# What makes YOU a Christian?



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

All these Hitler references got me to thinking about what makes a person a Christian. What are the qualifications? Are there "minimum qualifications" and who meets them? Please be honest and state the things that qualify YOU as being a Christian.

If you dare, please then compare them to what you are certain about Hitler's Christianity. Please post any references used to verify any claims made for or against.


----------



## Four (Apr 12, 2012)

Bonus points for identifying things that make othere self professed Christians fakers, bonus bonus points for pointing out other Christians in the thread


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 12, 2012)

I almost started a thread like this.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hitler's Christianity.



Now, there's a book title I'd like to see.  

Wait a minute!  Not a book.  A musical!!!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Now, there's a book title I'd like to see.
> 
> Wait a minute!  Not a book.  A musical!!!



I didn't ask for musicals or books. Step up and share your qualifications. If you want to compare them to what you know about Hitler...be my guest.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

four said:


> bonus points for identifying things that make othere self professed christians fakers, bonus bonus points for pointing out other christians in the thread



+1
+2


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I almost started a thread like this.



Evil sinister anti-christ types must think alike!


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I didn't ask for musicals or books.



Killjoy.




bullethead said:


> Step up and share your qualifications.



Later.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All these Hitler references got me to thinking about what makes a person a Christian. What are the qualifications? Are there "minimum qualifications" and who meets them? Please be honest and state the things that qualify YOU as being a Christian.


My relationship with Jesus Christ.



> If you dare, please then compare them to what you are certain about Hitler's Christianity. Please post any references used to verify any claims made for or against.


Mathew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


----------



## Four (Apr 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> My relationship with Jesus Christ.



What specifically. If i say, never read the bible but claim to have a personal relationship with jesus, would you consider me a christian?



stringmusic said:


> Mathew 7:12
> So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.



So if i adhere to the golden rule, i'm christian?

Not trying to be aggressive, just looking to pin ya down


----------



## fatback (Apr 12, 2012)

I don't believe it is truly possibly to know about anybody else's christanity due to the fact that is based on a person personal relationship with Christ and there is no way to know what is in another person's heart. As for me, in the most basic form what makes me a Christian is that I believe Jesus is who he says he is and I believe he did what he said he did. Hope this helps.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 12, 2012)

Four said:


> What specifically. If i say, never read the bible but claim to have a personal relationship with jesus, would you consider me a christian?


I suppose, do you want to read the bible? Do you have a desire to follow Christs' teachings? Do you pray to God for discernment? Do you ask your heavenly Father to guide you in your everyday life? Hypothetically.





> So if i adhere to the golden rule, i'm christian?


No, but if you don't adhere to the golden rule, and don't care too, and still claim to have a relationship with Christ, I might question your claim.



> Not trying to be aggressive, just looking to pin ya down


It's all good, I enjoy your post and our conversations, you keep me on my toes and thinking, you'll probably have me pinned to the mat for the three count soon.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Evil sinister anti-christ types must think alike!



I don't believe you will get the responses you are looking for. I sense most will do as string did and this thread will die quickly.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I don't believe you will get the responses you are looking for. I sense most will *do as string did* and this thread will die quickly.



Answer the question?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 12, 2012)

fatback said:


> I don't believe it is truly possibly to know about anybody else's christanity due to the fact that is based on a person personal relationship with Christ and there is no way to know what is in another person's heart. As for me, in the most basic form what makes me a Christian is that I believe Jesus is who he says he is and I believe he did what he said he did. Hope this helps.



I agree with you to a point. 1 John give us a small look into what a person following Christ should be doing, allowing other Christians to help in your walk with Him. But you're right, to _truely know _is probably not possible, but certian trees produce certian fruit.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 12, 2012)

*Re:*

The miminum qualifications are to live your life in Christ. It is Christ who meets them and He is sufficient. Nothing qualifies me except Christ Himself and faith in Him.

But there are things evident in the life of a true Christian not in any particular order:

1) Repentance - turn away from my way to the way of Christ
2) Trust - Belief means trust. Trust in Christ and His way always.
3) Love - God more than anything else and do you very best to love man unconditionally in hopes that they might also repent.
4) Acceptance - of God's Grace as payment for your sin.
5) Submission - to the Will of the King (Christ) in my life.
6) Humility - the willingness to fall on your knees before God and make Him ruler of your life every day. 

You know Christians by their fruit as they say which is nothing more than the following attributes(Fruits of the Spirit references God's Spirit working in man) contained in this scripture.

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23  gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 

That's my best description and I don't think it's that difficult for anyone to understand. Hope it helps you!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I don't believe you will get the responses you are looking for. I sense most will do as string did and this thread will die quickly.



Precisely.

On one hand I do appreciate String's honesty and the fact that he is willing to post what makes him a Christian.
One the other hand, there was nothing said in that post that keeps Hitler from being a Christian.

I am not looking for any specific responses. But I have a feeling the silence will be deafening. I would honestly love to hear what makes them a Christian and why it separates them from others(like Hitler) that also claim to be Christians.

I suspect many will give replies to what makes them a Christian but few will compare themselves against others, including Hitler.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

formula1 said:


> The miminum qualifications are to live your life in Christ. It is Christ who meets them and He is sufficient. Nothing qualifies me except Christ Himself and faith in Him.
> 
> But there are things evident in the life of a true Christian not in any particular order:
> 
> ...




Thank You! Much appreciated.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

fatback said:


> I don't believe it is truly possibly to know about anybody else's christanity due to the fact that is based on a person personal relationship with Christ and there is no way to know what is in another person's heart. As for me, in the most basic form what makes me a Christian is that I believe Jesus is who he says he is and I believe he did what he said he did. Hope this helps.



Simple and to the point! Thank you.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Precisely.
> 
> On one hand I do appreciate String's honesty and the fact that he is willing to post what makes him a Christian.
> One the other hand, *there was nothing said in that post that keeps Hitler from being a Christian.*


You think Hitler wanted to be put in a gas chamber?



stringmusic said:


> Mathew 7:12
> So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You think Hitler wanted to be put in a gas chamber?



Do you think he had a relationship with Christ?
It is not a matter of what I think. Based on the qualifications I have seen presented here so far and some research I have found about Hitler's Christianity, he is a shoe in so far.
I'm looking to see if anyone can present any verifiable info that shows differently.

Weren't you the guy that said something about not being judgmental for a few instances but as a whole? So far 'Dolph is running 50/50 by your standards


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you dare, please then compare them to what you are certain about Hitler's Christianity. Please post any references used to verify any claims made for or against.



I don't know what else I can say that I haven't already said in the other Hitler thread, but here goes.  After one failed attempt on his life, Hitler's Christianity allowed him to have some of the conspirators strangled slowly with piano wire.  His Christianity also inspired him to film the executions so he could watch them at his leisure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2443017...e/t/last-member-failed-plot-kill-hitler-dies/

That's one point where Hitler's Christianity differs from my own.  Sure, I've strangled people with piano wire, but I never _filmed_ it.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Apr 12, 2012)

Great job formula 1, I was going to start talking about repentance being a change of heart. Surrendering one's will to do the Lord God's will. As one pastor put it years ago, a 180 degree turn from the road of sin to the highway of righteousness.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't know what else I can say that I haven't already said in the other Hitler thread, but here goes.  After one failed attempt on his life, Hitler's Christianity allowed him to have some of the conspirators strangled slowly with piano wire.  His Christianity also inspired him to film the executions so he could watch them at his leisure.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2443017...e/t/last-member-failed-plot-kill-hitler-dies/
> 
> That's one point where Hitler's Christianity differs from my own.  Sure, I've strangled people with piano wire, but I never _filmed_ it.




Now now now, we can't go pointing fingers at Christians that kill, torture and maim. That would exclude many people over the last few thousand years. What can you tell me about his religious practices(compared to yours), if he repented in his last moments...etc. ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Now now now, we can't go pointing fingers at Christians that kill, torture and maim. That would exclude many people over the last few thousand years.



Yes, it would.  If the shoe fits ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, it would.  If the shoe fits ...





bullethead said:


> What can you tell me about his religious practices(compared to yours), if he repented in his last moments...etc. ?



Not sure if you missed this part of my post or if you are ignoring it because you don't have an answer...


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ... or if you are ignoring it because you don't have an answer...



I can assure you it's not that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What can you tell me about his religious practices(compared to yours), if he repented in his last moments...etc. ?



What religious practices would those be?  Being baptized as an infant?  Serving as an altar boy?  Using Christian terminology in his anti-Semitic autobiography?  That's about the extent of them.

As for repentance, it's not just a matter of uttering a few words in your last breath.  This is what John the Baptist said in Matthew 3:


_But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: _


I would put Hitler in the same boat as the P&S.  Hitler would have to show a lot of "fruit" to demonstrate his repentance was sincere.  Based on what he had done, I don't see how that's possible.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 12, 2012)

What makes a Christian? hmmm... Those who have given up trying to be good enough, and rested fully in the belief that "it is finished"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> What religious practices would those be?  Being baptized as an infant?  Serving as an altar boy?  Using Christian terminology in his anti-Semitic autobiography?  That's about the extent of them.
> 
> As for repentance, it's not just a matter of uttering a few words in your last breath.  This is what John the Baptist said in Matthew 3:
> 
> ...



I agree with your thoughts and I can see why you think along those lines but what references do you have that say he did religious wise or what words were uttered when?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 12, 2012)

I agree with F1 on this one.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 12, 2012)

I think String was onto something....Christian, by basic definition, would be follower of Christ.  This would include teachings and examples.

Hitler, by killing millions of people, would probably fall outside that definition.

Remember, it was not Jesus who led the crusades, or killed witches, or burned jews.  These things may have been done in his name, but one might refer to the gospels to see how it would deviate from the life of Jesus.  John 8 is a particularly good example of how Jesus interacts with humanity, and sets an example.

So, if you can give me a decent apples to apples between the life work of Hitler compared to the lifework of Jesus, then there may be something to discuss.

I can call myself an eskimo all day long, but I am not.


----------



## Slayer (Apr 12, 2012)

my Faith !!!!!!


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 12, 2012)

I am assuming this is an invitation for us Christians to comment in your non believers section...
 To answer your question I personally believe one must be born again..or baptised in the fire of the Holy Spirit to be a Christian. I was twelve years old when this happened to me. It was the most spiritual experience anyone could ever have. I went from being lost and troubled...feeling downright awful and incomplete....praying for God to save me and He did. I came up from an old fashioned altar in revival that night and looked around at the most beautiful people I've ever seen...everything in the church shined new and I knew from that point there was a change made.... I was a baby Christian. God has dwelled inside of me ever since...and yes I went through a rebellious period in my twenties and shunned him, but He started calling me back to Him...started whipping me pretty good for not listening, and I finally broke down and got back in line, and how great a life it has been ever since.
 I feel his presence...Ive seen his Angels, I hear his voice. When I'm in the presence of another born again Christian we talk about the Lord and a connection is made...we share a common spirit that moves between my heart and theirs, and when we gather together to praise God the spirit flows among us to the point you feel you will explode...ohhh and to see those lost people come in and fall on their knee's and get saved is oh such a feeling.Because of these things I consider myself and anyone that can testify to these things a Christian....Its more than just saying so!

Its being so!....I know you think I'm a nut, but I'm screwed on the right bolt and I know what awaits me after this pitiful place here.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I think String was onto something....Christian, by basic definition, would be follower of Christ.  This would include teachings and examples.
> 
> Hitler, by killing millions of people, would probably fall outside that definition.
> 
> ...



No ONE is comparing Hitler and Jesus so where is that coming from???? The lifework of each????? Your way off base on this one JB and that surprises me.
So like Hitler the people involved in the Crusades could not be Christians????


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I am assuming this is an invitation for us Christians to comment in your non believers section...
> To answer your question I personally believe one must be born again..or baptised in the fire of the Holy Spirit to be a Christian. I was twelve years old when this happened to me. It was the most spiritual experience anyone could ever have. I went from being lost and troubled...feeling downright awful and incomplete....praying for God to save me and He did. I came up from an old fashioned altar in revival that night and looked around at the most beautiful people I've ever seen...everything in the church shined new and I knew from that point there was a change made.... I was a baby Christian. God has dwelled inside of me ever since...and yes I went through a rebellious period in my twenties and shunned him, but He started calling me back to Him...started whipping me pretty good for not listening, and I finally broke down and got back in line, and how great a life it has been ever since.
> I feel his presence...Ive seen his Angels, I hear his voice. When I'm in the presence of another born again Christian we talk about the Lord and a connection is made...we share a common spirit that moves between my heart and theirs, and when we gather together to praise God the spirit flows among us to the point you feel you will explode...ohhh and to see those lost people come in and fall on their knee's and get saved is oh such a feeling.Because of these things I consider myself and anyone that can testify to these things a Christian....Its more than just saying so!
> 
> Its being so!....I know you think I'm a nut, but I'm screwed on the right bolt and I know what awaits me after this pitiful place here.




I am getting some excellent replies here, keep up the good work.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am getting some excellent replies here, keep up the good work.



Oh Thanks and by the way. I don't believe there will be any atheists in He double hockey sticks.


----------



## buckarcher (Apr 12, 2012)

*What makes me a Chirstian?*

The Gospels state that you will be known by the fruit you bear. God looks at the heart of a man. We are told that His spirit and word are able to discern the intents of our hearts. His sheep know his vioce and follow him. I find that I struggle daily with many of the logical human questions that you have mentioned in earlier threads. The Bible also tells me that without faith it is impossible to please God. I also believe that faith itself must come from God. I know from life itself that the contents of the heart will manifest itself.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No ONE is comparing Hitler and Jesus so where is that coming from???? The lifework of each????? Your way off base on this one JB and that surprises me..



In the OP, you asked this question:



bullethead said:


> If you dare, please then compare them to what you are certain about Hitler's Christianity. Please post any references used to verify any claims made for or against.



My response was that basic Christianity would be to follow Christ's teachings.  That's the basic premise of being a Christian.

Then, I compared what I know of Jesus, and his teachings, to what I know of Hitler and his actions.  The two do not line up.  

Maybe I am not communicating this well, but I thought I was directly answering the OP.



bullethead said:


> So like Hitler the people involved in the Crusades could not be Christians????



According to my perspective, which is that one should attempt to follow Jesus in order to be a Christian, then murdering and participating in "Holy wars" would be "un-Christian" by definition.

I am not the judge of anybody, so I can stick with the facts of the actions, and cross reference with the things I know were taught.  For example, killing somebody with piano string is not "turning the other cheek."  In fact, it would be the opposite.

Hope that cleared it up.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2012)

What makes YOU a Christian?

If by "Christian" you are referring to those who are born again, my answer is God.

"And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." (Luke 18:27) 

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:4-6)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> In the OP, you asked this question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> If you dare, please then compare them to what you are certain about Hitler's Christianity. Please post any references used to verify any claims made for or against.



This question was to compare what qualifications each individual gives for them self and what they know about Hitler's Christian qualifications.

For the people that use Hitler as their ultimate anti-christian, I am interested in what they actually have researched on the subject. Yes we all know the atrocities that he was responsible for during the war. Does anyone here know for sure if he was praying intensely during those times too? Was he convinced Jesus was with him in these decisions? If Hitler never got to the level of power that he did, would he have met most of the criteria posted here to be considered a Christian? I know we have our opinions about it but has anyone done any homework of Hitler's religious beliefs?

What I am finding interesting in this thread so far is all the different answers that are being given as to what makes that person a Christian or what they think makes a Christian a Christian.  Are all the Christians nodding in agreement or has anyone read something that they don't agree with another Christian posting yet? Are these qualifications followed to the "T" by the posters? What deep dark secrets are not told or overlooked in order to still qualify oneself?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ... what references do you have that say he did religious wise or what words were uttered when?



You supplied them.  See your first post here:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=611808


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What I am finding interesting in this thread so far is all the different answers that are being given as to what makes that person a Christian or what they think makes a Christian a Christian.



I thought that was the point of this thread.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You supplied them.  See your first post here:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=611808



Yes. And it substantiates that at least in his mind he WAS a Christian!
Are you saying well yes, up until he decided to kill 6 million Jews and everyone else during his reign, that he would have made a model Christian??


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I thought that was the point of this thread.



Darn right it is.

It is after I compile these answers is when I'll have some more questions. Don't get me wrong I am not "baiting" anyone. I'll just have some more questions to ask.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2012)

buckarcher said:


> The Gospels state that you will be known by the fruit you bear. The Bible also tells me that without faith it is impossible to please God. I also believe that faith itself must come from God.



I would say #1 is believing that Jesus died for your sins. But there are some works involved too, such as being know by the fruit you bear. Faith does play a big part of being a Christian. I believe a measure of faith comes from God. All men are given this measure of faith to get you started. Then you are on your on to develop your own faith otherwise Jesus wouldn't have said:
    Matthew 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched out [His] hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

    Luke 17:6 So the Lord said, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, `Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you."

    Mark 4:40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith? (KJV)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 12, 2012)

Interesting to ponder over post. Even my own in view of other scriptures. I think about those who sincerely believed they were right but he responded, "depart from me for I never knew you". I suspect that most here would say they "have a relationship". Makes me wonder what constitutes a relationship. Before anyone answers" because I read my bible every day, or because I do this or that", let me just say, doing is the wrong answer. Sure, it has an effect, As Paul says "By the grace of God, I am what I am, and his grace was not without effect" [NIV], but we have to distingiush between "works" and "effect". Another thing to ponder; What did Jesus teach? Is that what we see taught today? Jesus taught "the Kingdom of God". Does it differ?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting to ponder over post. Even my own in view of other scriptures. I think about those who sincerely believed they were right but he responded, "depart from me for I never knew you". I suspect that most here would say they "have a relationship". Makes me wonder what constitutes a relationship. Before anyone answers" because I read my bible every day, or because I do this or that", let me just say, doing is the wrong answer. Sure, it has an effect, As Paul says "By the grace of God, I am what I am, and his grace was not without effect" [NIV], but we have to distingiush between "works" and "effect". Another thing to ponder; What did Jesus teach? Is that what we see taught today? Jesus taught "the Kingdom of God". Does it differ?


I do think you are on to something here. To be a true Christian requires a lot. It might be different requirements for me that for you. It sure ain't what the Pharisees and Sadducees did. Actions speak louder than words. It's a way of life.  It's like Weight Watchers, it's more than a diet, it's a life style.


----------



## Four (Apr 13, 2012)

I wish we had more Christians besides protestants here


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> This question was to compare what qualifications each individual gives for them self and what they know about Hitler's Christian qualifications.



Ok.  For myself, the definition of Christian would be a follower of the teachings of Christ.  That's kind-of where I was going with my response, because that is the comparison.

Here is the definition I just googled:


> Christian: A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.





bullethead said:


> Yes we all know the atrocities that he was responsible for during the war. Does anyone here know for sure if he was praying intensely during those times too? Was he convinced Jesus was with him in these decisions?



I prayed intensley over a lottery ticket last week.  That alone would not make me a Christian.  Again, there is a technical definition of the word, it is not an abstract concept.  



bullethead said:


> If Hitler never got to the level of power that he did, would he have met most of the criteria posted here to be considered a Christian? I know we have our opinions about it but has anyone done any homework of Hitler's religious beliefs?



I do not know much about the man outside what I learned on the history chanel.   So, I don't know much of his religious beliefs.

In the NT there is a concept that actions let you know where a person's heart is (book of James, can give specifics if needed).   I do not see how an individual could believe Jesus would endorse such actions as Hitler committed.  If they do believe that, then their reading comprehension is lacking severely, or they are insane.  



bullethead said:


> What deep dark secrets are not told or overlooked in order to still qualify oneself?



You don't qualify yourself.  You choose to believe, then follow the examples and teachings.  It's not a secret, it's there for all to read.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.
> You don't qualify yourself.  You choose to believe, then follow the examples and teachings.  It's not a secret, it's there for all to read.



EXACTLY
Now we are starting to get somewhere.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2012)

Here is a good book that I am actually currently listening to. I bought it on iTunes, if I knew how to put it on here, I would post it so anyone that wanted to could listen to it. So, if anybody knows how to do it, let me know!

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog...ligious-Figures/The-Lamb-and-the-Fuhrer/22540


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do think you are on to something here. To be a true Christian requires a lot. It might be different requirements for me that for you. It sure ain't what the Pharisees and Sadducees did. Actions speak louder than words. It's a way of life.  It's like Weight Watchers, it's more than a diet, it's a life style.


I did not mean to imply that it was requires anything other than faith. From that point on, it's his work in us since I am a new creation, not of my own work, for I have rested from my work and commit myself to his work in me. It has it's effect on us, not that it requires something. Makes me think "more straw, increase the quota, make more bricks"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Here is a good book that I am actually currently listening to. I bought it on iTunes, if I knew how to put it on here, I would post it so anyone that wanted to could listen to it. So, if anybody knows how to do it, let me know!
> 
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog...ligious-Figures/The-Lamb-and-the-Fuhrer/22540



Jesus talks with Hitler










One man's made up totally fabricated 3rd person works. It sounds eerily familiar.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 13, 2012)

Four said:


> I wish we had more Christians besides protestants here



What am I, chopped liver?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Jesus talks with Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes Bullet, Jesus and Hilter were not on this earth at the same time, so it would have to be an imaginary conversation, good catch!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes Bullet, Jesus and Hilter were not alive at the same time, so it would have to be an imaginary conversation, good catch!



I am sharp like that

Yet, how can you not see that the conversations in the NT are done by 3rd person anonymous writers making up the same imaginary conversation?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yet, how can you not see that the conversations in the NT are done by 3rd person anonymous writers making up the same imaginary conversation?



I know you were asking him, but the problem is that we do not believe the conversations were imaginary.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  For myself, the definition of Christian would be a follower of the teachings of Christ.  That's kind-of where I was going with my response, because that is the comparison.
> 
> Here is the definition I just googled:
> 
> ...



So he could have been an insane Christian, like a guy that shoots an abortion doctor?  Then he/they might both be in Heaven?  Sweet!


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So he could have been an insane Christian, like a guy that shoots an abortion doctor?  Then he/they might both be in Heaven?  Sweet!



I don't know if God uses the same justice system that we do, not sure what level of insanity qualifies as "not guilty."

For me, I think Hitler and the guy who shoots the abortion doctor are guilty, but I don't speak for God, so I don't really know.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> What am I, chopped liver?



Haha,I was wondering the same thing.Their unbelief comes from ignorance.Poor souls.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 13, 2012)

The Bible says:  "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch".

A Christian is a disciple of Christ.  Hince, the name Christian.  A person who seeks after Christ and His ways.  A person who has been transformed by discipleship to Christ, brought about through receiving God's Spirit.

You are not a Christian just because you followed "step 1 thru 5".
You certainly are not a Christian just because you say that you are.
You are a Christian if you are a follower of Christ and His ways.

"Not all who say Lord Lord to me will enter into My kingdom, but he that does the will of My Father."

Christianity is not a shallow social club that's seeking to increase it's membership.  Christians are those who have given themselves to Christ.  Christians don't sit on a fence half way between heaven and hel l.  Christians have moved all their stuff over to God.

Hitler don't come close to qualifying.
He didn't have a heart filled with Christ.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

formula1 said:


> The miminum qualifications are to live your life in Christ. It is Christ who meets them and He is sufficient. Nothing qualifies me except Christ Himself and faith in Him.
> 
> But there are things evident in the life of a true Christian not in any particular order:
> 
> ...



I think this is the best answer I have seen so far.  I do however have several questions, but will start with just one.

So dosen't this make all the calvinists/predestination crowd not qualify as christians?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying well yes, up until he decided to kill 6 million Jews and everyone else during his reign, that he would have made a model Christian??



I don't know when or what turned Hitler into a monster.  Many years ago, I read _The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler_ by William Shirer.  (That's the abridged version of his massive _Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_.)  The book covered his early life, but time has erased my recollection of it.

For an interesting take on how Hitler became "Hitler", read/watch _The Boys from Brazil_.


----------



## Four (Apr 13, 2012)

When you say that you have a personal relationship with Christ, or that you have given yourself over the Christ, are you referring only to that specific 1/3 of god? (assuming you believe in the trinity)

Are you also giving yourself over to God? or just Jesus? So if Hitler wasn't just following in the footsteps of Jesus, but of god the father as well (who was a renown mass killer) then the equation works out a bit better, eh?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> The Bible says:  "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch".
> 
> A Christian is a disciple of Christ.  Hince, the name Christian.  A person who seeks after Christ and His ways.  A person who has been transformed by discipleship to Christ, brought about through receiving God's Spirit.
> 
> ...



Are catholics christians?  Becuase it seems your definition puts christ before god, or christ is a path to god.  Being raised a catholic we saw them as one and the same.  There was no need to go through christ to get to god.  We never talked about personal relationships with christ, just god.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re:*



TheBishop said:


> I think this is the best answer I have seen so far.  I do however have several questions, but will start with just one.
> 
> So dosen't this make all the calvinists/predestination crowd not qualify as christians?



No.  The answer includes this statement 'Nothing qualifies me except Christ Himself and faith in Him'. That does not exclude anyone from be justified before Christ, except those who have no faith in Him.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

formula1 said:


> No.  The answer includes this statement 'Nothing qualifies me except Christ Himself and faith in Him'. That does not exclude anyone from be justified before Christ, except those who have no faith in Him.



But predestination by definition, nullifies free will.  You cannot repent if it is not your will doing so, the same with love, being humble, humility, and all those.  It is not your will it is gods will. You were hand picked by god from eternity, so you were made a christian, you could not become one.  

It would seem to me they would be polar opposites in a way.  The repentent crowd and the Predestination crowd.   For one believes christianity can be obtained and the other believes they were ordained by god.   Although they have distinctly different philosophies they both can be considered christians?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> But predestination by definition, nullifies free will.  You cannot repent if it is not your will doing so, the same with love, being humble, humility, and all those.  It is not your will it is gods will. You were hand picked by god from eternity, so you were made a christian, you could not become one.
> 
> It would seem to me they would be polar opposites in a way.  The repentent crowd and the Predestination crowd.   For one believes christianity can be obtained and the other believes they were ordained by god.   Although they have distinctly different philosophies they both can be considered christians?



Calvinism does not nullify free will. The basic tenets of Calvinism would say that man has free will.....and man chooses what he wants. 

Before God regenerates your heart, which Calvinist believe He must do before you come to Him, then man chooses self. 

Once regeneration takes place this same man would choose God through repentance and faith. 

True Arminianism and Calvinism both believe that man repents and places his faith in Christ, there is just a difference of opinion as to how you get to the place where you quit trusting yourself and start trusting God.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Calvinism does not nullify free will. The basic tenets of Calvinism would say that man has free will.....and man chooses what he wants.
> 
> Before God regenerates your heart, which Calvinist believe He must do before you come to Him, then man chooses self.
> 
> ...



Were does predestination come into all this?  This is different from what I've read.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Were does predestination come into all this?  This is different from what I've read.



The Calvinists belief of predestination is that before the world began that God determined beforehand who he would give the gift of regeneration to. That doesn't change the fact that man has free will to choose what he wants.

It just teaches that without God's movement in his life, he will never choose God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Are catholics christians?  Becuase it seems your definition puts christ before god, or christ is a path to god.  Being raised a catholic we saw them as one and the same.  There was no need to go through christ to get to god.  We never talked about personal relationships with christ, just god.



Christ was the mediator between us and God by dying on the cross. You have to believe in Christ to get to Heaven but you don't have to talk to him. You can talk directly to God.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The Calvinists belief of predestination is that before the world began that God determined beforehand who he would give the gift of regeneration to. That doesn't change the fact that man has free will to choose what he wants.
> 
> It just teaches that without God's movement in his life, he will never choose God.



If god chooses who will get it does that mean we have free will to reject it?  Or did he choose those he knew would not reject it even though they could? Is it instilled in them before the choice arrives?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Christ was the mediator between us and God by dying on the cross. You have to believe in Christ to get to Heaven but you don't have to talk to him. You can talk directly to God.



So under this line of thinking then, if hitler beleived in christ and thought he was avenging christ could he still be considered a christian?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> If god chooses who will get it does that mean we have free will to reject it?  Or did he choose those he knew would not reject it even though they could? Is it instilled in them before the choice arrives?



Well Calvinism would say that when God calls you to faith it is an effectual call that you cannot resist. So in that vain the answer to your question would be that God chooses whom He wants and those chosen cannot reject. 

The opposite side of that, Arminianism, would say that God's election pertains the church, but not individual's. Arminianism maintains that the individual has the right to choose or reject God's call.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The Calvinists belief of predestination is that before the world began that God determined beforehand who he would give the gift of regeneration to. That doesn't change the fact that man has free will to choose what he wants.
> 
> It just teaches that without God's movement in his life, he will never choose God.



They believe you can make choices about everything but becoming a Christian. That is God's choice and you can't refuse.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So under this line of thinking then, if hitler beleived in christ and thought he was avenging christ could he still be considered a christian?



I think there is more to being a Christian than believing in Christ. Some people think that is enough quoting John 3:16.
Using that verse alone Hitler "could" be a Christian. That will be between him and God. You could say his heart was in the right place but his actions weren't. Will God use the ignorance of my law is no excuse or "you thought you were doing right by me so you get to go to Heaven". It would be the same as a retarded Christian mother killing her children to get them into Heaven. If she gets to go also would be between her & God.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> They believe you can make choices about everything but becoming a Christian.



Some do and some don't.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Well Calvinism would say that when God calls you to faith it is an effectual call that you cannot resist. So in that vain the answer to your question would be that God chooses whom He wants and those chosen cannot reject.
> 
> The opposite side of that, Arminianism, would say that God's election pertains the church, but not individual's. Arminianism maintains that the individual has the right to choose or reject God's call.



So calvinism = No free will?
and Arminianism =  free will?


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 13, 2012)

Four said:


> When you say that you have a personal relationship with Christ, or that you have given yourself over the Christ, are you referring only to that specific 1/3 of god? (assuming you believe in the trinity)
> 
> Are you also giving yourself over to God? or just Jesus? So if Hitler wasn't just following in the footsteps of Jesus, but of god the father as well (who was a renown mass killer) then the equation works out a bit better, eh?



The Holy Spirit beckons, Jesus saves, The Father awaits among other things. All one Godhead, three different functions of salvation.

Let me explain Grace. It's a love the Father has for us all, and we are all undeserving of it. Through our faith, with his Grace a person deserving of HeII can make it to Heaven. All Christians owe Jesus a debt that can never be paid.There won't be Methodist, Baptist, Holiness,Presbyterians, Catholics in heaven...We will all be just Christians...and there will be no atheists in HeII .. they will all be believers.
 There is no evidence that Hitler was ever saved and I've never seen anywhere he had a testimony of such...He could have got it...but there would have been a change made and he continued on with his evil ways.It's easy to say you're a Christian...I heard Barak Obama saying today that his ideology on taxing the rich is just like Ronald Reagan....you can say it, but it don't make it so! 
 While we're on that subject I do want to atleast thank you guys that profess to not believe...our churches are full of folks that don't believe and they are just sitting on the pews spiritually dead...only attending because it's what they do on Sunday, hindering the works of God. You people I consider better off than they that hear the word...but don't hear it!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 13, 2012)

All these seeminly personal answers got me thinking.  Why the different sects?  Obviously there has to be some disagreement on who is actually practicing christianity right.  I know the obvious response which is : we are all christians but we worship differently.  But obviously there are characteristics of some sects and the way their followers act, that some feel should preclude themselve using the term christian.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Some do and some don't.



You are correct, every Denomination, Church, and individual within say Calvinism will have different beliefs. What is your view on choices other than following Jesus?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Oh Thanks and by the way. I don't believe there will be any atheists in He double hockey sticks.


 Could you explain why and where they will end up?


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you explain why and where they will end up?



Because when they are burning, they will believe!


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> You are correct, every Denomination, Church, and individual within say Calvinism will have different beliefs. What is your view on choices other than following Jesus?



My choices are not my own, but God's. He is the Absolute Sovereign Ruler of the universe. Nothing happens outside of His will. Nothing comes to pass in time that God did not purpose in eternity. There are no accidents. Nothing bad ever happens. All afflictions and calamities are the works of his hands. "All things are of God" (2 Corinthians 5:18)

Calvinist will say that I carry that too far. I say it is impossible to carry it too far.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Because when they are burning, they will believe!


I would assume their belief at that point will be too late.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> My choices are not my own, but God's. He is the Absolute Sovereign Ruler of the universe. Nothing happens outside of His will. Nothing comes to pass in time that God did not purpose in eternity. There are no accidents. Nothing bad ever happens. All afflictions and calamities are the works of his hands. "All things are of God" (2 Corinthians 5:18)
> 
> Calvinist will say that I carry that too far. I say it is impossible to carry it too far.



Yes that is beyond most Calvinist views. Does your Church hold those same views? Following poster "Thebishop's" question, does your views prevent me a "free willer", from being classified as a Christian? I have no problem calling Calvinests, Catholics, J.W.'s, or Mormons Christians. My Apostolic co-worker has a problem calling anyone baptized  in the name of the "Father , Son, and Holy Ghost a Christian. He informed me that I will go to He11 if I dont get re-baptized in the name of Jesus only.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Because when they are burning, they will believe!



OOOOOOO!   Scary!!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes that is beyond most Calvinist views. Does your Church hold those same views? Following poster "Thebishop's" question, does your views prevent me a "free willer", from being classified as a Christian? I have no problem calling Calvinests, Catholics, J.W.'s, or Mormons Christians. My Apostolic co-worker has a problem calling anyone baptized  in the name of the "Father , Son, and Holy Ghost a Christian. He informed me that I will go to He11 if I dont get re-baptized in the name of Jesus only.



You say that, but obviously you don't identify yourself with any of them. How can they be all be christians if they differ in culture, rituals, beliefs, and practicies.  So who's wrong?  

I know southern baptist who believe catholics are not christians.  I married a SB and her family is decideingly different than my roman catholic family. The way it has been described here, the lines of who is christian and whos not, is quite blury, and not so easy to lock down.  It seems to me very individualistic, personal, and very difficult to tell what exactly it means to be a christian.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You say that, but obviously you don't identify yourself with any of them. How can they be all be christians if they differ in culture, rituals, beliefs, and practicies.  So who's wrong?
> 
> It seems to me very individualistic, personal, and very difficult to tell what exactly it means to be a christian.



We all identify with each other because we all believe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins. You don't even have to belong to a denomination but if you have certain beliefs you will still get labeled. I've formed my beliefs from reading the Bible and all the different denominations.

It is  individualistic & personal. I've never belonged to any group where all the members had the same beliefs & thoughts. This would include families, Churches, clubs, camping groups, & shop co-worker  groups.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> We all identify with each other because we all believe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins. You don't even have to belong to a denomination but if you have certain beliefs you will still get labeled. I've formed my beliefs from reading the Bible and all the different denominations.
> 
> It is  individualistic & personal. I've never belonged to any group where all the members had the same beliefs & thoughts. This would include families, Churches, clubs, camping groups, & shop co-worker  groups.



This does not address my question.  If it so individualistic and personal, then there is no need for denominations, or organization for that matter.  But obviously that is not the case.  There far too many sects with vastly different protocol, and doctrines, that have different qualifications for the righteous believer.  They cannot be all right, or agian it becomes individualistic, a flavor of the moment so to speak, and again negates any need for seperate organized sects.  If it individualistic then their is truly no such thing as a baptist, methodist, catholic, ect only people that call themselves christians with no coherent doctrine.   Hilter can easily fit into this category.  

Unless there is a doctrine that has the _right _characteristics, rituals, protocol, and interpretations.   Is there? Who would they be? Who wouldn't they be? Who has the right traits but wrong rituals?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> ... If it individualistic then their is truly no such thing as a baptist, methodist, catholic, ect only people that call themselves christians with no coherent doctrine.   Hilter can easily fit into this category.



No, he couldn't.  There is no "flavor" of Christianity that looks favorably on the murder of 12 million people.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> No, he couldn't.  There is no "flavor" of Christianity that looks favorably on the murder of 12 million people.



I can argue that many have killed in the name of christianity, and some obviously still do.

With the term christianity being tossed around here as something so personal and individualistic, are you to judge which killing was justified and which was not? 

How are we to know when it's exceptable?  

Is it never? 

What about soldiers killing upon orders, can you kill and still be a christian? 

Were those believers under hitler's spell accountable for thier actions?

Is the killing acceptable or just the amount appalling?

What if in their heart and the voices inside say it is  what jesus wants, to avenge him?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I can argue that many have killed in the name of christianity, and some obviously still do.



... and I can argue that they aren't Christians, either.




TheBishop said:


> How are we to know when it's exceptable?



I'm betting that shoving Jews into gas chambers goes into the "unacceptable" column.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2012)

We also have Christians for abortions:
Christianity has been separated into many different organized religions, and some Christians choose to create their own faith, outside of organized religion. I am not here to say which group or type is a/the True Christian, but I do want to point out that this diversity means there is a diversity of beliefs among Christians related to abortion.

One of the first abortion funds ever established was created by ministers, who were counseling women with problem pregnancies, and seeing the horrible effects of back-alley abortions. These ministers worked together to direct women to medically-safe abortion locations, and eventually they raised the money to fund an abortion clinic in their area. In this way, Christians were some of the first supporters of abortion funding, and keeping women safe.

http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/



Disgusting.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Following poster "Thebishop's" question, does your views prevent me a "free willer", from being classified as a Christian?


The term "Christian" has been polluted to the point of classifying just about everybody to be one. I will not pretend for a moment to know what your eternal condition is.


Artfuldodger said:


> I have no problem calling Calvinests, Catholics, J.W.'s, or Mormons Christians.


Out of those four groups, the Calvinist theology would be closest in aligning with my beliefs. I am not offended at being called a Calvinist, but they may not want me under the label.

If I remember correctly, we are warned over 200 times in the NT in regards to false teachers, false religion, false prophets, false christ, false gods, false shepherds, etc...
I would think that alone would get one's attention.


Artfuldodger said:


> My Apostolic co-worker has a problem calling anyone baptized  in the name of the "Father , Son, and Holy Ghost a Christian. He informed me that I will go to He11 if I dont get re-baptized in the name of Jesus only.


That is because some are trusting in what they have done or are doing, in order to obtain what does not belong to them.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> The term "Christian" has been polluted to the point of classifying just about everybody to be one. I will not pretend for a moment to know what your eternal condition is.



You've given the best "final answer". We can list attributes of what we think a Christian is but it's between the individual and God.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and I can argue that they aren't Christians, either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I bet hitler never shoved one jew into gas chamber.  He did nothing more than order men to kill other men, for nothing more than a belief.  A belief they thought was right.  

Really all the wars the world has ever seen starts with belief.  I believe capitalism and freedom is better and would fight and kill if necessary.   Lincoln ordered men to kill other men becuase he believed that succession would doom our republic (he was probably right). In vietnam men were order to fight and kill to stop the spread of communism. 

Is there a time were christian can take the life of another human, other than immediate danger to their life, and it be acceptable? Is motive a consideration?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> He did nothing more than order men to kill other men ...



... because they committed the crime of being Jews.  That would also go in the "unacceptable" column, IMO.




TheBishop said:


> Is there a time were christian can take the life of another human, other than immediate danger to their life, and it be acceptable?



In times of war?  Yes, IMO.  Not everybody agrees with that, though.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... because they committed the crime of being Jews.  That would also go in the "unacceptable" column, IMO.
> 
> Were the crusaders christian?
> 
> In times of war?  Yes, IMO.  Not everybody agrees with that, though.



Hitler was at war with jews.  War is politics by another means. 

Does the reasoning for war have to be justified?  What would be a justification for war that would allow someone to kill and still call themselves a christian?

Is it ever acceptable/possible for a christian to kill another christian?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2012)

Mark 13:7
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Mark 13:7
> King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
> And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.



Ok the bible states war is necessary. Why?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 14, 2012)

I can't believe it took 101 posts before the crusades came up.  I'm sure many of the crusaders were Christians and many were not.




TheBishop said:


> Hitler was at war with jews.



... simply because they were Jews.  The Jews didn't roll into Germany on tanks, slaughtering as they went.  They were civilians who were rounded up and executed.




TheBishop said:


> What would be a justification for war that would allow someone to kill and still call themselves a christian?



National defense?  Japan attacked us, and Hitler declared war on us.  I'm sure many Christians thought that was sufficient cause in WWII.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 14, 2012)

I've noticed in the last dozen or so posts that it's happening again.....  Unbelievers (atheists) posting question after question after question about how the world and Christianity collide, that cannot be precisely answered.

If a Christian cannot give a biblical answer, they should not give an answer.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Ok the bible states war is necessary. Why?


 
Because we can't get some countries into "Breakdancing".
Seriously, I don't know if they are necessary but I do think we will always have wars.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Killjoy.



For real!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm a Christian because I believe Christ is who He says He is.
John 3:16
King James Version (KJV)

 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I'm a follower of Christs' teaching. Doesn't mean I'm a perfect follower. I try and sometimes I fail/sin/miss the mark... ok..most of the time. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb for my atonement. I'm redeemd, bought back from satan with the blood of the Lamb. I'm damaged goods....but I'm delivered....not perfect, but forgiven my debts.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> We all identify with each other because we all believe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins. You don't even have to belong to a denomination but if you have certain beliefs you will still get labeled. I've formed my beliefs from reading the Bible and all the different denominations.
> 
> It is  individualistic & personal. I've never belonged to any group where all the members had the same beliefs & thoughts. This would include families, Churches, clubs, camping groups, & shop co-worker  groups.



Yes.

We may disagree on scripture and doctrine, but basically we are Christians because we've chosen to follow Christ and we believe that He is who He says He is.

Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc etc...maybe have slightly different worship services. But most all of us agree on one thing....and that's Christ is who He says He is. Very few Christians that I know of disagree with 
 John 3:16
King James Version (KJV)

 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If there are any Christians here that don't believe this verse, I'd be interested in knowing why.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 14, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I've noticed in the last dozen or so posts that it's happening again.....  Unbelievers (atheists) posting question after question after question about how the world and Christianity collide, that cannot be precisely answered.
> 
> If a Christian cannot give a biblical answer, they should not give an answer.



I agree. It's always like a one trick pony around here......


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I can't believe it took 101 posts before the crusades came up.  I'm sure many of the crusaders were Christians and many were not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obviously it's usually the Christians that have a backbone in  defending ourselves....most people will let them/us do it, while sitting on their haunches complaining about war.....let's them off the hook of duty.......wahhh I don't believe in war......Really???? helloooo...none of us do.


----------



## Asath (Apr 15, 2012)

"If a Christian cannot give a biblical answer, they should not give an answer."

If a Christian DOES give a Biblical answer, they should be held to the same standard of proof that adheres to ANY answer.  If they cannot, then silent 'belief' in their own personal convictions is probably the best idea.  Nothing in the Bible is an 'Answer.'  It is simply a cop-out based entirely on one's 'Belief' in a Book of questionable heritage and authorship.  Truth cannot be asserted.  It must be demonstrated, and the Bible does not demonstrate, it simply lectures (and rather incoherently, and inconsistently, at that).

As to the OP: Nothing at all is compelling enough or clear enough or truthful enough to make me a Christian, nor a Buddhist, nor a Wiccan, nor a Zoroastrian, nor a Muslim, nor a follower of Amen-Ra.  Zeus and Odin don't move me towards Belief in the supernatural, nor do Apollo, Aphrodite, Loki, Thor, Daphne, Juno, nor any other of the extensive catalog of Gods that humans have created, worshiped, attributed human characteristics to, Believed in, sacrificed to, and then subsequently abandoned.  The odd but true history of Gods is that none of them has lasted very long, but each and every one of them seems to have demanded exactly the same things. (Mainly, that you give your self and your stuff to the 'priests.')  

Funny, huh?

Fickle fellas, these Gods, which leads to the observation that 100% of Christians are actually atheists concerning the overwhelming majority of Gods that have been proposed.  If you can 'Believe' in yours, then what prevents the Belief in all of them?  Once you cross the line from observed and verifiable truth into the territory of proposing that you, personally, have a special insight into a supernatural Being that you alone may speak for, and make world-wide policy on behalf of, then it is immediately fair to ask just why you think that your own GOD trumps the others.  If 'Faith' in the supernatural is the only argument, then what defines just which of these various Gods is the actual one?  How do you decide?  And what makes YOUR decision valid and all of the other ones mythical and untrue?    

That cannot be answered, and lacking such an answer tosses 'modern' Belief into the same hat with 'ancient' Beliefs.  What makes your NEW God more valid than the dozens and dozens of old ones?  Did 'modern' Believers finally get it right?  And if so, then why have they spent much of the last five hundred years having to back away from their 'orthodox' dogmas in the face of continuing progress that has proved them wrong at every step?

'Belief,' in anything at all, ought not need to be endlessly reactive and continuously adaptive and constantly justified, interpreted, rationalized, and re-written.  Something is true, or it is not.  IF it is true, it simply stands, and needs no defense.  The truth doesn't care if anyone 'Believes' in it.  The Earth that we inhabit spins on its axis, revolves around a star, and is located in the far backwaters of an unimaginably huge galaxy that is only one of hundreds of millions of similar galaxies.  The sheer scale of the observed universe is mind-numbing.  NO BEING blinked it all into existence in six days.  (And ask yourself -- honestly -- if some God was capable of that, what took so long? Was He in a Union, and was only allowed to do so much work before He had to knock off?)    

The Truth doesn't require any 'Belief' or 'Faith' -- it merely is, whether one likes it or not.

So allow me to pose a counter question -- "What will YOU Believe in once the current God passes into legend and mythology the same as all of the other ones have?"


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> So allow me to pose a counter question -- "What will YOU Believe in once the current God passes into legend and mythology the same as all of the other ones have?"



What will I believe?...what do you mean? I won't believe anything if my God is false...I'll just be dead, won't I? And I'll never know the difference. What is it about that idea/theory  that people don't get? 
And your question... current gods?...so that includes Allah, Buddah, etc.....right? I don't wanna hear the same old song and dance what if allah, buddha,is the real god. If you don't believe in god/gods then you don't believe in 'any' gods. So that would be your quizzle to figure out, not mine.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> So allow me to pose a counter question -- "What will YOU Believe in once the current God passes into legend and mythology the same as all of the other ones have?"



I would believe in nothing more than that which is proven.

Permit me if you will, if nothing else but for humor, pose a question to you. "What will YOU believe in once Almighty God, the Creator of all things, makes Himself known to you in such a way as to leave no doubt?


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> "  Nothing in the Bible is an 'Answer.'  It is simply a cop-out based entirely on one's 'Belief' in a Book of questionable heritage and authorship.  Truth cannot be asserted.  It must be demonstrated, and the Bible does not demonstrate, it simply lectures (and rather incoherently, and Gods is the actual one?  How do you decide?  And what makes YOUR decision valid and all of the other ones mythical and untrue?



Ever Question I have ever had since becoming a believer is answered in the Holy Bible, thats because I am a spiritual being now and no longer a natural man. I am a foreigner in a strange land here...an alien to this world.
You think thats foolishness, don't you? I know that because the Holy Bible tells me so.

 1Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I challenge any of you to get a Bible if you don't already have one and start reading it, surely you read books written by men....Read it up to the time you feel it has changed authorship..Then ask yourself is there anyway a man could have put such a perfect story together? I submit to you there is no way any man could have edited such a perfect story over such an extended time.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know you were asking him, but the problem is that we do not believe the conversations were imaginary.




Sorry to get back in the game so late but I have been away all weekend.

I understand that some do not believe the conversations were imaginary, but how did the people writing the conversation down get it right? They were not there to witness it or hear it. They wrote it down 40+ years after it happened.
Certainly you can see why there are others that find that those "conversations" were embellished at least.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> No, he couldn't.  There is no "flavor" of Christianity that looks favorably on the murder of 12 million people.



What about drowning approx 20 million people in a giant flood simply because you were not happy with your work.....the same work you knew you would not be happy about....Ya know because your one of those guys that knows all before it happens????


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Certainly you can see why there are others that find that those "conversations" were embellished at least.



Sure. My only point was that we believe conversations happened.  Whether or not it is a verbatim record is a different story all together.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Sure. My only point was that we believe conversations happened.  Whether or not it is a verbatim record is a different story all together.



I would think anything other than Jesus leaving a written record or even verbatim as witnessed by the author(s) themselves is unacceptable as having any reliability.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What about drowning approx 20 million people in a giant flood simply because you were not happy with your work ... ?



That's not how I would phrase it.  God brought the flood because of the evil that men chose to do:

_"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."_  Gen 6:5

Despite man's evil:

_"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."_  2 Peter 3:9

Accordingly, He saved the one righteous man left, along with his family.  The others still had a chance to repent and join Noah, but they chose evil over repentance.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not how I would phrase it.  God brought the flood because of the evil that men chose to do:
> 
> _"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."_  Gen 6:5
> 
> ...



He gave them every oppurtunity, and they just would not believe..Oh Noah preached and preached the flood is a coming! To them he was foolish, until the rains started and God shut the door.
 Sounds alot like unbelievers today, mans nature has not changed since the beginning.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> He gave them every oppurtunity, and they just would not believe..Oh Noah preached and preached the flood is a coming! To them he was foolish, until the rains started and God shut the door.
> Sounds alot like unbelievers today, mans nature has not changed since the beginning.



How did the Eskimos hear Noah? The Chinese? The Native Americans? The Aborigines? How about EVERY other SINGLE person outside of 100 miles from Captn Noah?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not how I would phrase it.  God brought the flood because of the evil that men chose to do:
> 
> _"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."_  Gen 6:5
> 
> ...



Who wrote that story?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not how I would phrase it.  God brought the flood because of the evil that men chose to do:



How would phrase all of the other killings he did?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Who wrote that story?



Moses


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Moses



And he did it over 4 Centuries?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How would phrase all of the other killings he did?



I'd phrase it the same.  You guys pick and choose "the killing" verses and completely ignore passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and this:

_"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."_  2 Chron 7:14

Throughout history, God has dealt with man _as he deserves._  That was true in the days of Noah, and it's true today.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And he did it over 4 Centuries?



No.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> No.



Because.......?
I am not asking your opinion, I am asking to provide us with the research you have done to come to that conclusion.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'd phrase it the same.  You guys pick and choose "the killing" verses and completely ignore passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and this:
> 
> _"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."_  2 Chron 7:14
> 
> Throughout history, God has dealt with man _as he deserves._  That was true in the days of Noah, and it's true today.



I read them loud and clear.
"Believe or I will kill you"

Literal, Figuratively, however you slice it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that is says what he means.” George Bernard Shaw


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Because.......?
> I am not asking your opinion, I am asking to provide us with the research you have done to come to that conclusion.



I'm an extremely busy CPA and don't have time to play today.

Maybe later.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm an extremely busy CPA and don't have time to play today.
> 
> Maybe later.



You should have known that before you decided to play.

Forget it.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I've noticed in the last dozen or so posts that it's happening again.....  Unbelievers (atheists) posting question after question after question about how the world and Christianity collide, that cannot be precisely answered.
> 
> If a Christian cannot give a biblical answer, they should not give an answer.



First I appreciate the label, since I have not once claimed to be an atheist. Second running from tough questions only shows how weak your position is.

There is a reasoning for the questions and I have yet to get sufficient answers.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 15, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Obviously it's usually the Christians that have a backbone in  defending ourselves....most people will let them/us do it, while sitting on their haunches complaining about war.....let's them off the hook of duty.......wahhh I don't believe in war......Really???? helloooo...none of us do.



Why do Christians stick up for the Jews? They killed your savior, certainly their lineage is more evil, for killing the son of god than hitler was for killing the people who condemned the son of god.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 15, 2012)

This is a very interesting thread. There are several points that come to light here.

1. There is a constant idea among unbelievers that God was a killer. If He was/is, that is not comparable to us humans. There is no comparison.

2. There is a prevalent idea among "Christians", that the definition of being a Christian is "personally defined". I disagree with this. The definition of a Christian has been explained very clearly. One who accepts the death and resurrection of Christ as sanctification for their sins is a Christian.

3. Just because I stick a chicken feather in my ear, it does not make me a Christian. We are known by our fruit. If your fruit is rotten (Hitler), then you are not a Christian. Ultimately it is up to God to judge, not any of us.

4. Intelligence is not a differentiator. You may be smarter or better spoken than I, but that doesn't mean you are right.

5. The logical "proof" that many unbelievers demand, does not exist. Get over it, logic is just a language.

6. There have been many gods. None of them but Christ have claimed to be god.

So to answer the OP, what makes me a Christian is the fruit that I bear. It is a sign that I truly believe in the sacrifice and triumph of Christ to absolve me of my sins.

Good discussion by all. I hope I have contributed.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would think anything other than Jesus leaving a written record or even verbatim as witnessed by the author(s) themselves is unacceptable as having any reliability.



I believe any record we have of the battle of Thermopylae is also hear-say, and under your rules, would be unreliable.  Do you believe the battle happened?  Herodutus is the primary source.  Not an eye-witness.  Very little archaeological evidence to support the claims.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What about drowning approx 20 million people in a giant flood simply because you were not happy with your work.....the same work you knew you would not be happy about....Ya know because your one of those guys that knows all before it happens????



I think bullethead was addressing whether God had foreknowledge of the flood.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How did the Eskimos hear Noah? The Chinese? The Native Americans? The Aborigines? How about EVERY other SINGLE person outside of 100 miles from Captn Noah?



What year did this flood take place? Many people want to guess how old the world is by backing up generations, they will tell you it's 6,000 years old. I will tell you they are nuts!...The Bible never tells us how long Adam and Eve were in the garden...so to answer your question the Eskimos,Chinese, Native Americans,Aborigines, they all heard Noah with their own ears, man had yet to venture out and become different races...The flood was before the tower of Babel....That was easy.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why do Christians stick up for the Jews? They killed your savior, certainly their lineage is more evil, for killing the son of god than hitler was for killing the people who condemned the son of god.



Not all Christians do. I don't think they are any more special than you or I.They too must accept Jesus Christ as lord or they will spend eternity in heII. God sent the Romans in to Israel and destroyed it in 70ad for the rejection of Jesus, sending it's people scattered all over the Earth.Man put it back together again ww2...has there been any peace there since? Nope!
Some Christians believe the Jew is still under the old covenant...Jesus fulfilled that covenant and the covenant that was with God and the Jew is now with God and whosoever will.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> What year did this flood take place? Many people want to guess how old the world is by backing up generations, they will tell you it's 6,000 years old. I will tell you they are nuts!...The Bible never tells us how long Adam and Eve were in the garden...so to answer your question the Eskimos,Chinese, Native Americans,Aborigines, they all heard Noah with their own ears, man had yet to venture out and become different races...The flood was before the tower of Babel....That was easy.




O.
M.
G.


----------



## StriperAddict (Apr 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why do Christians stick up for the Jews? They killed your savior, certainly their lineage is more evil, for killing the son of god than hitler was for killing the people who condemned the son of god.


Because without the Jewish contribution to Christianity, there'd be NO Christianity!
Who were the first to believe and to follow?  I don't find a single Baptist in the whole bunch of disciples.  And what of the writer of most of the New Testament: Saul, who put Christians in prison for their faith, and blessed the stoning of the martyr Stephen... God got a hold of this Hebrew and turned him into Paul, an Apostle sent out to both Jews and Gentiles. 
Also, the prophets in the Old Testament, all Jewish, the gospel writers the same.

We bless Israel and the Jewish people because:
1) From the lineage of David _came _our Messiah
‘Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David,  that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.  Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath  to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would  raise up the Christ to sit on his throne’. (NKJV)

And...
2) It's commanded...
"I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you" Gen 12:1-3


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How did the Eskimos hear Noah? The Chinese? The Native Americans? The Aborigines? How about EVERY other SINGLE person outside of 100 miles from Captn Noah?



Didn't they live after the flood? They live today don't they....so obviously they were not destroyed. Regeneration, maybe?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 15, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Not all Christians do. I don't think they are any more special than you or I.They too must accept Jesus Christ as lord or they will spend eternity in heII. God sent the Romans in to Israel and destroyed it in 70ad for the rejection of Jesus, sending it's people scattered all over the Earth.Man put it back together again ww2...has there been any peace there since? Nope!
> Some Christians believe the Jew is still under the old covenant...Jesus fulfilled that covenant and the covenant that was with God and the Jew is now with God and whosoever will.



Personally in the flesh I don't like jews, I've worked for them and they think they are better than us....anyone who is not a Jew.....but because I have the heart of Christ I love them anyway.....it is another something I cannot explain.  It's sort of not being prejudice to anyone even though they fair better than you do....you work you can't feed yourself, they don't work they eat steak. You work like a dog to pay your rent, they get welfare and sit on the porch and have babies and fare way better than you do. But yet you continue to do the right thing, that is following Christ, doing the right thing no matter what anyone else chooses to do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I believe any record we have of the battle of Thermopylae is also hear-say, and under your rules, would be unreliable.  Do you believe the battle happened?  Herodutus is the primary source.  Not an eye-witness.  Very little archaeological evidence to support the claims.



 Herodotus was the Father of History. He lived during and was involved in the events leading up to,during and after that battle. He actually talked to Xerxes. He informed Xerxes that if he could beat the Spartans in one day it would be no problem taking all of Greece.  It took 3 days instead of just one. There were over 7000 Spartans that needed to be assembled to defend Greece. The only way to get them together was to stall the Persians. Greece sent 300 of their best warriors to do the job. Not to mention the 7000 Athenians that were there fighting along WITH the 300 Spartans and left to go reinforce the rest of the Spartan army once they got to the pass. 
I know you know the story, so then You also must know that in addition to the 300 Spartans there were 7000 Athenian witnesses that also fought along side the Spartans until they got to the pass. Herodotus actually talked to the Persian King. The Persians fought there and were witnesses.  There are spearheads and arrowheads uncovered right from the pass. The 300 Spartans were buried where they died and about 40 years after were dug up and moved back to Sparta.

Hardly hearsay JB. Hardly "little" evidence to support(and I am leaving out a bunch).
It in no way compares to some anonymous authors WHO WERE NEVER THERE making up conversations between people that the authors NEVER MET.

Poor comparison JB.

John, to me, would be the most credible and his version differs from all the others.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> What year did this flood take place? Many people want to guess how old the world is by backing up generations, they will tell you it's 6,000 years old. I will tell you they are nuts!...The Bible never tells us how long Adam and Eve were in the garden...so to answer your question the Eskimos,Chinese, Native Americans,Aborigines, they all heard Noah with their own ears, man had yet to venture out and become different races...The flood was before the tower of Babel....That was easy.



When you have absolutely ZERO evidence to back up wild tales it certainly would seem easy.
Maybe today, take the time to look up the Epic of Gilgamesh. You find it pre-dates your Noah's Ark story by at least a thousand years.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Didn't they live after the flood? They live today don't they....so obviously they were not destroyed. Regeneration, maybe?



There were humans all over the Globe. How could they hear what was being said and going on in one little patch over in the Arab world?

The worldwide flood was not worldwide. The  flood was VERY localized when the Mediterranean swelled and flooded into the Black Sea. As the "locals" wrote about this massive flood, the rest of the world had no clue it ever happened and went on about their merry ways none the wiser.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Personally in the flesh I don't like jews, I've worked for them and they think they are better than us....anyone who is not a Jew.....but because I have the heart of Christ I love them anyway.....it is another something I cannot explain.  It's sort of not being prejudice to anyone even though they fair better than you do....you work you can't feed yourself, they don't work they eat steak. You work like a dog to pay your rent, they get welfare and sit on the porch and have babies and fare way better than you do. But yet you continue to do the right thing, that is following Christ, doing the right thing no matter what anyone else chooses to do.



!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you DO realize Christ was Jewish right???????
Ohhh but he is one of them there "good" Jews......

Yet another racist bigoted post to add to your resume'.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Herodotus was the Father of History..



He is the primary source for the story.  There is no other contemporary sources.  Here is what Wiki has to say on the sources:



> The primary source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. The Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BC in his Bibliotheca Historica, also provides an account of the Greco-Persian wars, partially derived from the earlier Greek historian Ephorus. This account is fairly consistent with Herodotus'.[9] The Greco-Persian wars are also described in less detail by a number of other ancient historians including Plutarch, Ctesias of Cnidus, and are referred to by other authors, as in Perses by the great dramatist Aeschylus. Archaeological evidence, such as the Serpent Column (now in the Hippodrome of Istanbul), also supports some of Herodotus' specific claims.[





bullethead said:


> He lived during and was involved in the events leading up to,during and after that battle. He actually talked to Xerxes..



Somewhat comparable to Paul's role in the NT, I would think.



bullethead said:


> He informed Xerxes that if he could beat the Spartans in one day it would be no problem taking all of Greece.  It took 3 days instead of just one..


 
Yep.  Cool history.



bullethead said:


> There were over 7000 Spartans that needed to be assembled to defend Greece. The only way to get them together was to stall the Persians. Greece sent 300 of their best warriors to do the job. Not to mention the 7000 Athenians that were there fighting along WITH the 300 Spartans and left to go reinforce the rest of the Spartan army once they got to the pass. .



Right.......and where are you getting those numbers?

There is also a historical claim to 500 witnesses of the resurected Jesus?  Just saying......



bullethead said:


> I know you know the story, so then You also must know that in addition to the 300 Spartans there were 7000 Athenian witnesses that also fought along side the Spartans until they got to the pass..



Most of them were also killed.



bullethead said:


> Herodotus actually talked to the Persian King. The Persians fought there and were witnesses.  There are spearheads and arrowheads uncovered right from the pass. The 300 Spartans were buried where they died and about 40 years after were dug up and moved back to Sparta..



Paul actually claimed to talk talked to the resurected Jesus. It was a major event in his conversion.

Who told us Herodotus talked to the Persian king?  Was it Herodutus? Are you using the source to verify it's own claims?  You won't give the Bible such leniency.

I believe the spearheads were uncovered from a near-by hill where the Spartans moved after Leonidas was killed, to make their last stand.  Anyway, there are about three different empty toombs which claim to have held Jesus once upon a time.  In addition to other historical evidence which is laughed at by you guys.

The spearheads could have been a target range, the toombs could have been robbed.  Just tossing out alternatives.....



bullethead said:


> Hardly hearsay JB. Hardly "little" evidence to support(and I am leaving out a bunch)..



I can make an apples to apples with Jesus' life all day long here.  We just touched on the tip of it.



bullethead said:


> Poor comparison JB..



Yet, I believe you just made my point for me.



bullethead said:


> John, to me, would be the most credible and his version differs from all the others.



I actually agree here.  He is not anonymous, and it is an eyewitness acount.  He was very young at the time of Jesus' ministry, some say he was in his late teens.  His take on things would have been very different from the other businessmen, and fishermen, and goat herders that passed down their history.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When you have absolutely ZERO evidence to back up wild tales it certainly would seem easy.
> Maybe today, take the time to look up the Epic of Gilgamesh. You find it pre-dates your Noah's Ark story by at least a thousand years.



Moses wrote the "Noah's Ark story" by what God showed him, not as a witness....so how do you put a date on that?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

Another interesting note on Herodutus, since we are giving his testimony so much credit here (this is from wiki, I can dig up better sources if needed):



> As mentioned earlier, Herodotus has sometimes been labeled 'The Father of Lies' because of his tendency to report fanciful information.



Here is another from this site: http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/110tech/thermopylae.html



> But the modern visitor to the site sees two not very imposing looking hills; they lie to the south, not to the west. This discrepancy has led some scholars to assert that Herodotus never even saw the site, and that if he could make so basic an error all of his topographical information about the site, which is copious and detailed, must not be trusted


That being said, I tend to believe the account of the Battle of Thermopylae, as well as the accounts of the Gospels.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> He is the primary source for the story.  There is no other contemporary sources.  Here is what Wiki has to say on the sources:



looks like multiple sources saying the same thing.









JB0704 said:


> Somewhat comparable to Paul's role in the NT, I would think.


Not even in the same country, let alone ballpark.




JB0704 said:


> Yep.  Cool history.



Backed by multiple witnesses



JB0704 said:


> Right.......and where are you getting those numbers?


Diodorus, Herodotus.



JB0704 said:


> There is also a historical claim to 500 witnesses of the resurected Jesus?  Just saying......


where is the historical claim?






JB0704 said:


> Most of them were also killed.


Actually no they were not, the majority either left when the word got back to them that the Persians found a way around the pass and they were going to be trapped or they were told to leave.





JB0704 said:


> Paul actually claimed to talk talked to the resurected Jesus. It was a major event in his conversion.



Honestly, do me a favor and add something to that statement that lends it ANY credibility.



JB0704 said:


> Who told us Herodotus talked to the Persian king?  Was it Herodutus? Are you using the source to verify it's own claims?  You won't give the Bible such leniency.


He recorded, accurately, history before and after this event. He did not talk about conversations he had with ghosts. His works can and have been researched to be accurate.
Can't say that about the Bible.



JB0704 said:


> I believe the spearheads were uncovered from a near-by hill where the Spartans moved after Leonidas was killed, to make their last stand.  Anyway, there are about three different empty toombs which claim to have held Jesus once upon a time.  In addition to other historical evidence which is laughed at by you guys.


So Jesus was buried in 3 different tombs? And that how is that historical evidence?



JB0704 said:


> The spearheads could have been a target range, the toombs could have been robbed.  Just tossing out alternatives.....


OR....crazy thought here.....they got them from the narrow pass where the Spartans and their allies held off the Persians for 3 days???





JB0704 said:


> I can make an apples to apples with Jesus' life all day long here.  We just touched on the tip of it.


Include FACTS with it and I'll play all day.





JB0704 said:


> Yet, I believe you just made my point for me.


I believe you are mistaken




JB0704 said:


> I actually agree here.  He is not anonymous, and it is an eyewitness acount.  He was very young at the time of Jesus' ministry, some say he was in his late teens.  His take on things would have been very different from the other businessmen, and fishermen, and goat herders that passed down their history.



I am sure his account differed from illiterate fisherman and goat herders. The Doctor and Tax collector copied the writings of a scribe. And NONE were written down as it happened. Not to mention they spoke one language and could write in another...not bad.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Moses wrote the "Noah's Ark story" by what Gos showed him, not as a witness....so how do you put a date on that?



Moses wrote for 400 years( if you follow the Bible timeline), how do you believe that?

Noah's Ark was written about LONG before Moses and it was called many different things. God didn't show Moses diddly.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Another interesting note on Herodutus, since we are giving his testimony so much credit here (this is from wiki, I can dig up better sources if needed):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you can see how things can be distorted by people who actually were there and lived through it and wrote about it as it happened. And those things are still the most accurate historical records to be had.

As you dismiss those, on the other hand you want others to believe the writings of people who not only were not there, did not witness it, did not meet anyone involved or write it down as it happened, but you want to use those writings as proof??


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> As you dismiss those, on the other hand you want others to believe the writings of people who not only were not there, did not witness it, did not meet anyone involved or write it down as it happened, but you want to use those writings as proof??



You have missed my point.  I do not dismiss Herodotus.  

John is an eyewitness.  The otehr accoutns verify, to some extent, his testimony.  Much to the extent that Herodotus is verified by other accounts, which were written much later.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> You have missed my point.  I do not dismiss Herodotus.
> 
> John is an eyewitness.  The otehr accoutns verify, to some extent, his testimony.  Much to the extent that Herodotus is verified by other accounts, which were written much later.



Which other accounts verify John?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> looks like multiple sources saying the same thing..



Same thing for the Gospels.  Some contemporary, some not.



bullethead said:


> Backed by multiple witnesses..



4 gospels.  Then check out 1 Corinthians 15.  There is also a claim to hundreds of witnesses.  None have come forward to say Paul was crazy.  

Some of Herodotus' contemporaries called him the "father of lies."




bullethead said:


> Diodorus, Herodotus...



Diodorus is not a contemporary account.  He recorded his history about 400 years later.

Herodotus was born around 484 b.c.. The Battle of Thermopylae happened aruond 480 b.c. according to wikipedia.  Not sure that would qualify as contemporary account from a 4 year old.



> Herodotus ( /hÉ¨ËˆrÉ’dÉ™tÉ™s/; Greek: á¼©Ï�ÏŒÎ´Î¿Ï„Î¿Ï‚ HÄ“ródotos) was an ancient Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus, Caria (modern day Bodrum, Turkey) and lived in the 5th century BC (c.â€‰484 BC – c.â€‰425 BC).





> The Battle of Thermopylae ( /Î¸É™rËˆmÉ’pÉ¨liË�/ thÉ™r-MOP-i-lee; Greek: ÎœÎ¬Ï‡Î· Ï„á¿¶Î½ Î˜ÎµÏ�Î¼Î¿Ï€Ï…Î»á¿¶Î½, MachÄ“ tÅ�n ThermopylÅ�n) was fought between an alliance of Greek city-states, led by King Leonidas of Sparta, and the Persian Empire of Xerxes I over the course of three days, during the second Persian invasion of Greece. It took place simultaneously with the naval battle at Artemisium, in August or September 480 BC, at the narrow coastal pass of Thermopylae ('The Hot Gates').





bullethead said:


> where is the historical claim?...



4 gospels, and multiple personal correspondeces collected in one volume known as the NT.



bullethead said:


> Actually no they were not, the majority either left when the word got back to them that the Persians found a way around the pass and they were going to be trapped or they were told to leave.



From what Herodotus tells us, Leonidas covered the remainder's escape on the third day of battle.  But again, we are putting a lot of stock in the eyewitness testimony of one man here.

It would be nice if you would give as much credibility to those who recorded the events in the NT.



bullethead said:


> Honestly, do me a favor and add something to that statement that lends it ANY credibility..



It was verified by eyewitnesses.  Also recorded in the NT.  That a good bit more than Herodotus gives, though.




bullethead said:


> He recorded, accurately, history before and after this event. He did not talk about conversations he had with ghosts. His works can and have been researched to be accurate.
> Can't say that about the Bible...



What contemporary scholar rejected the claims of John or Paul?  Some of Herodotus' contemporaries called him the "father of lies."




bullethead said:


> So Jesus was buried in 3 different tombs? And that how is that historical evidence?...



Means a bunch of locals believe he was buried and is no longer there.




bullethead said:


> OR....crazy thought here.....they got them from the narrow pass where the Spartans and their allies held off the Persians for 3 days????...



I believe that they came from a near-by hill where they all made their last stand.  But, how do you know that is what happened?



bullethead said:


> Include FACTS with it and I'll play all day.



We need a consensus on what a fact is.  It seems there is a moving target as to what is actually credible around here.



bullethead said:


> I believe you are mistaken.



It would be dull if you didn't.




bullethead said:


> And NONE were written down as it happened.



Again, who recorded the history of the battle of Thermopylae as it happened?  One man?  Why are we giving him so much credit here?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Which other accounts verify John?



MAthew Mark and Luke, to some extent.  Then the correspondence later in the text verify an event happened which started a movement.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> MAthew Mark and Luke, to some extent.  Then the correspondence later in the text verify an event happened which started a movement.



To which extent? There is not one of the 4 including John, that their authorship has not been disputed.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> To which extent? There is not one of the 4 including John, that their authorship has not been disputed.



Is the authorship central to the claim?  Or is the events included within the claim what is in question?

The extent is that the events are verified by multiple sources.  Again, you give Herodotus a lot more credit than you give these authors, and many historians have disputed his claims.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Is the authorship central to the claim?  Or is the events included within the claim what is in question?
> 
> The extent is that the events are verified by multiple sources.  Again, you give Herodotus a lot more credit than you give these authors, and many historians have disputed his claims.



I'm just going to use your source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm just going to use your source:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history



That is a long link.  I started reading it, and though it may be quicker to ask you your reason for posting it.

But the question remains: Does questionable authorship hinder the validity of the claim, if the claim is verifiable through known authors as well (John, Paul)?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That is a long link.  I started reading it, and though it may be quicker to ask you your reason for posting it.
> 
> But the question remains: Does questionable authorship hinder the validity of the claim, if the claim is verifiable through known authors as well (John, Paul)?



Just skip to this part then
"Challenges to historicity"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But the question remains: Does questionable authorship hinder the validity of the claim, if the claim is verifiable through known authors as well (John, Paul)?



Questionable authorship, not backed by historical fact, unverified by possibly one(Paul) known author, absolutely and positively hinders the validity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

For history to be reliable and have meaning (in a historical sense) the 'facts' must be reliable. Therefore, where possible, any historian will prefer to deal with primary sources - accounts from people who were there at the time, who saw or participated in the events. The bible, by it's very nature, is a collection of stories, (true or not) not a coherent, flowing narrative and does not do this to a satisfactory degree.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Moses wrote for 400 years( if you follow the Bible timeline), how do you believe that?
> 
> Noah's Ark was written about LONG before Moses and it was called many different things. God didn't show Moses diddly.



How can I believe Moses wrote for 400 years? I wasn't there 3400 years ago but with your confidence of what happened back then I'm waiting to hear you were.

I know what God has done for me in my life,and I'll take his word over whatever bolonga history you can come up with.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> How can I believe Moses wrote for 400 years? I wasn't there 3400 years ago but with your confidence of what happened back then I'm waiting to hear you were.
> 
> I know what God has done for me in my life,and I'll take his word over whatever bolonga history you can come up with.



You can be educated and still believe.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 16, 2012)

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances.

Deuteronomy 20:1-20 provides information on some of them.

But at this point in your search for God's way there are many other things you need to know and experience before you'll be able to come to terms with these type questions.
Faith and trust would be good subjects for you right now.

To get answers concerning the Old Testament 10 commandments you'd have to speak to a practicing Jew.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances.
> 
> Deuteronomy 20:1-20 provides information on some of them.
> 
> ...



And there it is folks, that is what makes YOU a Christian....??.......??........??


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The bible, by it's very nature, is a collection of stories, (true or not) not a coherent, flowing narrative and does not do this to a satisfactory degree.



This is pure ignorance. I would love to sit down with you and go through the book Genesis to Revelations and explain from the beginning it's all about Jesus.From when God put a sleep on Adam and took a rib from his side to make Eve....fast forward to Christ on the cross and the Roman soldiers peircing his side after he had given up the ghost, blood and water poured out...this was the birth of the new church...Christs bride...it's deeper than that and its supported all the way through.
The door to Naohs ark represents Jesus today, it's the way to salvation but one day God will shut it.
 If you read the bible in a worldly manner, it will not feed you, and you will be as the Pharisee when Jesus spoke spiritual things they were like, Huh? What? It's the greatest book of all, men have spent lifetimes reading it and studying it, and feeding their spirit from it...It's full of little mysteries and answers to all kinds of lifes problems.
 It saddens me that you're missing out on so much of what life has to offer by just reading black words on white paper.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 16, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> This is pure ignorance. I would love to sit down with you and go through the book Genesis to Revelations and explain from the beginning it's all about Jesus.From when God put a sleep on Adam and took a rib from his side to make Eve....fast forward to Christ on the cross and the Roman soldiers peircing his side after he had given up the ghost, blood and water poured out...this was the birth of the new church...Christs bride...it's deeper than that and its supported all the way through.
> The door to Naohs ark represents Jesus today, it's the way to salvation but one day God will shut it.
> If you read the bible in a worldly manner, it will not feed you, and you will be as the Pharisee when Jesus spoke spiritual things they were like, Huh? What? It's the greatest book of all, men have spent lifetimes reading it and studying it, and feeding their spirit from it...It's full of little mysteries and answers to all kinds of lifes problems.
> It saddens me that you're missing out on so much of what life has to offer by just reading black words on white paper.


I see both sides of this coin. Yes, it's amazingly got a beautiful story within, yet it has lots of issues when you go beyond the story line to the details. But "pure ignorance" doesn't fit. Does not the bible imply that everyone's eyes will not be opened? If you see these things, it is not from intellect, but rather revelation, therefore "ignorance" is not the correct description


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> This is pure ignorance. I would love to sit down with you and go through the book Genesis to Revelations and explain from the beginning it's all about Jesus.From when God put a sleep on Adam and took a rib from his side to make Eve....fast forward to Christ on the cross and the Roman soldiers peircing his side after he had given up the ghost, blood and water poured out...this was the birth of the new church...Christs bride...it's deeper than that and its supported all the way through.
> The door to Naohs ark represents Jesus today, it's the way to salvation but one day God will shut it.
> If you read the bible in a worldly manner, it will not feed you, and you will be as the Pharisee when Jesus spoke spiritual things they were like, Huh? What? It's the greatest book of all, men have spent lifetimes reading it and studying it, and feeding their spirit from it...It's full of little mysteries and answers to all kinds of lifes problems.
> It saddens me that you're missing out on so much of what life has to offer by just reading black words on white paper.



I am quite impressed that you "get it" while many others are ignorant. Don't beat yourself up over it. It is a personal thing for each individual. I was once where you are now. I saw all those things you mentioned. I was fascinated and frightened, anxious and in awe. It really is a great read. But about 20 years ago while still reading the Bible I took notice to things that I knew I read but had never jumped out at me before. I felt ashamed for even "finding" them. I felt embarrassed that I read them and thought they were something I would question. I got over it and then more and more and more stood out to me. I have not viewed it the same since.

I've used it before and I'll use it again:

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means”  George Bernard Shaw


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Questionable authorship, not backed by historical fact, unverified by possibly one(Paul) known author, absolutely and positively hinders the validity.



Herodotus' accounts of the battle are called into question by many of the details. I mean, some of his contemporaries called him the father of lies. I know we have gone around about this thing a good bit, but I am still confused as to why you give him credibility you do not give the authors of the NT.....at the very least John.


Would the book of John classify as a historical account? Why or why not?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Herodotus' accounts of the battle are called into question by many of the details. I mean, some of his contemporaries called him the father of lies. I know we have gone around about this thing a good bit, but I am still confused as to why you give him credibility you do not give the authors of the NT.....at the very least John.
> 
> 
> Would the book of John classify as a historical account? Why or why not?



Home-Slice, you brought up the Battle of Thermopylae. I am following along although I don't know what Herodotus and the Battle have to do with explaining why YOU are a Christian....but....
While Herodotus also embellished things(although mostly the victors get to tell the tales) he did get the stories from people who were there. He talked to people that were involved on both sides. 298 Spartans died there, two actually lived and regretted it for the rest of their lives. Herodotus wrote about it in a short amount of time close to when it happened while people that were there were still alive to pass on the accounts. He quoted a few things that were said but did not write it down as if it was all said to him directly or as if he was standing among them. Herodotus did not write about it 40 years after it happened. He did not include miracles or resurrections. His writings made no claim to be the words of a God. The Gospel of John is disputed as to who or how many actually wrote it. How can it be taken as a historical account if the author(s) did not have a primary source to gather their information from? Paul may be the only actual author and he NEVER met Jesus except in a hallucinogenic state.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Home-Slice, you brought up the Battle of Thermopylae. I am following along although I don't know what Herodotus and the Battle have to do with explaining why YOU are a Christian....but.....



Homeslice????

I brought it up to point out the fact that you(pl) often give credibility to sources with equal or less validity than the authors of the NT.   Simply because one wrote the Bible, and the other didn't.



bullethead said:


> While Herodotus also embellished things(although mostly the victors get to tell the tales) he did get the stories from people who were there. He talked to people that were involved on both sides.



Right.  How is that different than the "hear-say" accounts of the NT?   Let's save the embellishment stuff for another day......



bullethead said:


> 298 Spartans died there, two actually lived and regretted it for the rest of their lives. Herodotus wrote about it in a short amount of time close to when it happened while people that were there were still alive to pass on the accounts..



Yes, and I can dig up threads where that is not good enough when it comes ot the NT.  You (pl) demand first-hand, eyewitness acounts. 



bullethead said:


> Herodotus did not write about it 40 years after it happened..



According to Wiki, he was 4 years old when the battle happened.  I may be wrong (and I have been dealing with a kidney stone all day, so I may have missed a thing or two), but I believe you confused his role and the traitor Spartan king's role in the battle.  If he was indeed 4 years old at the time, his history would have been hear-say many years later.




bullethead said:


> He did not include miracles or resurrections..



No, he did not.  But he did include a lot of heroic, and almost unbelievable actions of the Spartans....which you and I both believe.



bullethead said:


> His writings made no claim to be the words of a God..



Did he include the role of the Oracles?



bullethead said:


> The Gospel of John is disputed as to who or how many actually wrote it. How can it be taken as a historical account if the author(s) did not have a primary source to gather their information from?.



I am not aware of this being a big source of contention.  When did the authorship of John come into question?  I honestly don't know.   I have always been under the impression that it is the most "trusted" first person record.



bullethead said:


> Paul may be the only actual author and he NEVER met Jesus except in a hallucinogenic state.



I think he met him when Jesus was teaching as a Rabbi, pre-crucifixtion.  Not sure where I remember that from, but I can do some research.

As far as the hallucinogenic state stuff, I cannot rebut your opinion.  We all choose to believe what we will.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

Writings and evidence get us as close as Historians can agree upon to what happened for any given event. The more accurate the writings and the more evidence found to back up the writings makes the events Historically accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

Homeslice =  Buddy.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

Much if not most of History is compiled long after the event takes place. Much if not most is an open work in progress as we are always learning new things.
Claims of all kinds have been made and only the ones that are backed up by evidence hold true.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> !!!!!!!!!!!!!
> you DO realize Christ was Jewish right???????
> Ohhh but he is one of them there "good" Jews......
> 
> Yet another racist bigoted post to add to your resume'.



Well if you want to look at it that way, except I was subserviant to the Jew and accused of stealing so they wouldn't have to pay me for the week. Which happened about every other week in their household. So look at it as you will....mr all knowing....lol. I'm bigoted because I worked and didn't get paid, like many others in the household....wow you sure do know your stuff....lol.

Of course I know Jesus was a Jew...but the Jews I worked for weren't Christians.

Stand in judgement if you like that kinda stuff.....


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 16, 2012)

Just like I said....what makes you a Christian? was a trick question......hahahahahahahahaha.....just a one trick pony!


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I don't believe you will get the responses you are looking for. I sense most will do as string did and this thread will die quickly.



Yeah, he will...he'll stick it to us, until he gets what he wants us to say.......  Proof is in the puddin'...see previous posts....lol


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well if you want to look at it that way, except I was subserviant to the Jew and accused of stealing so they wouldn't have to pay me for the week. Which happened about every other week in their household. So look at it as you will....mr all knowing....lol. I'm bigoted because I worked and didn't get paid, like many others in the household....wow you sure do know your stuff....lol.
> 
> Of course I know Jesus was a Jew...but the Jews I worked for weren't Christians.
> 
> Stand in judgement if you like that kinda stuff.....



I don't know anything other than what you posted which was " Personally in the flesh I don't like the Jews".

So because you had a bad experience with an employer who happened to be Jewish, "they" are all bad......well, the ones that are not Christians of course....

When your in a hole stop digging.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Just like I said....what makes you a Christian? was a trick question......hahahahahahahahaha.....just a one trick pony!






mtnwoman said:


> Yeah, he will...he'll stick it to us, until he gets what he wants us to say.......  Proof is in the puddin'...see previous posts....lol



There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states you must post a reply to each topic. Especially the ones you think are just bait topics. But I would suggest that if you do.... stick to the topic.
I would not be offended in the least if you just skipped over my posts totally especially if you reply and then do not expect to be included further in the conversation based off of your replies.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Homeslice =  Buddy.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I don't know anything other than what you posted which was " Personally in the flesh I don't like the Jews".
> 
> So because you had a bad experience with an employer who happened to be Jewish, "they" are all bad......well, the ones that are not Christians of course....
> 
> When your in a hole stop digging.



I heard those Christian Jews are the worst, double holidays and all!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Herodotus' accounts of the battle are called into question by many of the details. I mean, some of his contemporaries called him the father of lies. I know we have gone around about this thing a good bit, but I am still confused as to why you give him credibility you do not give the authors of the NT.....at the very least John.
> 
> 
> Would the book of John classify as a historical account? Why or why not?


John may have been written by John, but was later compiled together by another, who may have edited some, maybe not. But for sure a patch work like a quilt. John's prolouge was not originally attached to chapter 2. Notice that John says he is not the Christ twice. Now he may have stated that 30 times in his life, but for the writer to tell us that twice, that close together is strange. Also, John has a double ending, showing us that the last chapter was added. But scholars think that John wrote what was added, but it was added for sure. chp20:21 Jesus did many other miraclous signs.... Chp 21:25 Jesus did many other things...


----------



## Asath (Apr 17, 2012)

“I brought it up to point out the fact that you(pl) often give credibility to sources with equal or less validity than the authors of the NT. Simply because one wrote the Bible, and the other didn't.”

If one wishes to believe that the various authors of the NT hold ‘validity,’ one would need to do a number of things that have not yet been done:  Not the least of these would be to demonstrate just who all of the authors were.  Then one would need to demonstrate that the writings are contemporaneous chronicles, recording what happened at the time that it happened.  Then one would need to validate these writings against the preponderance of other, contemporary, chronicles by other writers of the time, aligning descriptions of events closely enough to create a likelihood of veracity.  And even after all of that, one would be compelled to demonstrate that the events described are actually physically possible, and were not actually meant by the writers to be entertaining fiction stories.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> If one wishes to believe that the various authors of the NT hold ‘validity,’ one would need to do a number of things that have not yet been done:  Not the least of these would be to demonstrate just who all of the authors were.  Then one would need to demonstrate that the writings are contemporaneous chronicles, recording what happened at the time that it happened.  Then one would need to validate these writings against the preponderance of other, contemporary, chronicles by other writers of the time, aligning descriptions of events closely enough to create a likelihood of veracity.  And even after all of that, one would be compelled to demonstrate that the events described are actually physically possible, and were not actually meant by the writers to be entertaining fiction stories.



Asath, going through this list, we can demonstrate that many of the parameters you set are not met with many historical writings.  Beliefs we hold about battles, and times, many thousands of years ago have less, but we believe them more.

So here goes.....

I think Heroduts' gay uncle wrote "The Histories."


Now, the authorship is in question.  And you can safely assume that the battle of Thermopylae is pure fiction.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Asath, going through this list, we can demonstrate that many of the parameters you set are not met with many historical writings.  Beliefs we hold about battles, and times, many thousands of years ago have less, but we believe them more.
> 
> So here goes.....
> 
> ...



I don't know about anyone else, but I can live comfortably whether the battle was fiction or not. 
Often in ancient times the writers threw in their beliefs into actual history. Some included mystical creatures, unbelievable feats, and impossible accomplishments and the help of Deities to embellish the stories. Many times we find out the places and people and events were real but the extras were not.
I don't doubt for a second that could have been included to the events at the Battle of Thermopylae and I also do not doubt it happened to the writings of the Bible. 1400 years to compile stories that were written tens and hundreds and thousands of years after those events happened leaves a lot of room for some embellished and inaccurate info.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Often in ancient times the writers threw in their beliefs into actual history. Some included mystical creatures, unbelievable feats, and impossible accomplishments and the help of Deities to embellish the stories. Many times we find out the places and people and events were real but the extras were not..



Things would be a lot easier if we could apply the same logic to the Bible.  What gets frustrating is the questioning as to whether or not Jesus even existed, not sure but I think some of you fellas do.  

To me, it seems logical to assume the man existed, the battle happened.  Whether or not the Oracles had direct access to the gods, or whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, can be left to an individual's faith.



bullethead said:


> I don't doubt for a second that could have been included to the events at the Battle of Thermopylae and I also do not doubt it happened to the writings of the Bible. 1400 years to compile stories that were written tens and hundreds and thousands of years after those events happened leaves a lot of room for some embellished and inaccurate info.



Which is the point I have been trying to make.  I do not see how the Bible is on different footing than "The Histories" when it comes to the historical aspect of the text.

But, I am a believer, so my view is a bit biased.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Things would be a lot easier if we could apply the same logic to the Bible.  What gets frustrating is the questioning as to whether or not Jesus even existed, not sure but I think some of you fellas do.
> 
> To me, it seems logical to assume the man existed, the battle happened.  Whether or not the Oracles had direct access to the gods, or whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, can be left to an individual's faith.
> 
> ...



Evidence or the lack of evidence separates accurate historical accounts from fables and legends.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Evidence or the lack of evidence separates accurate historical accounts from fables and legends.



Are we talking about evidence of the miraculous, or evidence of the existence of the man?  How 'bout the OT wars, etc?  Is there anything in the Bible which may be true?  Everytime any evidence is uncovered relevant to a Bible story, it is attacked and alternative explanations are presented.  Every time evidence is uncovered relevant to any other historical account, folks say "how 'bout that."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Things would be a lot easier if we could apply the same logic to the Bible.



For me, because I apply that same logic to the Bible, is why I do not take it to be anything other than a work of ancient men telling the stories they wanted told in the ways they believed at the time. Because it was done over 1400 years by anonymous authors and then assembled by hand picking it from all the other works done at the time I just flat out do not take it for anything other than what it is.....a book written around the laws that are based off of  beliefs of an ancient civilization that includes stories to give examples to those laws.

If we took the all the writings of our most talented writers in the few short years of this country and sifted through handpicking and tailoring the stories to tell the "ultimate" story we wanted told it would be no different than what is in the Bible. Take some real places, add some real people, link them to some real events, then embellish them with miracles, a super being and some things that flat out never happened. Infuse those together so that the real events that are remembered give the wild tales some validity and you have the makings of the greatest STORY ever told. Not the greatest most accurate, infallible, error free work of an invisible being that explains our beginnings and purpose and lumps it all in the book where all knowledge is found in a universally understandable way no matter who you are or where you live on the planet.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Are we talking about evidence of the miraculous, or evidence of the existence of the man?  How 'bout the OT wars, etc?  Is there anything in the Bible which may be true?  Everytime any evidence is uncovered relevant to a Bible story, it is attacked and alternative explanations are presented.  Every time evidence is uncovered relevant to any other historical account, folks say "how 'bout that."



If the happenings in the Bible were found to be unquestionably accurate then no one could question them. The reason they are put through such scrutiny is that there is a lot of room, filled with inaccuracies, that leave the door wide open to speculation. It is not the work it should be.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If the happenings in the Bible were found to be unquestionably accurate then no one could question them. The reason they are put through such scrutiny is that there is a lot of room, filled with inaccuracies, that leave the door wide open to speculation. It is not the work it should be.



Ok. But we can also find inaccuracies in much of Herodotus' writings as well.  Have any of you ever questioned the entire story of Thermopylae because he included the role of the Oracles?  What of the fact that he got several geographical details wrong?  I think it is safe to say that we do not qeustion the general idea of the battle.  But with the Bible, it's a whole different game.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Are we talking about evidence of the miraculous, or evidence of the existence of the man?  How 'bout the OT wars, etc?  Is there anything in the Bible which may be true?  Everytime any evidence is uncovered relevant to a Bible story, it is attacked and alternative explanations are presented.  Every time evidence is uncovered relevant to any other historical account, folks say "how 'bout that."



No doubt man existed at the time. Show me the first cave drawing of the first fish a man caught and I'll show you the first " fish story". No doubt he caught the fish but I'd bet story, along with the fish grows the more it is told.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No doubt man existed at the time. Show me the first cave drawing of the first fish a man caught and I'll show you the first " fish story". No doubt he caught the fish but I'd bet story, along with the fish grows the more it is told.



Ok.  I think we have run this rabbit about as far as we can. 

Funny thing about fish stories, everybody tells them.  My three year old daughter caught a crappie last spring that was about ten inches long, but to hear her tell it today, it was as big as she is!!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But with the Bible, it's a whole different game.



It certainly IS a whole different game. The Bible does not live up to it's claims. For believer and non-believer the Bible should be held to different standards because of the claims of where it came from and what it says inside. If it cannot stand up to the scrutiny then it is not what is says it is.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It certainly IS a whole different game. The Bible does not live up to it's claims. For believer and non-believer the Bible should be held to different standards because of the claims of where it came from and what it says inside. If it cannot stand up to the scrutiny then it is not what is says it is.



So, is it your hope to convince me or others to stop believing it?
It must be!  
And should I?  Should I come to my senses and finally allow the wisdom of bullethead and the others 'snap' me out of the rediculousness of fables I had once staked my entire life upon?
If bullethead doesn't believe it, it must not be.  Right?  If I don't believe what he believes I must be wrong.  Right?

then I'll find me a Christian forum, and begin helping.  I'll do everything I can to convince them that they are wrong and I'm right.  
Tells me, what should be most important to me, that they realize they are wrong, or that they understand I am right?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> So, is it your hope to convince me or others to stop believing it?
> It must be!
> And should I?  Should I come to my senses and finally allow the wisdom of bullethead and the others 'snap' me out of the rediculousness of fables I had once staked my entire life upon?
> If bullethead doesn't believe it, it must not be.  Right?  If I don't believe what he believes I must be wrong.  Right?
> ...



Personally Ron, I don't care what you do. But if you want to discuss it in a place where there are not like minded people then you should be prepared.

Here's a little tidbit to put it into perspective from someone who does not believe like you do. 

http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

I am not asking you to change or believe something different. Just read it and try to understand why some people do not think like you do.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Personally Ron, I don't care what you do. But if you want to discuss it in a place where there are not like minded people then you should be prepared.
> 
> Here's a little tidbit to put it into perspective from someone who does not believe like you do.
> 
> ...




I read it in its entirety.
And I have to admit, to an atheist or someone who works to debunk Christianity, it must sum it all up pretty well.  Proving that it's all a fairy tale.  A santa claus that went too far.  A "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" for the religious.
Except no one's trying to prove that Santa is real.
And no one who's ever seriously reseached the existance of Jesus and His apostles has ever come away saying there's no evidence.
Even His enemies' historical records show his existance.

Now, here's one for you.     
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I read it in its entirety.
> And I have to admit, to an atheist or someone who works to debunk Christianity, it must sum it all up pretty well.  Proving that it's all a fairy tale.  A santa claus that went too far.  A "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" for the religious.
> Except no one's trying to prove that Santa is real.
> And no one who's ever seriously reseached the existance of Jesus and His apostles has ever come away saying there's no evidence.
> ...



Well Santa isn't the only example on there. Any thoughts on the others given??
And even I will admit that I think Jesus was most likely a real man, but for being the Son of the God that created creation......his existence is very well unknown historically. The "usual" records shown by Joseph Flavius and the likes have been suspect to later additions. What is the most striking to me is that his people who were there and lived among him do not believe he is the Son of God....then or now.
I will read your link and report back.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I read it in its entirety.
> And I have to admit, to an atheist or someone who works to debunk Christianity, it must sum it all up pretty well.  Proving that it's all a fairy tale.  A santa claus that went too far.  A "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" for the religious.
> Except no one's trying to prove that Santa is real.
> And no one who's ever seriously reseached the existance of Jesus and His apostles has ever come away saying there's no evidence.
> ...



Not to sound smart-allecked but:
I read it in its entirety.
And I have to admit, to a Christian or someone who works to promote Christianity, it must sum it all up pretty well.

The problem we each have here is that for each article either of us posts the other can find one that totally says the opposite and gives reason why and states that "most, the majority, or the vast amount" of scholars support the "evidence or lack of evidence" that goes with the article.

One common trait that I have noticed to the authors that "prove" Jesus was a living man is that none of them can prove anything more than that about Jesus.

Another one from the same site if anyone is interested:
http://godisimaginary.com/i3.htm


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well Santa isn't the only example on there. Any thoughts on the others given??
> And even I will admit that I think Jesus was most likely a real man, but for being the Son of the God that created creation......is existence is very well unknown historically. The "usual" records shown by Joseph Flavius and the likes have been suspect to later additions. What is the most striking to me is that his people who were there and lived among him do not believe he is the Son of God....then or now.
> I will read your link and report back.



There will always be those who are driven to go beyond what had already been given through Jesus and the apostles.  Charismatic men or women who, for one reason or another, are able to convince people to go 'further'.  People with cave visions.  People who God 'spoke' to in order to change what God sent through His Son.
David Koresh's and Jim Jones.  Those who keep predicting the judgment day, but missing.
Their foolishness doesn't diminish the 'matter-of-fact' belief of those who know for a fact, in their lives, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Maybe that's how a person truly knows they are a Christian.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> There will always be those who are driven to go beyond what had already been given through Jesus and the apostles.  Charismatic men or women who, for one reason or another, are able to convince people to go 'further'.  People with cave visions.  People who God 'spoke' to in order to change what God sent through His Son.
> David Koresh's and Jim Jones.  Those who keep predicting the judgment day, but missing.
> Their foolishness doesn't diminish the 'matter-of-fact' belief of those who know for a fact, in their lives, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.
> 
> Maybe that's how a person truly knows they are a Christian.



Could be Ron, could be!


----------



## RBM (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:
			
		

> What makes YOU a Christian? All these Hitler references got me to thinking about what makes a person a Christian. What are the qualifications? Are there "minimum qualifications" and who meets them? Please be honest and state the things that qualify YOU as being a Christian.
> 
> If you dare, please then compare them to what you are certain about Hitler's Christianity. Please post any references used to verify any claims made for or against.



Its in the name, Christ. The Son of God. God in the flesh. An extension of God. A Christian is a disciple of Christ. If Christ is in your heart after having repented and accepted Him then you are a Christian. A Christian is not better than anyone else but a Christian is forgiven and strives to live for Christ. Do Christians stumble? You bet because of the sinful mind and flesh of the original sin (disobedience to God at the beginning) but the spirit and heart has been reformed by Christ and no longer wants to sin but do the Will of God in accordance with God's Word. Self-reformation is impossible. Only Christ can reform the hearts of mankind. Without Christ we can do nothing. The gift of God is Christ and by the sacrificial shed blood of Christ is mankind redeemed and saved. Anyone can be a Christian who accepts Christ. The lost deny Christ. Receiving salvation is a personal experience with Christ that those who are lost have not experienced and in no way can imagine or conceive. Only Christ can change hearts but hearts must be willing as God draws hearts to Christ. Christ himself said that no man can come to God but by Him and God draw him. Some will not accept or be willing to heed the drawing of God through His Spirit and therefore deny Christ. Basically some love sin and are not willing to let Christ change their hearts.

The only thing I can say about Hitler? is to ask, in what way was Hitler Christ-like or give God the glory in anything he did? Did his life reflect a Christ-filled life? Did he live for Christ? You make the determination.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

RBM said:


> The only thing I can say about Hitler? is to ask, in what way was Hitler Christ-like or give God the glory in anything he did? Did his life reflect a Christ-filled life? Did he live for Christ? You make the determination.



ONLY Hitler would know.........

Here is something to ponder...
http://godisimaginary.com/i6.htm


----------



## RBM (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:
			
		

> ONLY Hitler would know.........



And God. 

From the article:
If you are saying that when trials and tribulations come that God is not real, have you ever considered that God is using that as means to bring others to Christ? This is a possibility. No one knows the mind of Omnipotent God. No one knows God's Plan. Only God. We can only take what God gives. God Himself says He will do as He pleases.

Do not think that God does not hold accountable those who disobey His Word. Do you think God's Plan is for folks to sin (disobey Him) by predestination of that article? God is not mocked. He will have the last Word. Predestination is not an excuse to sin. God may predestine by foreknowledge but we still have our own will to do His Will or not.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

RBM said:


> And God.
> 
> From the article:
> If you are saying that when trials and tribulations come that God is not real, have you ever considered that God is using that as means to bring others to Christ? This is a possibility. No one knows the mind of Omnipotent God. No one knows God's Plan. Only God. We can only take what God gives. God Himself says He will do as He pleases.
> ...



Please do not take this as any disrespect but I am curious to how YOU know what God does, thinks, will do, has done? Are you somehow appointed to speak for God?
To me it sounds like God does what YOU think he should do and acts how YOU think he should act. I have found that all of those things are unique to the believer as God always seems to have the same ideas as the person speaking for him.


----------



## RBM (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:
			
		

> Please do not take this as any disrespect but I am curious to how YOU know what God does, thinks, will do, has done? Are you somehow appointed to speak for God?
> To me it sounds like God does what YOU think he should do and acts how YOU think he should act. I have found that all of those things are unique to the believer as God always seems to have the same ideas as the person speaking for him.



God does what He wants to do. Again I will say no one knows the mind of Omnipotent God. God does what He pleases. The heart of the Christian strives to follow the Word of God through Christ. I have said nothing new but what has already been said. God speaks for Himself. Read His Word sometime and it might do you a world of good.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

RBM said:


> God does what He wants to do. Again I will say no one knows the mind of Omnipotent God. God does what He pleases. The heart of the Christian strives to follow the Word of God through Christ. I have said nothing new but what has already been said. God speaks for Himself. Read His Word sometime and it might do you a world of good.



I understand that you are relatively "new" here in the AAA forum so I guess you don't really know my story, but to cut to the chase.......I've read his word and in 20 years of doing that it has gotten me to where I am today. Doubting that it is His word and 100% convinced it is man's word.


----------



## Asath (Apr 18, 2012)

“So, is it your hope to convince me or others to stop believing it?
It must be!”

Well, speaking only for myself, my hope is to finally have at least one person sit down and read the entire Book, from start to finish, in the same manner they would read a Robert Ludlum novel, then put it down, think for even a single moment, and explain just what they found in there that IS believable.

My hope is not to hear what they were taught as children, and force-fed from peers, parents, and pulpits, but to hear their own personal thoughts after a COMPLETE, thoughtful, independent, unforced reading of that Book.

It is a tough read.  No question about that.  There is no plot; no consistent story-line; little or no connection between the chapters; an open acknowledgement that the authors were various and largely anonymous; and the strange, almost surreal fact that just about everything that is said is unsaid somewhere else, often in the same chapter.

On the other hand, there is quite a lot of sex and violence, which is usually one of the marks of a best-seller.

For my own part, I walked away from a straight-through reading without seeing a single moral lesson that wasn’t subsequently contradicted; without a clear idea of just what had actually happened at all, since so many accounts conflicted; without any singular impression of any higher ‘meaning’ that wasn’t also contained in any other, more coherently rendered, mythology; and really with little more than complete confusion aside the clear impression that the fella who was allowed to write that last chapter was a total nutter.  

So my hope is just that someone read the thing, disregarding all the smoke that has been blown at them by those who claim to ‘interpret’ it for them, to save them the trouble of independent, individual thought.


----------



## RBM (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:
			
		

> I've read his word and in 20 years of doing that it has gotten me to where I am today. Doubting that it is His word and 100% convinced it is man's word.



John 1: 1-5, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended (overcame) it not. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be perfect (mature) thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This world is physical and all we know so the world cannot understand the spiritual world. God is a spirit and all that worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. The personal experience of receiving salvation in Christ cannot be explained physically, it is a personal spiritual experience.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

Asath said:


> “So, is it your hope to convince me or others to stop believing it?
> It must be!”
> 
> Well, speaking only for myself, my hope is to finally have at least one person sit down and read the entire Book, from start to finish, in the same manner they would read a Robert Ludlum novel, then put it down, think for even a single moment, and explain just what they found in there that IS believable.
> ...



Proof #5 Read the Bible:
http://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
If it seems like I am using this site a lot it is because it touches on darn near everything we talk about on here.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

RBM said:


> John 1: 1-5, 14
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended (overcame) it not. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17
> ...



Quoting scripture to someone that does not think scripture is anything but man made, man written writings does not help make your point.


----------



## RBM (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:
			
		

> Quoting scripture to someone that does not think scripture is anything but man made, man written writings does not help make your point.



Then I will defer to my previous statement since you don't get it:


			
				RBM said:
			
		

> This world is physical and all we know so the world cannot understand the spiritual world. God is a spirit and all that worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. The personal experience of receiving salvation in Christ cannot be explained physically, it is a personal spiritual experience.
> 
> Receiving salvation is a personal experience with Christ that those who are lost have not experienced and in no way can imagine or conceive. Only Christ can change hearts but hearts must be willing as God draws hearts to Christ. Christ himself said that no man can come to God but by Him and God draw him. Some will not accept or be willing to heed the drawing of God through His Spirit and therefore deny Christ. Basically some love sin and are not willing to let Christ change their hearts.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

RBM said:


> Then I will defer to my previous statement since you don't get it:




What I don't get is with Billions of humans worshiping Thousands of Gods, and each thinking theirs is the one responsible for everything, what makes yours above the rest???
In your post,Replace Christ with another deity's name and not much changes for the believers of that other deity.


----------



## RBM (Apr 18, 2012)

bullethead said:
			
		

> What I don't get is with Billions of humans worshiping Thousands of Gods, and each thinking theirs is the one responsible for everything, what makes yours above the rest???
> In your post,Replace Christ with another deity's name and not much changes for the believers of that other deity.



There are some things that must be taken on FAITH. You either have faith or you don't. Only God can give you that faith if you are willing and accept it. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God which you have heard. You now have been given that opportunity and have no excuse when standing before God. I am done.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 18, 2012)

Asath said:


> “So, is it your hope to convince me or others to stop believing it?
> It must be!”
> 
> Well, speaking only for myself, my hope is to finally have at least one person sit down and read the entire Book, from start to finish, in the same manner they would read a Robert Ludlum novel, then put it down, think for even a single moment, and explain just what they found in there that IS believable.
> ...



As a young teenager I was taught the Bible by men whom I respected.  I read it, but it seemed very confusing to me so I based most of my beliefs on what others taught me.

As a young adult I began search for the truth of the Bible.  I knew there were hundreds of beliefs within the church that opposed each other.  For one Christian it meant one thing, for another Christian it meant something else.
I began reading books to discover the truth.  For me, I soon realized that the new, modern books were the greatest source of confusion.  So I stopped reading or having any interest in anything except the Bible.
I purposely decided that, for me, it would be the Bible and the Bible only.
I don't know how many times I've read it.  Dozens of times at least.  I'm sure I qualify to respond to your above questions.  Age 33 was a breakthrough year for me.  That year the light came on.  I came to terms with God, His holy Word, and myself.
I don't know why it was that way for me but not for you.  Maybe I sought something different from it than you did.

The Bible, the Old Testament, is a history book.
But it isn't a neat, chronologicalized book.  Some books record the same time periods, but not for the same purpose, so they don't read the same.

The Old Testament covers different "ages".  Some of those ages have nothing to do with the other ages....  Others do.

I care only for what my New Testament and my Old Testament hold for me.  I know very little about people like Calvin, and the other guy.

I don't read verses, I read chapters and entire books.  And I believe every single word of the New Testament, the Gospel of Jesus.

I'll never try to tell you what God is thinking, cause I'm in no position to know.  I don't know anything about whether Hitler was a Christian, was ever a Christian, or whether he's in heaven now.  God takes care of that stuff.

I believe Jesus was God's son; that he was born into this world by God's own power; that he died on the cross; that he was door-nail dead for the better part of 3 days; and that God raised him from the dead.  Sometimes, it's as though I was there at the foot of his cross the day he died.

I admit that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a large pill to swallow for someone who doesn't believe.  But I believe it as much as I believe the sun will shine tomorrow.  For me, it's a fact.  It's logical.  But I again admit that it takes faith.


----------



## M80 (Apr 18, 2012)

King Aggripa told Paul, Almost thou prusuadest me to be a Christian,  Paul wished everyone would have got saved.

My hearts desire is to see people get saved.  You can tell a blind man how pretty the trees are, the water is so clear, the sky today is so beatiful, but they are blind a can only imagine.  They cant understand cause they cant see.  To a lost man there is no diff. from the blind man, they can not understand what men and women on here are describing cause they cant understand. when you realize there is a place called he11 and The Father draws you to his son, who died in our place on the cross, and true conviction sets in on your heart cause you realize you are on your way to hel l, then it's time to believe in your heart that Jesus died for you. The bible say's in Romans 10v10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteounes and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Then your eye's will be opened and you will finally say, I finally see what they are talking about.
This is all said with true love from the heart, what a blessing it would be if someone get's saved through this talk.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

RBM said:


> There are some things that must be taken on FAITH. You either have faith or you don't. Only God can give you that faith if you are willing and accept it. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God which you have heard. You now have been given that opportunity and have no excuse when standing before God. I am done.



There are billions of people that will disagree with you.You have faith in your God, only your God can give YOU that faith. It is a personal thing and your relationship with your God is totally unique to you. NO ONE ELSE on this planet believes exactly as you do. I wish you well but your beliefs are not mine and are only right to you.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

mwilliams80 said:


> King Aggripa told Paul, Almost thou prusuadest me to be a Christian,  Paul wished everyone would have got saved.
> 
> My hearts desire is to see people get saved.  You can tell a blind man how pretty the trees are, the water is so clear, the sky today is so beatiful, but they are blind a can only imagine.  They cant understand cause they cant see.  To a lost man there is no diff. from the blind man, they can not understand what men and women on here are describing cause they cant understand. when you realize there is a place called he11 and The Father draws you to his son, who died in our place on the cross, and true conviction sets in on your heart cause you realize you are on your way to hel l, then it's time to believe in your heart that Jesus died for you. The bible say's in Romans 10v10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteounes and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> ...



Someone that believes in a different religion will give you/me the same speech with different words. One is no more "right" than the other.


----------



## M80 (Apr 18, 2012)

Mr. Bullethead, I been in church my whole life(31) years.  I got saved when I was 12, Lord called me to preach when I was 19.  I started pastoring Jan. of this year.  I don't know what to tell you, you said you have read God's word for 20 years.  All I can tell you is God sure has been good toward's me.  I have seen the miracles he has done, I feel him in my heart, don't base my salvation on feelings but it sure is good to feel him.  It's kind like falling in love with my wife.  Hard to explain but I just now.  

Man has to prove it and the older we are the more harder it is to believe.  God said we must come to him with child like faith.  I have a little boy and if I told him you could catch a bullet with your teeth he wouldn't even doubt it caused I said it.  He believe's in me and believe's what I say.  That is how we believe in Jesus and what he has done for us.  God said it, I believe it, even if I didn't believe it, it's still Gods word and it is the truth.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2012)

mwilliams80 said:


> Mr. Bullethead, I been in church my whole life(31) years.  I got saved when I was 12, Lord called me to preach when I was 19.  I started pastoring Jan. of this year.  I don't know what to tell you, you said you have read God's word for 20 years.  All I can tell you is God sure has been good toward's me.  I have seen the miracles he has done, I feel him in my heart, don't base my salvation on feelings but it sure is good to feel him.  It's kind like falling in love with my wife.  Hard to explain but I just now.
> 
> Man has to prove it and the older we are the more harder it is to believe.  God said we must come to him with child like faith.  I have a little boy and if I told him you could catch a bullet with your teeth he wouldn't even doubt it caused I said it.  He believe's in me and believe's what I say.  That is how we believe in Jesus and what he has done for us.  God said it, I believe it, even if I didn't believe it, it's still Gods word and it is the truth.



I can't take away from you what you feel.

As strong as you feel in your faith, you have to realize there are people that feel equally as strong in their faith. For you, Jesus is the way. For someone else it may differ. You feel your way is right and the other person's beliefs are crazy but you cannot fathom that they dismiss yours for the same reasons as you dismiss theirs.
For me, personally, I have stepped back, taken a look at many different religions(after being a church going, Bible reading, practicing Christian for 20 years) and have come to the realization that no religion is more right than another, none is more wrong than the other, but for me there is not specific written and ruled religion that stands out and grabs me. I am in a place in my life where common sense makes all the sense. Logic and reasoning has given me everything religion could and more. The Good Bad and Ugly happens to everyone just the same no matter who or what they do or do not believe. All I ask of anyone that wants to tell me any different is to prove it. Not with scripture but with evidence. If someone cannot do that then I lump their religion with all the others that they dismiss as being false.


----------



## M80 (Apr 18, 2012)

If I could rip my heart open and let you see what's inside it would do a better job that what my mind trys to tell me what to type.

I cant give no evidence, I'm sorry about that, that is where I just believe in that blessed hope my friend.

I want to say the bible is all the evidence we need, but that isn't good enough for you.  It is for me.  The only evidence I can give you is try the Lord, believe in him and see what he will do for you.

You cant see the wind but you know it's there.

Let me leave you with this.  If your right about all this, I have lost nothing but had a wonderful time on this earth.  If I right, and heaven and hel l are real, you have lost it all, I mean a eternity in hel l, common.

I hope the best for all ya'll that don't believe in the Lord, I will be praying that the Lord reveals all the evidence ya'll need so we can spend eternity with the lord together.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 19, 2012)

mwilliams80 said:


> If I could rip my heart open and let you see what's inside it would do a better job that what my mind trys to tell me what to type.
> 
> I cant give no evidence, I'm sorry about that, that is where I just believe in that blessed hope my friend.
> 
> ...



There might be gazillions of people who do not believe in God in this country but 85% of people in this country do...so that leaves 15% who don't. So it's not like we're low man on the totum pole, we just happen to be in a section of a forum where nonbelievers are domininent, that's all. And they can only debate about 5% of the bible and it's the same percent over and over, they rarely venture over into real bible debate because they are clueless...they are just naysayers, nowhere near bible 'studiers' nor are capable of rightly dividing the word. They just deny anything that's brought up...that's all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2012)

mwilliams80 said:


> Let me leave you with this.  If your right about all this, I have lost nothing but had a wonderful time on this earth.  If I right, and heaven and hel l are real, you have lost it all, I mean a eternity in hel l, common.



I honestly wish I had a dollar for each and every time I heard someone say that.

THE problem with your statement is that you assume it ends one of two ways. Yours or Mine. It is a HUGE flaw in a narrow mindset because what if we are both wrong? Did you Prepare for that? There are literally hundreds of different beliefs in this world and you think YOURS has all the others beat.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> There might be gazillions of people who do not believe in God in this country but 85% of people in this country do...so that leaves 15% who don't. So it's not like we're low man on the totum pole, we just happen to be in a section of a forum where nonbelievers are domininent, that's all. And they can only debate about 5% of the bible and it's the same percent over and over, they rarely venture over into real bible debate because they are clueless...they are just naysayers, nowhere near bible 'studiers' nor are capable of rightly dividing the word. They just deny anything that's brought up...that's all.



85% of gazillions?
5% of the Bible debatable?
When you don't know the facts...make em up!

Start a REAL Bible debate in the AAA forum where the "clueless" are allowed to discuss it and I am sure you will very quickly learn who knows the Bible....all parts of the Bible.  
"Rightly dividing the word" = "They don't agree with ME so they are wrong."


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Start a REAL Bible debate in the AAA forum where the "clueless" are allowed to discuss it and I am sure you will very quickly learn who knows the Bible....all parts of the Bible.



Much like everything else in life, the things folks don't agree with will be dismissed regardless of the validity of the point.

I am convinced at this point that anything short of Jesus riding a unicorn into y'alls backyard will not be considered valid.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Much like everything else in life, the things folks don't agree with will be dismissed regardless of the validity of the point.
> 
> I am convinced at this point that anything short of Jesus riding a unicorn into y'alls backyard will not be considered valid.



JB, Paul did not believe and asked Jesus to appear to him. Jesus, according to Paul, DID appear and made a believer out of Paul. Jesus "appeared" to hundreds of people, 12 disciples, Cephas, James, Mary.....
Is it beyond the capabilities of Jesus to do the same for me? Even after I have asked and prayed for it to happen? Isn't it eeerily suspicious that despite all the non-believers worldwide... AND how simple of a feat it would be to appear to them all and set the record straight...there has not been a sighting in 2000+ years? Jesus WANTS us to believe, Jesus says he will answer our prayers. Jesus is a no show.
Yes, I'll take the personal visit.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> JB, Paul did not believe and asked Jesus to appear to him. Jesus, according to Paul, DID appear and made a believer out of Paul. Jesus "appeared" to hundreds of people, 12 disciples, Cephas, James, Mary.....
> Is it beyond the capabilities of Jesus to do the same for me?.



If the first statement is true, then obviously, no. 



bullethead said:


> Even after I have asked and prayed for it to happen?.



Does your request mandate action?  Or is faith the mandate?  I don't know why some and not others.  I believe in free-will with limited intervention.  Jesus and Paul would both represent intervention.  I am assuming Paul's resulting actions were the intended consequence of the intervention.

If Jesus appeared on a flaming Unicorn, would you proclaim him from the mountaintops, or look for a scientific explanation which would exclude anything supernatural (if it occurred it wouldn't be, but that is another topic all-together)? 



bullethead said:


> Isn't it eeerily suspicious that despite all the non-believers worldwide... AND how simple of a feat it would be to appear to them all and set the record straight...there has not been a sighting in 2000+ years? Jesus WANTS us to believe,



Jesus wants faith, or that is what I read anyway.   The proof you demand would elliminate the faith factor.  Why some and not others, I dunno. 



bullethead said:


> Jesus says he will answer our prayers..



"No" is an answer as well.



bullethead said:


> Jesus is a no show..



Not if you believe the NT. 



bullethead said:


> Yes, I'll take the personal visit.



And I hope you get it someday.  Me too.  Until then, I will put faith in the word of the goat herders, fisherman, tax-collectors, etc. who assembled the NT.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> JB, Paul did not believe and asked Jesus to appear to him. Jesus, according to Paul, DID appear and made a believer out of Paul. Jesus "appeared" to hundreds of people, 12 disciples, Cephas, James, Mary.....
> Is it beyond the capabilities of Jesus to do the same for me? Even after I have asked and prayed for it to happen? Isn't it eeerily suspicious that despite all the non-believers worldwide... AND how simple of a feat it would be to appear to them all and set the record straight...there has not been a sighting in 2000+ years? Jesus WANTS us to believe, Jesus says he will answer our prayers. Jesus is a no show.
> Yes, I'll take the personal visit.



If you don't mind, I'll be praying the same thing for you.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 19, 2012)

> Originally posted by *Asath*
> It is a tough read. No question about that. There is no plot; no consistent story-line; little or no connection between the chapters; an open acknowledgement that the authors were various and largely anonymous; and the strange, almost surreal fact that just about everything that is said is unsaid somewhere else, often in the same chapter



There is a plot and a story line.....just wanted to clear that up. 

I will say though, that it certainly doesn't read as easy as Robert Grisham.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If the first statement is true, then obviously, no.


ok





JB0704 said:


> Does your request mandate action?  Or is faith the mandate?  I don't know why some and not others.  I believe in free-will with limited intervention.  Jesus and Paul would both represent intervention.  I am assuming Paul's resulting actions were the intended consequence of the intervention.


I am just using the passages in the Bible as written by the NT authors. If they are accurate I should get some response.



JB0704 said:


> If Jesus appeared on a flaming Unicorn, would you proclaim him from the mountaintops, or look for a scientific explanation which would exclude anything supernatural (if it occurred it wouldn't be, but that is another topic all-together)?


If he was who he says he is I would have no choice but to believe. I would gladly tell anyone that asks and I would without hesitation post my experience on here.
Now, If you want to take bets on whether or not it happens, the smart money says bet on NOT.




JB0704 said:


> Jesus wants faith, or that is what I read anyway.   The proof you demand would elliminate the faith factor.  Why some and not others, I dunno.


One passage says faith another does not. I certainly asked when I was overflowing with faith and that did not work out, I have tried it the other ways....nothing.





JB0704 said:


> "No" is an answer as well.


Only if someone actually says "No". ZERO response is not "No", it is a non action accomplished by a non being.





JB0704 said:


> Not if you believe the NT.


2000 years and not a peep. Probably why I don't believe the NT.





JB0704 said:


> And I hope you get it someday.  Me too.  Until then, I will put faith in the word of the goat herders, fisherman, tax-collectors, etc. who assembled the NT.


With many other writings taking place at or near the same time, those guys did not assemble the NT. That was done much later.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 85% of gazillions?
> 5% of the Bible debatable?
> When you don't know the facts...make em up!
> 
> ...



Prove me wrong.

Besides that's not what I said, why don't you backquote exactly what I said instead of making it up as YOU go?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I honestly wish I had a dollar for each and every time I heard someone say that.
> 
> THE problem with your statement is that you assume it ends one of two ways. Yours or Mine. It is a HUGE flaw in a narrow mindset because what if we are both wrong? Did you Prepare for that? There are literally hundreds of different beliefs in this world and you think YOURS has all the others beat.



Well do you have another opinion? There's only two spoken here. If there's another one, why don't you speak up about it? I wish I had a dollar for every person that responded with the same response as you have, yet offers no other opinion that they actually believe themselves...ya know? sheesh.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> As a young teenager I was taught the Bible by men whom I respected.  I read it, but it seemed very confusing to me so I based most of my beliefs on what others taught me.
> 
> As a young adult I began search for the truth of the Bible.  I knew there were hundreds of beliefs within the church that opposed each other.  For one Christian it meant one thing, for another Christian it meant something else.
> I began reading books to discover the truth.  For me, I soon realized that the new, modern books were the greatest source of confusion.  So I stopped reading or having any interest in anything except the Bible.
> ...




Imagine all the stupid things you could know about right now if you hadn't stopped reading.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 19, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Imagine all the stupid things you could know about right now if you hadn't stopped reading.



Well that's true. Newer books are stupider, that's so true....especially science and history books that have proven to be totally incorrect and inconsistant depending on who wrote it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

Historical events, history books, eyewitness accounts, survivor tales, author interpretations all have one thing in common and it is the Human Element.
Humans screw up, remember things differently, embellish, forget, lie, add, subtract, and often turn things into what they want told. NONE of that is some sort of huge secret. It is a tall order to sift through all that and come up with the best possible solution to what actually happened or based off of those same findings what most likely happened. Once it is checked and agreed upon by many peers in that field of expertise, then is it passed along as being Historically accurate. Even the best of them have been found to have errors and have been corrected once more information is known.
NONE of that changes with the Bible E X C E P T that one thing that NONE of those other writings and accounts have and that is Divine Intervention. THAT is the reason the Bible and each letter in it is held to such strict scrutiny above and beyond what we normally encounter. It is NOT a History book. It IS(according to the Bible itself) THE infallible and inerrant words of an infallible and inerrant Supreme Being. There are no excuses for it, there are no exceptions made, there is no reason that the contents should not be understood, clear, concise, precise, and exactly as God intended. There is not a person on the planet that should have any doubt to what it says or means.
But it is none of those things. It is a fantastic man made, man written, man thought book written by various authors over 1400 years and assembled by Men that took those writings from many other similar writings and tried to make a flowing story out of it.
If that is the work of a Perfect Being and the best that being can do, then there is no question why it comes under such scrutiny.

The believers arguing that it should be held to the same standards as the written works and history accounts of man should be ashamed of themselves for putting it into the same category by lowering the standards of the work of their God and then disappointed that the book does not rise head and shoulders above the man made works. It should not be able to be scrutinized if it actually was what it claims to be.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Historical events, history books, eyewitness accounts, survivor tales, author interpretations all have one thing in common and it is the Human Element.
> Humans screw up, remember things differently, embellish, forget, lie, add, subtract, and often turn things into what they want told. NONE of that is some sort of huge secret. It is a tall order to sift through all that and come up with the best possible solution to what actually happened or based off of those same findings what most likely happened. Once it is checked and agreed upon by many peers in that field of expertise, then is it passed along as being Historically accurate. Even the best of them have been found to have errors and have been corrected once more information is known.
> NONE of that changes with the Bible E X C E P T that one thing that NONE of those other writings and accounts have and that is Divine Intervention. THAT is the reason the Bible and each letter in it is held to such strict scrutiny above and beyond what we normally encounter. It is NOT a History book. It IS(according to the Bible itself) THE infallible and inerrant words of an infallible and inerrant Supreme Being. There are no excuses for it, there are no exceptions made, there is no reason that the contents should not be understood, clear, concise, precise, and exactly as God intended. There is not a person on the planet that should have any doubt to what it says or means.
> But it is none of those things. It is a fantastic man made, man written, man thought book written by various authors over 1400 years and assembled by Men that took those writings from many other similar writings and tried to make a flowing story out of it.
> ...



No doubt.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Historical events, history books, eyewitness accounts, survivor tales, author interpretations all have one thing in common and it is the Human Element..



Yes.



bullethead said:


> Humans screw up, remember things differently, embellish, forget, lie, add, subtract, and often turn things into what they want told.



Yes.



bullethead said:


> NONE of that is some sort of huge secret. It is a tall order to sift through all that and come up with the best possible solution to what actually happened or based off of those same findings what most likely happened. Once it is checked and agreed upon by many peers in that field of expertise, then is it passed along as being Historically accurate. Even the best of them have been found to have errors and have been corrected once more information is known.



Yes.



bullethead said:


> NONE of that changes with the Bible E X C E P T that one thing that NONE of those other writings and accounts have and that is Divine Intervention.



No.  The Oracles in the story we debated earlier.  Lots of early history included that type stuff.




bullethead said:


> THAT is the reason the Bible and each letter in it is held to such strict scrutiny above and beyond what we normally encounter. It is NOT a History book.



No. Much of the Bible is a history of the Jewish people.



bullethead said:


> It IS(according to the Bible itself) THE infallible and inerrant words of an infallible and inerrant Supreme Being.



What are your references?  I believe what I am aware of is that the Bible says all scripture is inspired by God.  




bullethead said:


> There are no excuses for it, there are no exceptions made, there is no reason that the contents should not be understood, clear, concise, precise, and exactly as God intended.



Them's your rules.




bullethead said:


> There is not a person on the planet that should have any doubt to what it says or means.



Thus says Bullethead....



bullethead said:


> But it is none of those things......



....to you



bullethead said:


> It is a fantastic man made, man written, man thought book written by various authors over 1400 years and assembled by Men that took those writings from many other similar writings and tried to make a flowing story out of it.



Yes....to an extent (I will attribute a certain level of inspiration to a force you do not recognize, but we will agree on multiple authors over 1400 years).



bullethead said:


> If that is the work of a Perfect Being and the best that being can do, then there is no question why it comes under such scrutiny.



Because you are looking for it to do things you say it must do.  You have created a system for failure, then got upset when the system failed.



bullethead said:


> The believers arguing that it should be held to the same standards as the written works and history accounts of man should be ashamed of themselves.....



That would be me, and I assure you I will sleep fine tonight.



bullethead said:


> .....for putting into the same category by lowering the standards of the work of their God and then disappointed that the book does not rise head and shoulders above the man made works..



You are the disappointed party here.  Not us. We are fine with the Bible as is.



bullethead said:


> It should not be able to be scrutinized if it actually was what it claims to be.



Again, them's your rules.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No.  The Oracles in the story we debated earlier.  Lots of early history included that type stuff./


The Oracles were God? The Oracles inspired Herodotus to write THEIR words?
Do YOU believe that the Oracles were divine? Or do you look past the mumbo jumbo and see the story for what it is?



JB0704 said:


> No. Much of the Bible is a history of the Jewish people.


God was the Jewish Historian and decided to write about it? I did not know that!




JB0704 said:


> What are your references?  I believe what I am aware of is that the Bible says all scripture is inspired by God.


God's followers are my references. Pastors, Priests and believers. I'll ask you...Is God Infallible and Inerrant?




JB0704 said:


> Because you are looking for it to do things you say it must do.  You have created a system for failure, then got upset when the system failed.


I am using the system used for everything else we want to find the facts about.
I am not upset.
Nor am I surprised it does not live up to IT's(not my) claims.




JB0704 said:


> You are the disappointed party here.  Not us. We are fine with the Bible as is.


I am not disappointed as I am also fine with the Bible as is....it is just I can be honest with myself and others about what the Bible is.





JB0704 said:


> Again, them's your rules.


Not my rules JB. I play by the rules and follow them. If I make a claim I'll back it up. Is it too much to ask that of the Bible?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bullet, I am about to hit the road, I will think all this over and respond sometime tonight.  Have a good weekend!  If you are chasing turkeys good luck!

If I get some time outside my little league obligations I may try and catch a few fish.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, I am about to hit the road, I will think all this over and respond sometime tonight.  Have a good weekend!  If you are chasing turkeys good luck!
> 
> If I get some time outside my little league obligations I may try and catch a few fish.



Will do!
Youth Day tomorrow so I will take my youngest Son out, thank you for the extra luck.

Here is some luck back atcha if you get out fishing. Glad to hear you are involved in Little League.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Here is some luck back atcha if you get out fishing. Glad to hear you are involved in Little League.





My boy will only be a boy for so long, so I stay as involved as I possibly can.  This year he made the all-star team, so I am going to be coaching through the summer, on top of getting him to and from football practice every day!  But I love being a dad, it's a crazy hectic schedule, but worth every second.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The Oracles were God? The Oracles inspired Herodotus to write THEIR words?
> Do YOU believe that the Oracles were divine? Or do you look past the mumbo jumbo and see the story for what it is??



I believe the Oracles were there, but not inspired.  But, I do believe Leonidas had to consult those fellas.  I don't think Herodotus invented them.  And, I guess you know where I will make the comparison......




bullethead said:


> God was the Jewish Historian and decided to write about it? I did not know that!??



Not God.  Moses, David, Solomon.  They did an awful lot of writing.  The definition of the term "inspired" is where everybody on the believers side goes in seperate ways.



bullethead said:


> God's followers are my references. Pastors, Priests and believers. I'll ask you...Is God Infallible and Inerrant?



Two thoughts.  First, I would be hesitant who would qualify as my references.  Second, God as inerrant, sure.  




bullethead said:


> I am using the system used for everything else we want to find the facts about.
> I am not upset.
> Nor am I surprised it does not live up to IT's(not my) claims.?



What claims are we talking about?  Can we get specific on this point?  The reason I used the term upset is becuase every one of you seems determined to focus on flaws, instead of finding the message.



bullethead said:


> I am not disappointed as I am also fine with the Bible as is....it is just I can be honest with myself and others about what the Bible is.



Ok.




bullethead said:


> Not my rules JB. I play by the rules and follow them. If I make a claim I'll back it up. Is it too much to ask that of the Bible?



The Bible does not say to "not scrutinize it."  Nor does it say men should not scrutinize it.  In fact, people are told, in the NT, to understand why they believe what they believe.  If such a belief is based on Biblical teachings, then the Bible would automatically fall under scrutiny.  As it should.

But, does the Bible have to be what you say it is in order to be what I think it is?  To me, no.  It can have "errors" and human influence.  It can be metaphorical and literal.  It can include cultural influence as well as historical bias and still be "inspired" by God's interaction with man.  For me, being crazy analytical about everything, that understanding was a huge relief.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

http://gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> My boy will only be a boy for so long, so I stay as involved as I possibly can.  This year he made the all-star team, so I am going to be coaching through the summer, on top of getting him to and from football practice every day!  But I love being a dad, it's a crazy hectic schedule, but worth every second.



I went through it with 2/3 of my boys. Biddy League to Teener League, Knee-High Football to High School and College. Oh Man do I miss it! Often wondered how we could be in two different places at roughly the same time and barely miss a thing from one to the other!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 20, 2012)

Why are the modern teachings, books, and music never up to the standards of the dead authors, composers, and prophets?
I'll admit I feel this way about Bible translations and music but I can't really say it's right. Just a personal bias without any merit I would assume.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I believe the Oracles were there, but not inspired.  But, I do believe Leonidas had to consult those fellas.  I don't think Herodotus invented them.  And, I guess you know where I will make the comparison......


Sure the Oracles were there, Sure Leonidas consulted them. The Oracles were a part of the Culture. Were they anything more than human? I think you know where I am going with that.....






JB0704 said:


> Not God.  Moses, David, Solomon.  They did an awful lot of writing.  The definition of the term "inspired" is where everybody on the believers side goes in seperate ways.


http://gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php





JB0704 said:


> Two thoughts.  First, I would be hesitant who would qualify as my references.  Second, God as inerrant, sure.


First, Noted
Second, HIS work does not show it.






JB0704 said:


> What claims are we talking about?  Can we get specific on this point?  The reason I used the term upset is becuase every one of you seems determined to focus on flaws, instead of finding the message.


We could spend the next six months, starting a new thread for each, on the claims made in the Bible.
The message is awesome! I have said for years before I got on here and I have said on here numerous times the work itself is of the finest. But I will clarify.....The writings and messages are 100% man made.




JB0704 said:


> The Bible does not say to "not scrutinize it."  Nor does it say men should not scrutinize it.  In fact, people are told, in the NT, to understand why they believe what they believe.  If such a belief is based on Biblical teachings, then the Bible would automatically fall under scrutiny.  As it should.


JB, with no beating around the bush, If the Bible was the works of THE Superior Being, THE Creator of all Creation, it has GOT to be the biggest failure of his works. I would think a perfect being would create perfection in his works, and the Bible simply misses the mark.



JB0704 said:


> But, does the Bible have to be what you say it is in order to be what I think it is?  To me, no.  It can have "errors" and human influence.  It can be metaphorical and literal.  It can include cultural influence as well as historical bias and still be "inspired" by God's interaction with man.  For me, being crazy analytical about everything, that understanding was a huge relief.



You are right, it is a personal thing. It is definitely not a universally understood works. You can accept it as is. I cannot see it as the works of God. I can see it as the works of man. As soon as I was able to sift through the Divinity, miracles, resurrection, and come to terms that (to me) it sounded like the works of ancient times that also included later additions and was able to be manipulated over centuries by whoever held the pens and the power, it totally lost it's luster.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sure the Oracles were there, Sure Leonidas consulted them. The Oracles were a part of the Culture. Were they anything more than human? I think you know where I am going with that.....
> 
> http://gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php
> 
> ...




So, you don't believe the Bible has a connection to God because it doesn't reveal a God that is satisfactory to you?  Things should be better?  The God of the Bible doesn't 'measure up'?

Did you ever check out the site I posted a couple of days ago??   http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm

The Bible will never be received by you as long as you look at it with distain.
The Bible doesn't show an undeserving God, but unfaithful subjects. (And you and I are both perfect examples of that).


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> So, you don't believe the Bible has a connection to God because it doesn't reveal a God that is satisfactory to you?  Things should be better?  The God of the Bible doesn't 'measure up'?
> 
> Did you ever check out the site I posted a couple of days ago??   http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm
> 
> ...



I looked at the site and I am pretty sure I commented on it.
The Bible once was received by me. You (and others) just have a hard time coming to grips with not everyone else seeing it just like you.
THE more I read it the less the message stands out and the more the conglomeration of various writers and various styles sticks out. I can see where additions(because of style or words) were added. I can see where it lost it's luster in translations. I can see where man was the sole provider.
The Bible should not just have a connection to God if it is HIS work.
The Bible is what it is Ron. To me one thing, You another, to someone else something different and on and on.
That is why I can view it, look at it, accept it, receive it or reject it because it is an individual experience. I understand the Bible just as much as everyone else but believers don't understand the Bible better, they just come to a different conclusion than others.
If the Bible is about the message, it is a good book. As good as many other books (fiction, religious...) that send a message.
If the Bible is to be held to the standards worthy of the works of a God it is not that great. If it to be held to the standards of the God of Gods it is mediocre in my mind.
If it is to be held to the standards of all of our other literary works then it really isn't worthy to be linked to a God.
I am not ignorant. I am not right or wrong. I am satisfied with what I have gotten out of the Bible both when I thought it was everything you do and now when I see it in another way.

Ron, I believe in a God. I don't believe he is responsible for the Bible(or any other religious book). I don't believe he created one race of people to explain their God. I think one race of people created a God to explain their people.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I looked at the site and I am pretty sure I commented on it.
> The Bible once was received by me. You (and others) just have a hard time coming to grips with not everyone else seeing it just like you.
> THE more I read it the less the message stands out and the more the conglomeration of various writers and various styles sticks out. I can see where additions(because of style or words) were added. I can see where it lost it's luster in translations. I can see where man was the sole provider.
> The Bible should not just have a connection to God if it is HIS work.
> ...



You're mistaken.  I expect that there will always be people who don't believe it(on this side of existance).
And you're right, you did comment on that site.  I just missed it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You're mistaken.  I expect that there will always be people who don't believe it(on this side of existance).
> And you're right, you did comment on that site.  I just missed it.



Then I apologize for lumping you in with a crowd where you do not belong.


----------



## Asath (Apr 21, 2012)

“The reason I used the term upset is becuase every one of you seems determined to focus on flaws, instead of finding the message.”

Okay, so here’s the first two parts of that problem – First, the simple fact that there ARE flaws calls the entire work into question.  It is either Scripture, or part-Scripture and part-flaws.  And once the flaws are demonstrated (and they have been), then how can the rest be held as credible, lacking actual empirical proof?  One cannot assert that E=mc, but not believe in the ‘squared’ part.

The second part of this problem is that if we focus on the ‘message,’ as is suggested, and ignore the flaws, then we are faced with the daunting obstacle of deciding just WHICH message to follow. The Book is filled with contradictions and mixed messages, not even to mention that last Chapter which reads like a Bellevue Case Study in clinical hallucinatory insanity.  

So what do we do?  Do we refrain from killing, or do we only kill under the circumstances that the Book says we should?  Do we love our neighbor, and benevolently forgive, or do we betray our family for not believing as we do?  Do we refrain from stealing, or do we merely ask our Disciples to do it for us?  Do we live in the surety of the forgiveness of our sins, or labor under apocalyptic visions of our eternal torture?  I could go on for a dozen paragraphs, and not scratch the surface.  

You see the problem – one cannot simply assert that we ought to focus on the ‘message,’ and by such an assertion allege that there is only one.  That is far from truthful, and puts forward only the contention that we ought Believe, blindly, your own interpretation, rather than all available ‘messages’ that are also contained in the same Book.  This sort of an approach puts one’s personal reading and interpretation ahead of the actual Word, as written, and once again causes one’s ‘religion’ to be far less Biblically-based than personally decided.  One does not need a Bible to make one’s own decisions, and since that is exactly what is going on, it must force one to ask just what uses the Bible actually has, aside being a compendium of personal choices and an invitation to personal rejections.

This idea goes hand in hand with the next thought – 

“The Bible will never be received by you as long as you look at it with distain.
The Bible doesn't show an undeserving God, but unfaithful subjects.”                     

Subjects?  Receiving?  All this argument says is that if you don’t already ‘Believe,’ you’ll never ‘get it.’  Granted.  If one has not already bought into the Mayan Prophesy idea, or the idea of ghosts, or of Leprechauns, then one will never fully understand 12/21/12, nor ectoplasm, nor the pot of gold.  But what strikes an outsider as odd is that, considering the diverse wealth of ‘Believers’ in everything under the sun that this world has to offer, ALL of them hold that their own, personal beliefs are incontrovertibly true, and not a one of them has ever demonstrated why the rest of us ought to join them.  If it is as TRUE as you need it to be, and requires no further explanation, then which part of that ought to concern the rest of us?  BUT, the last I checked, the Book says nothing about triple by-pass surgery, and I see few true-believers trying to pray for intervention instead of relying on science to save their lives.  Perhaps if the rest of us ‘got it,’  then we, and even the believers, wouldn’t need hospitals anymore.  (Face it – the realities of modern life that the Book failed to mention or anticipate are too numerous to mention, and if someone wishes to take on a simple one, and explain just where the Scripture anticipated and explained electricity we’ll be only too happy to watch the strained and desperate rationalizations . . . )    

Truth is, real life will never be received as long as you look at it with distain.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> Okay, so here’s the first two parts of that problem – First, the simple fact that there ARE flaws calls the entire work into question.  It is either Scripture, or part-Scripture and part-flaws.  And once the flaws are demonstrated (and they have been), then how can the rest be held as credible, lacking actual empirical proof?  One cannot assert that E=mc, but not believe in the ‘squared’ part.
> 
> The second part of this problem is that if we focus on the ‘message,’ as is suggested, and ignore the flaws, then we are faced with the daunting obstacle of deciding just WHICH message to follow. The Book is filled with contradictions and mixed messages, not even to mention that last Chapter which reads like a Bellevue Case Study in clinical hallucinatory insanity.



Two great reasons and why I have said from the beginning that reading the Bible(like religion itself) is purely an individual experience. Put any number of people together in a room and let them read the Bible(doesn't matter how many times each) and then write an essay about it...no two essays are going to be the same. No two People are going to get the same message because there are so many darn messages and ways to interpret them!

Then when the essays are read aloud, one writer will tell the rest they just didn't "get" the Bible like he/she did and their essays do not fully grasp what is being said. God meant this not that.... That was a metaphor but this is literal.... The reason it sounds contradictory is because that was the part that man screwed up, not God.... and so on.....
Too many people overlook the Bible for what it is and only see it for what they want it to be.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php



I read a good bit through this link.  And, like anything else when it comes to the Bible, I get the distinct impression that the author had his answer before he did his research.

I got my undergrad at a Christian University.  So, I had to take a few Bible oriented courses even though I was an accounting major.  One day, I sat through an entire lecture by a highly respected theologian who made a passionate case that Jesus' wine was non-alcoholic 

....it is what it is.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I read a good bit through this link.  And, like anything else when it comes to the Bible, I get the distinct impression that the author had his answer before he did his research.
> 
> I got my undergrad at a Christian University.  So, I had to take a few Bible oriented courses even though I was an accounting major.  One day, I sat through an entire lecture by a highly respected theologian who made a passionate case that Jesus' wine was non-alcoholic
> 
> ....it is what it is.



EXACTLY JB!!!!
And THE reason(s) why every single believer of every single religion views it differently. They interpret the writings however they want. Nobody here or alive anywhere has a clue to what happens after death. No one knows whether there is a God let alone the specifics of a God. No one writes for God. No one speaks for god. I am fully convinced that anyone writing or speaking for God is merely giving us their version of what they THINK their God would do or say and they do this without any proof a God even exists. Linking something written on paper, said out loud or thought in one's mind is not proof of a God.
I have noticed that MOST people have all their answers without doing any research.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 23, 2012)

A Christian is a person (1) who believes that the living God is revealed in and through Jesus Christ, (2) who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (3) who lives in obedient communion with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) who takes his or her place in the community of God's church.

The typical response is this:

Given (1),(2), and (4), who qualifies under (3)? It looks like the standard is perfection!

The standard is perfection.

The answer is that perfection is the goal and ultimate result of God's transforming work. Christians "stumble, even fall", but the motivation to be perfectly submissive causes him or her to keep getting back up, focusing on what lies ahead, an eternity with their Creator. It is continually allowing God to remake us in the image of His Son, that the Christian longs for with all his heart.

Obviously, all are not at the same point in their "journey" and, clearly, some are more persistent. That is one reason why we (Christians) are seen by others (the unsaved) based on their personal experiences with one or a few Christians. Undoubtedly, you have seen some immature and some more mature Christians. The problem with focusing ones attention on the "follower" is that one rarely focuses on the "leader".

This may not make a big difference in some situations, but when everything is based on a personal relationship with the "leader", it is the only way. The "followers", in this life, are all human, all fallible. If you must judge, you need to focus on the "leader".


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 23, 2012)

gtparts said:


> A Christian is a person (1) who believes that the living God is revealed in and through Jesus Christ, (2) who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (3) who lives in obedient communion with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) who takes his or her place in the community of God's church.
> 
> The typical response is this:
> 
> ...



Very well put.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2012)

gtparts said:


> A Christian is a person (1) who believes that the living God is revealed in and through Jesus Christ, (2) who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (3) who lives in obedient communion with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) who takes his or her place in the community of God's church.



How many on here meet those qualifications?

How many do not meet those qualifications yet feel the answer they already posted qualifies?

Is there a Christian who disagrees with any of the "what makes YOU a Christian" responses given so far?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 24, 2012)

Originally Posted by gtparts  
A Christian is a person (1) who believes that the living God is revealed in and through Jesus Christ, (2) who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (3) who lives in obedient communion with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) who takes his or her place in the community of God's church. 
How many on here meet those qualifications?

How many do not meet those qualifications yet feel the answer they already posted qualifies?

Is there a Christian who disagrees with any of the "what makes YOU a Christian" responses given so far? 

I think it only takes 2 & 3 from above.


----------



## Asath (Apr 24, 2012)

“A Christian is a person (1) who believes that the living God is revealed in and through Jesus Christ, (2) who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (3) who lives in obedient communion with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) who takes his or her place in the community of God's church.”

This is rather a flowing and conditional description, and one that simply piles assumption upon assumption.

To begin with, atop this pyramid is the assumption that there IS a ‘living God.’  

(1) Well, as with any other act of irrationality, once an absurd premise is embraced, just about everything else follows ‘logically.’  But a ‘living God’ could not be ‘revealed’ unless there was one, to start with.  And if there were one, there must certainly be better ways to ‘reveal’ Itself than by knocking up a human woman in a remote desert a couple of thousand years ago and leaving it at that.

(2) Undaunted, the purported half-God, half-human child of the assumed God must also be accepted as a God-figure, come as the Savior (of just whom, and from just exactly what is unclear, but heck, once you’ve gotten this far, the fish is already on the hook – the rest is just playing it and reeling).

(3) Not quite sure, and unwilling to stand and take a third strike, the believers square up and bunt -- a third party intervention is proposed, since the power of God and the Half-God is unconvincing.  The power of the purely mysterious, and never defined ‘Holy Spirit’ is all encompassing, filling in the blanks the other two clearly left.

(4) And Thus It Is Demonstrated – take your place among us, in the ‘community’ of our Church, or be condemned.  This means, largely, that we think you’re dumb enough to give us your stuff and your money, because we said so.  It seems to cost vast piles of money to support the invisible and never really clearly defined mission of the invisible and largely non-existent God.  (Sotto voce – Don’t say that out loud to the guy with the bad toupee and the Cadillac – they get really loud and angry about the truth . . .  THEY KNOW what God meant – just ask them . . .  )


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 24, 2012)

Asath said:


> “A Christian is a person (1) who believes that the living God is revealed in and through Jesus Christ, (2) who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (3) who lives in obedient communion with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) who takes his or her place in the community of God's church.”
> 
> This is rather a flowing and conditional description, and one that simply piles assumption upon assumption.
> 
> ...



You have a lot of anger over something you profess to be conditional and apparently irrevalent............It is conditional............so if you don't believe it just ignore it........You will live a lot longer if you learn to reduce the stress in your life..................


----------



## Asath (Apr 24, 2012)

I never knew.

Failing to embrace the transparently absurd is a manifestation of Anger?

Clearly I need to consult a Priest, or a Reverend, or maybe a Bishop?

Perhaps they can set me straight, in their righteous rejection of everyone and everything other than themselves and those who they have convinced to think alike.

Be serious.  Anger is hardly the correct characterization.  Amused distance, perhaps . . . Parental condescension . . .  Disappointment in the credulity of my fellow humans . . . Outright laughter at some of the bald-faced and sincere rationalizations . . . Honest gaping wonder at some of the things folks put forward as truth . . . Sheer bafflement in the face of many of the excuses, justifications, and immediate ‘rabbit-out-of-the-hat’ inventions . . . 

All of those, and more, I’ll plead guilty.

Anger, on the other hand, seems to be the sole purview of God.

Question though – conditional on what?


----------

