words that do the painting. When we point that out, you are rearranging the words but saying the same things. Thats why I say things like -


> You keep repeating the same things, I keep showing you why they are not accurate and then you repeat them again.


This -


> You are making a great case that all the members of all the different religions are proof that all the gods they worship exist on equal ground.


Refers to the case you have made several times now that X number of people believe something is true so therefore its true and a fact. You dont seem to get that would also apply to other beliefs and religions. That would put all religions and all gods on equal ground.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2021)

> You are under the false impression that because X number of people who believe something makes it a fact.



Jeez Walt, how many time and in how many ways do I have to say that I don't hold to this.  I know I've said it at least 3 times in our discussion over the last couple of days.



WaltL1 said:


> I'll point out again that MORE people DONT believe in the Christian God than do.



I've already said we can leave my God out of this and have tried to do my best.  If you'll look back you're the one who keeps inserting "my God", not me.



> So if your criteria is X number of people = truth/facts then you lose.



Nope.  This:



> Facts become facts because they are tested, proven, retested, re-proven,.......



was your criteria, not mine.  I was simply pointing out that IFFFFFFF this is YOUR criteria for facts

1) It's very broad

2) Every belief held by even a handful of people fit's it and is therefore (according to your definition) a fact.



WaltL1 said:


> Doesnt matter what I accept or dont accept. If the existence of a god has been proven to be fact, whether I accept it or not makes 0 difference. Have pointed this out in several different ways but you go right back to it.



I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here. * AGAIN,* WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT ON THIS.  I'm not the one who keeps going back to it.  This horse is dead, rotted and the bones are bleached into a brilliant white.



WaltL1 said:


> Proven. Recognized world wide as fact.



Again.  What is 'world wide'?  The earth is 'proven' to be round, but depending on your definition of 'world wide' you can't say it's 'world wide' because there's a handful of flat earthers out there.




> Completely False



to



> Best case scenario: beliefs reflect accurate interpretation of facts.



Did  you miss the qualifier "Best case scenario"?  Because if you didn't, what's the point of this:



WaltL1 said:


> Again, people believe alot of things that can NOT be proven to be true using facts.
> I think we have taken this to its end. You keep repeating the same things, I keep showing you why they are not accurate and then you repeat them again.
> You have just got to accept that you BELIEVE something that can not be proven to be a fact. Except to those who BELIEVE the same as you do.
> I dont get why that seems to be unpalatable to you.


?

For the record, I feel it's a matter of you keep hearing the same thing, not me keep repeating the same thing.  This is what I believe and the entire point of me engaging in this discussion with you:  I believe in something that cannot or has not been proven to be a fact *TO YOU*.  It takes a lot of ego for me or anyone else to say that just because *I* don't find the facts that exists support *me* believing in X while billions of others do, that X doesn't exists.   I don't get why that seems unpalatable to you.  But I do agree it's probably time to put this one to bed.[/QUOTE]


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Jeez Walt, how many time and in how many ways do I have to say that I don't hold to this.  I know I've said it at least 3 times in our discussion over the last couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]
Last comment and perfect example -


> I believe in something that cannot or has not been proven to be a fact *TO YOU*.


I dont have anything to do with it. The existence of any god has not been proven to be a universal fact. They are beliefs.
You keep inserting  *TO YOU *in there.
Its not "to me". Mankind has a process for establishing what is a fact and what is a belief. The existence of gods does not meet the criteria to be called a fact.
Notice all your highlighted words - To You, I, me.
None of them matter. None of them means squat. They are a false argument. Your point is flawed. Its not accurate.
But yet again there they are.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2021)

Last comment and perfect example -

I dont have anything to do with it. The existence of any god has not been proven to be a universal fact. They are beliefs.
You keep inserting  *TO YOU *in there.
Its not "to me". Mankind has a process for establishing what is a fact and what is a belief. The existence of gods does not meet the criteria to be called a fact.
Notice all your highlighted words - To You, I, me.
None of them matter. None of them means squat. They are a false argument. Your point is flawed. Its not accurate.
But yet again there they are.[/QUOTE]

smh


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> We both know those types of experiences happen in many religions and outside of many religions for reasons that vary as widely as the moments. I knew a hunter who killed more game than the next ten guys combined who had a super buck in his Xhairs and just said bang. He hunted that buck for a few years and when it all came together he couldn't pull the trigger. Never hunted again. He told me he had an epiphany, a moment in nature that changed him.
> In a person's lifetime almost everyone has a life altering moment.
> Where in any of that is a god specified?



I can agree that life changing experiences happens in many religions and, even outside of religion. 


> He told me he had an epiphany, a moment in nature that changed him



Happens across the board. But not the experience I’m speaking of. 


> Where in any of that is a god specified?



Book of Acts.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can agree that life changing experiences happens in many religions and, even outside of religion.
> 
> 
> Happens across the board. But not the experience I’m speaking of.
> ...


It's as if It's my first day here and nobody is aware what my replies will be.....


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It's as if It's my first day here and nobody is aware what my replies will be.....



I don't think it hard to proceed from the place of necessity (and universality) when any consideration of Jesus Christ is entered. And that is (or He is) the full sum of all these discussions despite the dragging in of other religions/practices/observances as in "but others would also say..." because unless those others are here to speak for themselves...that's a big assumption/assertion as to what "others would say".

I haven't met a Sunni, a Shia, a Hindu, a Buddhist nor even a member of Judaism except from those links provided, entered as evidence for what _Jews say; _but none of whom have made themselves available to our discussion. In more legal terms their introduction would be hearsay...but here, where we "witness" to one another of our faith or lack thereof...we have only each other.

The matter is succinctly reduced, (is it not?)...to "not only is it maintained God is, but specifically that God to which Jesus Christ refers as Father". If that is not so, correct me, but if it is so, then let us clear the air of all other contentions and remain with that one. Sort of dispense with all "other" Gods/gods and instead remain where we really do seem to be remaining...with the God Jesus Christ calls God (and Father). And Jesus' words regarding His being and coming into the world.

I am not seeking to exclude any from the discussions but at least till another shows up "here" to speak for himself and what he may believe otherwise (by his religion, observances and practices), at least to this moment it appears there's a "yes Jesus" and a "no Jesus" (or as might be understood by some as a  "why Jesus?") camp.

In amongst all the things Jesus says is this "I have not come for the righteous but to call sinners to repentance" and "The physician comes not for the well, but for the sick". Therefore a house call, if it is made, or is being claimed to be made ...already places the one claiming its receiving it in a particular set...as one among the sinners and the sick. _If there be_ others than that, other than _sinners and sick,_ they should not expect to hear from Him. Nor should the _sinners and sick_ have any expectation that "those" others would (not sinner, not sick)...would.

But that "if" in "If there be others than that" that would ("if there be") seem to deny universality becomes questionable. "If" there is a man (or group) that has never crossed his/their conscience (or consciousness of right and wrong) in any way, and has always acted in full accord (never once failing) with what he approves as right, good, and true without any taint of failing these...well, do you see? Do you see why the apostle had no qualms about repeating "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"?

Who is the man (is there one? has there ever been one?) that is perfectly true and consistent in all things "moral" (both within and without himself) to absolutely never any failing or crossing of that "line"? Some claim "there would have to be a universality"...I would say...there it is. And be all the more bold to say...many cross it without even knowing it.

You have heard it said thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say to you if you even look upon a woman to lust after her... "

And you could say (and rightly so) "but you haven't met nor known all men (inside and out) from the beginning of time" and you would be right. I only know into what group "I fit". But also, we are not speaking here, in this small group of us in flux (where's Ambush, Drippin Rock, Atlas, Pnome, et al?) with all men...but we are speaking with the few known here as "one another".

I heard the call, got the "house call" from a physician, therefore I know de facto according to Jesus' words who and what I am. But the obverse can never be assumed, or at least shouldn't be, because it is not stated..."If I don't hear the call it must therefore mean I am not a sinner"...or have ever "fallen short anywhere or at any time".

The oil could be leaking for any length of time from the rear main seal long before the engine blows from lack of lubrication and one knows they are now in need of a mechanic.

But, thankfully (as I have mentioned relief of burden) I am not tasked with having to prove anything to anyone as to what I may regard the estate of their vehicle, just be honest about mine. And whom I have found dedicated to repair...for free.

Some know this experience:

These _things_ hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether _such an one_ as thyself: _but_ I will reprove thee, and set _them_ in order before thine eyes.

When the time came for the setting in order...which manifest as "broke down on the side of the road" smoke pouring from hood and exhaust...such experience I will not deny; nor the grace found by the one who provoked a call (which at the time seemed all of my initiation) but was _all in origin a call made by another_.

This cannot make sense to any and all, nor could I expect it to, to those cruising by shaking their heads at the poor fool in such a fix. I have been made to believe, cannot escape my need to believe, the very necessity of such believing that in such a state...there is yet help. At the very point at which all else fails to my carrying, blown beyond now "just add a little water and be on your way" or "add few quarts of oil from the trunk and start it back up"...where all hopelessness seemed to reign in being pinned to immobility...for it was all of "my own" mobility that has brought me here, I also cannot deny...but there...another arrives.

O! but who could or would "want to" even _hope to arrange_ such a meeting under such circumstances...for themselves"?  God knows men cannot, would not, could not...ever seek such circumstance "for themselves". Nor even be able to arrange it.


I am the one who denies...He the one who alone affirms.


But Lord, I don' see how I can fit in your vehicle, it appears only built for one... you sure it's OK to leave that smoking hulk on the road?

Oh, yes, it's perfect as a lesson for others...in all its too plain imperfections.

You, come with me.

Let the others see and cluck as they go by thinking nothing...just as you did, of the growing stain beneath the oil pan.


I am not ashamed of my breakdown nor my confession to its obviousness, (as most can already plainly see in me)...all perfectly speaking of all my imperfections...because it is where and how I met Him. And continue. All the imperfect in absolute need of the perfect.

Happy is the man to whom the Lord imputes no shame for being such a lousy mechanic.

If there be others...perfect in all their ways...feel free to say.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It's as if It's my first day here and nobody is aware what my replies will be.....


We’ve skint this cat many times lol


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2021)

Israel said:


> I don't think it hard to proceed from the place of necessity (and universality) when any consideration of Jesus Christ is entered. And that is (or He is) the full sum of all these discussions despite the dragging in of other religions/practices/observances as in "but others would also say..." because unless those others are here to speak for themselves...that's a big assumption/assertion as to what "others would say".
> 
> I haven't met a Sunni, a Shia, a Hindu, a Buddhist nor even a member of Judaism except from those links provided, entered as evidence for what _Jews say; _but none of whom have made themselves available to our discussion. In more legal terms their introduction would be hearsay...but here, where we "witness" to one another of our faith or lack thereof...we have only each other.
> 
> ...


So, spiritually for eternity, at what conditions of the mind and body does a person spend eternity in?

Does a premature baby have the capability of a healthy 25yr old and the knowledge of a 65yr old?
Does a person who is 45 but looks and feels a hard 80 due to abusing the substances get a youth makeover?
What about disabilities,  defects natural aging ,dimentia  etc etc etc?

You again assert an oil stain and that I and others cannot see it yet the bottoms of your feet are clean. You expect me to believe that Toyota makes a Prius with Buick 455 in it and it is your daily driver. You stand in front of your open garage door pointing at it with joy and are baffled why everyone else sees a Huffy with 2 flat tires surrounded by leftover yard sale remnants. There is no oil spot because you have not shown us an engine because there is no car.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> We’ve skint this cat many times lol


I always have a sharp knife waiting for someone to finally bring the cat.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I always have a sharp knife waiting for someone to finally bring the cat.


Hey now! I like cats.
Used to hate them due to their dont give a crap attitude.
Now I like them for that exact same reason.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey now! I like cats.
> Used to hate them due to their dont give a crap attitude.
> Now I like them for that exact same reason.


If there is a god he created cats as natural ballistic gelatin.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If there is a god he created cats as natural ballistic gelatin.



Oh yeah, you are definitely going to the hot place down below for that one.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh yeah, you are definitely going to the hot place down below for that one.


I'll spend Eternity at the end of a stick and string being dangled in front of hairless Egyptian cats.


----------



## ky55 (Aug 12, 2021)

Thou shalt be the only scratching post and scent marking post for all felines since the beginning of time. 
?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2021)

ky55 said:


> Thou shalt be the only scratching post and scent marking post for all felines since the beginning of time.
> ?


Probably in a speedo full of catnip!
I am sure me in a speedo will be someone else's eternal punishment.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Probably in a speedo full of catnip!
> I am sure me in a speedo will be someone else's eternal punishment.


Please DON”T, do not, never, ever post a pic of that lol


----------



## ky55 (Aug 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Please DON”T, do not, never, ever post a pic of that lol



You ever think that might be your eternal punishment for denying that other god all your life?
The real and genuine ONE God?
It would be hard to imagine, but you just might have a much worse eternal punishment and misery in store for you.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Please DON”T, do not, never, ever post a pic of that lol


You better be good for goodness sake or we may end up in the same eternal litterbox. What a view you'll have!


----------



## Israel (Aug 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So, spiritually for eternity, at what conditions of the mind and body does a person spend eternity in?
> 
> Does a premature baby have the capability of a healthy 25yr old and the knowledge of a 65yr old?
> Does a person who is 45 but looks and feels a hard 80 due to abusing the substances get a youth makeover?
> ...


Hey, a Huffy will work as an illustration also. It's as fitting as chariots and horses...whatever "power" one is trusting in to get around and get through.


----------



## Israel (Aug 13, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey now! I like cats.
> Used to hate them due to their dont give a crap attitude.
> Now I like them for that exact same reason.


Ya ever have a cat that was actually affectionate?

I know it's a rare thing and my experience with cats and regard of them seems not much different than yours, having mostly been a dog kinda guy.

Then we found this lap dog.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2021)

Israel said:


> Ya ever have a cat that was actually affectionate?
> 
> I know it's a rare thing and my experience with cats and regard of them seems not much different than yours, having mostly been a dog kinda guy.
> 
> Then we found this lap dog.


I have a cat now. Showed up at the house as a little kitten. Found her half dead trying to get a few drops of water from a dripping outside faucet. That was 3 years ago.
She's affectionate but on her own terms. Doesnt like to be picked up, occasionally will jump up onto my lap. Shows "affection" by always wanting to be in the same room, sitting close but not too close. Does love to be combed.  Also loves head scratches.
Once I learned to redefine "affection" I came to recognize what showing affection was in her opinion instead of mine.
Looks similar to your cat. Solid grey with a white beard (throat).


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2021)

Israel said:


> Hey, a Huffy will work as an illustration also. It's as fitting as chariots and horses...whatever "power" one is trusting in to get around and get through.


Yeah, a Huffy with flat tires (as described above) is fitting of that power.
Are there pedal bikes in eternity or does everyone get small motors on them compliments of the house?


----------



## Israel (Aug 14, 2021)

So also _is_ the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam _was made_ a quickening spirit. Howbeit that _was_ not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man _is_ of the earth, earthy: the second man _is_ the Lord from heaven. As _is_ the earthy, such _are_ they also that are earthy: and as _is_ the heavenly, such _are_ they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.


Recognizing the weakness of all earthly and earthy power is a gift. The Huffy might be a man's cleverness, his intelligence, his wealth in $$$, his position, estate, his religion, his practices; any and all those things by self approval he finds commendable to himself to get along and get through. Even his _own sufferings_ when counted as having some significance. All those things the soul looks to for its own sustaining that it eats, consumes, in plans and vain hopes of some triumph over futility assigned to this temporal creation...this thing over which time is allowed its final say.

Christ alone is the trust, the gift that even allows the seeing that all else is passing away and is therefore to him _as good as_ passed away. Done. Concluded. Finished. Its dying motions may speak of a furious vitality as a headless chicken flaps vigorously, but so briefly, around the barn yard.

And all the laws of thermodynamics are themselves subject to futility by Him who subjected it in hope. Such only speak of what may be expected in an isolated system but can never answer to whom, or by whom, such is made isolated.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

Not a one of us has given ourselves an interest in eternal matters any more than any one of us could open our own eyes to the futility of temporal matters.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2021)

Israel said:


> So also _is_ the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam _was made_ a quickening spirit. Howbeit that _was_ not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man _is_ of the earth, earthy: the second man _is_ the Lord from heaven. As _is_ the earthy, such _are_ they also that are earthy: and as _is_ the heavenly, such _are_ they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
> 
> 
> Recognizing the weakness of all earthly and earthy power is a gift. The Huffy might be a man's cleverness, his intelligence, his wealth in $$$, his position, estate, his religion, his practices; any and all those things by self approval he finds commendable to himself to get along and get through. Even his _own sufferings_ when counted as having some significance. All those things the soul looks to for its own sustaining that it eats, consumes, in plans and vain hopes of some triumph over futility assigned to this temporal creation...this thing over which time is allowed its final say.
> ...





Israel said:


> Not a one of us has given ourselves an interest in eternal matters any more than any one of us could open our own eyes to the futility of temporal matters.



The product doesn't meet the advertisement.
That is too much eyes wide open and self given eternal and temporal interest to then claim a non interest.


----------



## Israel (Aug 14, 2021)

That's a good point.
The "learning curve" of living out the eternal in time. But you will see I have never denied there is one.

Time for learning.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2021)

Israel said:


> That's a good point.
> The "learning curve" of living out the eternal in time. But you will see I have never denied there is one.
> 
> Time for learning.


Never denying isn't the issue.
Constantly asserting you know about Eternity,  God, Jesus, ...the "Eternity is", "God wants", "Jesus thinks" is where the line is crossed.
It would be different if you could back it up.
I want you to be able to back it up.
But there is never even an attempt.


----------



## Israel (Aug 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Never denying isn't the issue.
> Constantly asserting you know about Eternity,  God, Jesus, ...the "Eternity is", "God wants", "Jesus thinks" is where the line is crossed.
> It would be different if you could back it up.
> I want you to be able to back it up.
> But there is never even an attempt.





> It would be different if you could back it up.



What exactly would be different?

I don't harbor any illusions that if I presented anything to an excelling I have not achieved, with you or any other, that anything would be different. Or that if somehow _I had_ more than _I have, _I could make any effectual change or difference.

Firstly, I do not have more than I have, nor could I. But what I do have is a relief from that tumult of striving to justify being in the world as I am. And yes, there was a learning curve there of to whom and what (if there be any owing)...where it is rightly owed. I could bore you far more than I already have with recounting those lessons...though to me they are precious and mark a patience I once sold so short. 

Perhaps some lay in being made able to behold myself in those times where I too stood as though with hands on hips saying "Well, I'm still not convinced". Little did I know of how much self convincing had to be seen as opposition and conquered by a stronger before I could be made ready to receive persuasion of another. I don't think I have misrepresented, nor sought to except as might be inferred, that I know myself as one made thus, or might take their stand upon being one _more compliant._

I have been forced along the way...even as in those matters to which I seemed so easily to approve. As mentioned elsewhere and previously as attributed to CS Lewis regarding matters of approval:

"Everyone thinks forgiveness is a fine idea until there's something to forgive"

I have only learned by assertion. And what I may have thought I had in form of explanation only came later as consequence. That's why I am not at all deterred by any seeming accusation (for it is correct...but whether it is accusation or just statement of view is to me, moot) of only having assertions; for this is all I have been given to work with. The proving of them, as no less the consequences for them, are entirely beyond my purview. 

You see, I am entirely convinced (as entirely as I know anything) of consequence.
Nothing is without significance or meaning to a consequence. Nothing escapes them...consequences. Call them judgments if you care to...and I well understand that to many (even among my brothers) such words as consequences and judgments may hold a negative connotation. For me, they do not.

In speaking of Jesus Christ is this made:



> For this _man_ was _counted worthy_ of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.



"counted worthy" is to be adjudged so. 

Therefore though the more common form of judgment is more often inferred by most as a determining of lack or fault as in "he was judged for that"...with common inference it is a "negative" thing, it is not at all correct. 

And if it seems I am being obtuse to you, so be it. I need God's judgment, not as though I can escape it; but I have learned it is a far more pleasant place to desire a thing inescapable than to be tormented by it. But I have had to let go of a thing I was once so self convinced of, the judgments of man accounting for anything. Especially my own. Particularly my own.

So, yes, you will get little from me (and may God see to its preserving) than the assertion that Jesus is Lord in as many myriad form it may take in responses.


This establishing took place in God entirely apart from my consultation, agreement or approval, and where once I thought necessary explanation by demand, I too had to be frustrated...in order to be dissuaded from false inferences. This immeasurable gift of being allowed...to agree...has held and continues to hold in its grace far more than all of man's accolades can add to, or his opprobrium detract from.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2021)

Israel said:


> What exactly would be different?
> 
> I don't harbor any illusions that if I presented anything to an excelling I have not achieved, with you or any other, that anything would be different. Or that if somehow _I had_ more than _I have, _I could make any effectual change or difference.
> 
> ...


?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> ...how will Christianity respond?


Phew! We were right.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2021)

660griz said:


> Phew! We were right.


Hey Griz, how you doin?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey Griz, how you doin?


Pretty good. Living the dream. How are yall doing? Working from home for over a year cause of COVID and seem to work more than when I was in the office. I have missed the stimulating conversations.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 24, 2021)

addressing the thread title "when the Messiah returns" here is something that will really make you think:

three years ago my wife had a complete psychotic break - she had to be involuntarily committed to the psych ward for a month. Anyway in the early stages of her breakdown she was getting up out of bed every five minutes or so and going into the rest of the house, then returning to bed. She would toss & turn, trying to sleep, then get out of bed and returning in a minute or so.

I asked her what she was doing, and she said she was checking to see if the refrigerator was still working.   I asked her why it_ wouldn't_ be working and she said that "Jesus was returning to earth" and when he did he was going to shut down the power grid. 

I'm not a biblical scholar but I don't remember hearing about that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

oldfella1962 said:


> addressing the thread title "when the Messiah returns" here is something that will really make you think:
> 
> three years ago my wife had a complete psychotic break - she had to be involuntarily committed to the psych ward for a month. Anyway in the early stages of her breakdown she was getting up out of bed every five minutes or so and going into the rest of the house, then returning to bed. She would toss & turn, trying to sleep, then get out of bed and returning in a minute or so.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing.
It seems that in her mind she had information given to her through an experience, a visit by Jesus, or as a result of her own mind convincing herself it was something legitimate and real.
Others who have had similar yet different experiences would scoff at your wife's power grid shutdown scenario as being unrealistic and non biblical while they tout their own as being real.
The mind is powerful.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Thanks for sharing.
> It seems that in her mind she had information given to her through an experience, a visit by Jesus, or as a result of her own mind convincing herself it was something legitimate and real.
> Others who have had similar yet different experiences would scoff at your wife's power grid shutdown scenario as being unrealistic and non biblical while they tout their own as being real.
> The mind is powerful.



The mind is powerful but_ incredibly _complicated and thus fragile at times. It's really a small miracle that we aren't all insane homicidal maniacs or drooling idiots. Some amazingly talented, intelligent people sometimes flip out or turn out to be evil & diabolical beasts. 

As for Jesus returning and taking out the power grid ( I wouldn't put it past him) I can just imagine somebody screaming at Jesus "OH COME ON! Really dude, right NOW? I just got back from COSTCO and stocked my freezer!"


----------

