# Bart Ehrman article



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

From:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-04/christians-heaven-****-soul
(Replace the **** with the double hockey stix in the link)

"Billions of Christians around the world believe that on Easter, Jesus was raised from the dead and taken up to heaven to live with God. They also believe that when they die, their own souls will go to heaven. The great irony is that this is not at all what Jesus himself believed.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> From:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-04/christians-heaven-****-soul
> (Replace the **** with the double hockey stix in the link)
> 
> "Billions of Christians around the world believe that on Easter, Jesus was raised from the dead and taken up to heaven to live with God. They also believe that when they die, their own souls will go to heaven. The great irony is that this is not at all what Jesus himself believed.


The link doesn’t work. As far as Easter, most just celebrate a time knowing that it most likely isn’t that exact date - no different than Christmas with the birth. 

According to his “great irony” does he go on to say what Jesus believed about souls going to heaven?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The link doesn’t work. As far as Easter, most just celebrate a time knowing that it most likely isn’t that exact date - no different than Christmas with the birth.
> 
> According to his “great irony” does he go on to say what Jesus believed about souls going to heaven?


Just underneath the link I noted that you must replace the ****'s with the he-double- hockey stix for it to work


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Just underneath the link I noted that you must replace the ****'s with the he-double- hockey stix for it to work


Sorry , I misread that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

Here is a more in depth article about it. Again the censors will put stars where the "hades" word goes. Replace the stars and the link will work.
https://time.com/5822598/jesus-really-said-heaven-****/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/03/27/bible-scholar-bart-ehrman/


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 10, 2021)

For every nay there’s an aye. 


https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/misr...-misquoting-jesus-edward-d-andrews/1108428515


“MISREPRESENTING JESUS Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" is an attempt to look behind the scenes at Ehrman's book, and get a picture of his mindset as he penned it by the way he worded something, or repeatedly worded something, or left something out, and far more. This is not to say that I did not get into his arguments, and debunk them, for that was done as well. By the time you finish this book, you will find that Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus is evangelizing for atheism, and using his misleading words to find new members, by way of doubt, contributing to the unwary Christian's spiritual shipwreck.”


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> For every nay there’s an aye.
> 
> 
> https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/misr...-misquoting-jesus-edward-d-andrews/1108428515
> ...


Misquoting Jesus is a totally different book from Ehrman.
What I did was research  ancient Jewish beliefs to see if they lined up with Ehrman's claims and they did. It was late 1st century when H&H became popular which was the time more pagans were becoming Christians.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Misquoting Jesus is a totally different book from Ehrman.
> What I did was research  ancient Jewish beliefs to see if they lined up with Ehrman's claims and they did. It was late 1st century when H&H became popular which was the time more pagans were becoming Christians.



Edward D. Andrews is arguing against Ehrman - “By glimpsing into the life of Bart D. Ehrman and following along his course of academic studies, Andrews helps the reader to understand the biases, assumptions, and shortcomings supporting Ehrman's arguments”


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Edward D. Andrews is arguing against Ehrman - “By glimpsing into the life of Bart D. Ehrman and following along his course of academic studies, Andrews helps the reader to understand the biases, assumptions, and shortcomings supporting Ehrman's arguments”


Well to be fair, that is what Critics do. And I am sure in this case that Andrews will counter with late 1st century Bible verses to back up his assessment which is the time period that Ehrman is using to make his.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

Lets step back from Ehrman and Andrews and see what the Jewish people have to say about H&H.
https://www.tbs-online.org/rabbi-perlins-study/307-2/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/heaven-and-****-in-jewish-tradition/


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Lets step back from Ehrman and Andrews and see what the Jewish people have to say about H&H.
> https://www.tbs-online.org/rabbi-perlins-study/307-2/
> https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/heaven-and-****-in-jewish-tradition/


This is good timing because I’ve recently (within the last 2 days) have acquired the desire to take another historical journey / study.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

I always try to check sources within the people and culture who lived it(no agendas like trying to sell books to target audiences)and see which "expert" more likely than not lines up along those lines.


----------



## jollyroger (Apr 10, 2021)

https://time.com/5822598/jesus-really-said-heaven-*/

Replace * with that word. You know the one. All lowercase.

Just thought it was a good addition to the conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> https://time.com/5822598/jesus-really-said-heaven-*/
> 
> Replace * with that word. You know the one. All lowercase.
> 
> Just thought it was a good addition to the conversation.


Post # 5


----------



## jollyroger (Apr 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Post # 5


Missed that one, sorry 'bout that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> Missed that one, sorry 'bout that.


The article was so nice it was posted twice. 
It's all good


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> From:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-04/christians-heaven-****-soul
> (Replace the **** with the double hockey stix in the link)
> 
> "Billions of Christians around the world believe that on Easter, Jesus was raised from the dead and taken up to heaven to live with God. They also believe that when they die, their own souls will go to heaven. The great irony is that this is not at all what Jesus himself believed.



Bart Ehrman.  For the life of me I can't see why he's held in such high regards.  Every single one of his thesis rest on preposterous presuppositions.  He cites them with conviction and then goes on to build his thesis off of them.  I think it's that conviction that impressed someone enough to give him a Chair at UNC, Chapel Hill.  Couple that with the fact that he was an A\A in a bellwether Southern University lent some notoriety and gave him a popularity bump.  He quickly took advantage of that high horse and rode him right off the intellectual cliff.

Christianity does have him to thank though, because he singlehandedly made Gary Habermas a household name. Habermas has made hay off of Ehrman's follies to the point I almost feel sorry for Ehrman, almost.

I'm with Walt on this.  The older I get the more I realize that just because someone occupies a position of supposedly "implied" intelligence, his rationale can't be taken for granted.  And, like Walt, I'm finding most "common" folks reasoning stands up to scrutiny as well as or better than the "intellectuals".  America is a Mecca for educating people into imbecility and then imparting a degree upon them.  I see it more and more every day, highly educated people with absolutely no ability to think what-so-ever.  And then to expect them to communicate.......pfft, don't get me started.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bart Ehrman.  For the life of me I can't see why he's held in such high regards.  Every single one of his thesis rest on preposterous presuppositions.  He cites them with conviction and then goes on to build his thesis off of them.  I think it's that conviction that impressed someone enough to give him a Chair at UNC, Chapel Hill.  Couple that with the fact that he was an A\A in a bellwether Southern University lent some notoriety and gave him a popularity bump.  He quickly took advantage of that high horse and rode him right off the intellectual cliff.
> 
> Christianity does have him to thank though, because he singlehandedly made Gary Habermas a household name. Habermas has made hay off of Ehrman's follies to the point I almost feel sorry for Ehrman, almost.
> 
> I'm with Walt on this.  The older I get the more I realize that just because someone occupies a position of supposedly "implied" intelligence, his rationale can't be taken for granted.  And, like Walt, I'm finding most "common" folks reasoning stands up to scrutiny as well as or better than the "intellectuals".  America is a Mecca for educating people into imbecility and then imparting a degree upon them.  I see it more and more every day, highly educated people with absolutely no ability to think what-so-ever.  And then to expect them to communicate.......pfft, don't get me started.


When you take Ehrman and Andrews out of it you then have to see what the Jewish religion says about it and in this case the Jews support Ehrman's position. Above we can see your distaste for Ehrman but you didn't provide anything that refuted what he said regarding the Jews position on theH&H matter.
You did throw Habermas into the mix and he bases his "facts" of off beliefs rather than any hard core evidence. He holds his positions for the same reasons you say Ehrman holds his. He impressed someone enough because his presuppositions align with who ever hired him. Here is a good summary on Habermas https://truthseekingatheist.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/habermas-and-his-minimal-facts/
Like I said in a previous post these guys, Pro or Con target a specific audience and tell the already biased audience what they want to hear. The key as a reader is to step back and check into and research what they are saying and see what history tells us.
Attacking the authors positions of employment does not refute the content. In order to do that the content itself must be addressed. This is the place for us common folks to discuss such things, Ehrman's article is a foot in the door to initiate the discussion about what Jesus may or may not have believed being raised Jewish in those times.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2021)

That is the crux of the matter though, isn't it Bullet?



> about what Jesus may or may not have believed being raised Jewish in those times.



The assigning of Jesus to some sort of _toeing the party line_ in regards to "general" beliefs of the Jews at any particular time.

Or that a Jew has the more accurate or refined understanding of the scriptures even today because they claim the Tanakh as their own. And many agree.
In essence the the thought that the "OT" is theirs, the NT _is for the christian._

But we need not even look into the NT to see what by inclusion is glaringly contained in the _old. _(Though I am generally loathe to divide the scripture thus)

Quite frank tellings of those prophets sent most often to Jews "in general"/Israelites/Hebrews with the message "You folks are not really getting it at all. What you think you have in apprehension, you do not, what you mistake for meaning one thing means quite another in truth."

And we have in those accounts of how those prophets speaking thus were often treated by the "governing" Jews.

One needn't be a scholar to hear Isaiah's general reproval of misapprehended matters especially in regards to the significance of the sabbath, fasting and the observances thereof that had been inflated in great displays for religious declarations of self righteousness.

For reference one could read Is 58.

It is not without note Jesus most often quoted those prophets who "saw in part" what He is _in substance. _And He was quite unrelenting (even if one only reads _casually_) that He is the "it" of it all.

The Pharisees, the so called "keepers of the flame" (as no doubt some Jewish traditionalists/rabbis would even be called today) were those most often rebuked for their lack of understanding or willful disobedience. 

Jesus having the boldness to tell one in regards to being born from above:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 

Jesus was/is quite plain that in any dealings with Himself as He is, any stand upon traditions, previous assumptions and presumptions as to what constitutes abiding in the faith of God as true observance and practice must all be abandoned as shadows that, _at best_, only hint at His fullness. He touches all that might lend itself to idolatry as only He can.

His repeated phrasing of the "time is coming and now is" perhaps especially salient in regards to "exalting" earthly places:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father...But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 

And this remains as scandalous today in its essence of rebuke against all those who would nail a placard, engrave a stone, hang a billboard or sign that such and such constructed building is _the church...the "house" of God._
But we need not even go far into the "OT" to find the same sentiment expressed.

“Heaven _is_ My throne,
And earth _is_ My footstool.
Where _is_ the house that you will build Me?
And where _is_ the place of My rest?
For all those _things_ My hand has made,
And all those _things_ exist,”
Says the Lord.
“But on this _one_ will I look:
On _him who is_ poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word.

As (opposed) to what might have been "general apprehensions" and continued consciousness after the death of the body Jesus is not unknowing.



Jesus knew this when He spoke it to the _enlightened thief _on the cross of a continuing consciousness to be set at rest:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. 

No less in:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in he11. (Read Gehenna as needed, but there is no implication it is a "preferred" place)

Jesus also spoke (though often assumed in parable) of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man. Of conversations and continued consciousness...and one particularly consumed in regret and torment. 

But saying this is "mere" parable (even if it was given as such) and not the truth of the matter is moot to me. 
I suppose we could discuss what it might mean to be "carried to Abraham's side" but the matter of continuing consciousness as expressed, and whether Jesus would throw in a "red herring" of such obvious misinformation (if _there is no continued consciousness)_ is, for me, the more pressing matter. 

Would Jesus lie to express a truth?

That question has already been satisfactorily answered for me...and not apart from the many rebukes that have accompanied any excursions of my own into doubt regarding Jesus' credibility.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

Israel said:


> That is the crux of the matter though, isn't it Bullet?  “about what Jesus may or may not have believed being raised Jewish in those times”.



As far as writing / documentary - all we know and can know about Jesus is written in the New Testament. Everything written about him certainly indicated he believed and taught in a heaven, a place of eternal rest with the Father and, a place of eternal fire in some form.

I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t even know about Jesus. I mean he was missing from 12 to 30, no one wrote anything about him. Not much written prior to 12 after birth. Certainly not enough written anywhere to conclude that he thought opposite of what is written - without assumptions. Jews rejecting Jesus tells me he wasn’t all that “Jewishy” for them.

Just my opinion. And Jews today aren’t rejecting him for his heaven / hot place beliefs, they’re saying he isn’t the Messiah.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> As far as writing / documentary - all we know and can know about Jesus is written in the New Testament. Everything written about him certainly indicated he believed and taught in a heaven, a place of eternal rest with the Father and, a place of eternal fire in some form.
> 
> I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t even know about Jesus. I mean he was missing from 12 to 30, no one wrote anything about him. Not much written prior to 12 after birth. Certainly not enough written anywhere to conclude that he thought opposite of what is written - without assumptions. Jews rejecting Jesus tells me he wasn’t all that “Jewishy” for them.
> 
> Just my opinion. And Jews today aren’t rejecting him for his heaven / hot place beliefs, they’re saying he isn’t the Messiah.





> I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible.




One has speculation.

But I cannot say that with any _right of derision _for I have allowed myself subject to it at various times.

Prophets came "on the scene" quite early on to address departures from the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The "not keeping" of matters entrusted; instead opting to trade that keeping for a self exaltation for having been among the chosen to keep them.

We hear the same in Paul's warnings and exhortations; his seeing of how soon "grievous wolves" would rise up in opposition to the Word of God (who is Jesus Christ Himself) even by that operation Jesus had previously described...what comes (and even _must come_) as result to the sowing of the Word. There is opposition, there is a spirit and matters that rise to the consuming.

The man who has experienced the truth of these matters knows it and becomes more and more grateful for the also promise that even as what would rise against; the Lord's victory in keeping what is His (and always has been) is sure.

The man hearing at first might easily assume himself to be "good ground" even as motivated by such desire to see himself thus...(call that wishful thinking)...but he learns...that in all, for the holding to that which is the good above all, Jesus Christ, he needs no less help than ever he has in all things...even were he to fall back on his appraisal as being one called. There can be no comfort in self identity "as a christian" if in any part or whole it diminishes by one iota the total necessity of dependence upon Jesus _in person_ as salvation.

It is in all an inexplicable...but quite experiential, matter. How that as one is being conformed to a likeness by the hand of God to the man of Heaven, the more one is no less being convinced he (himself) is not Him! But this is where the preciousness of relationship shines in glory (that the man is being saved from the "not good" of being alone) that he is being kept as member and always being disabused of any messianic musings of himself he might entertain.

We must first admit the desire to be champion is strong...even so strong that only a true champion could overcome it. And we either come to see the joy of that sign "position filled" in our application(s)...or yet mistake the god that would provoke us to its filling...is no God at all.

No, we need not desire to be the villain of the piece (anymore!), just submit to the wonderful truth that the seat already taken is by the One who speaks on our behalf.
Who..."ever liveth to make intercession" for us. We will learn indelibly _all treachery_ is accounted for.

This is too hard a saying for what believes it has the goods to make good for itself...who scorn the real need of one's death on their behalf...sure, they might admit they are not "perfect" but nothing so desperate as the death of an innocent is in all needed to set them straight. And since this cannot be received neither can they receive He is and was in all...the _only _innocent. And so a _twist_ must be found in Him. He lies about his being.

Any and all pride of place of even being "the chosen" as even a Jew or christian might embrace to any pride is more than sufficiently accounted for in Jesus Christ...who no less says of Judas..."Have I not chosen you the 12, yet one of you is a devil".

Jesus has effectively removed any place of standing except in Himself...and this alone is life to, and in, the believer.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Israel said:


> That is the crux of the matter though, isn't it Bullet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus said he will return "in this Generation ". The Jews, Jesus being one of them, believed Heaven was here on Earth as a bodily resurrection.

But again and for the most part you are using NT verses which were written decades after Jesus was dead. You are using the same suspect material which Ehrman and the Jews use as examples of how and why the concept of H&H changed AFTER Jesus was dead. The material was written as more Pagan followers were being recruited into a new religion.
Jesus wasn't a Christian, he wasn't Catholic nor Protestant, he did not start a new religion. He was a Jew that practiced Judaism and followed the Torah until he took his last breath. All the embellishments to his life came after he was dead and was written by people who used him as the centerpiece for a new religion. The verses you quote above were written by anonymous people who Never Met Jesus and were Never beside him to hear him say a single word. The authors used him as inspiration to write their own feelings and versions of what they wanted told. No different that the magnificence of Hollywood fictional scripts or Literary fiction inspired by whatever or whoever inspired it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> As far as writing / documentary - all we know and can know about Jesus is written in the New Testament. Everything written about him certainly indicated he believed and taught in a heaven, a place of eternal rest with the Father and, a place of eternal fire in some form.
> 
> I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t even know about Jesus. I mean he was missing from 12 to 30, no one wrote anything about him. Not much written prior to 12 after birth. Certainly not enough written anywhere to conclude that he thought opposite of what is written - without assumptions. Jews rejecting Jesus tells me he wasn’t all that “Jewishy” for them.
> 
> Just my opinion. And Jews today aren’t rejecting him for his heaven / hot place beliefs, they’re saying he isn’t the Messiah.


The Jews aren't saying that he did all those things in the NT but missed being Messiah by one or two points, he isn't their messiah because the Jews who lived among him, with him, right there when he was supposedly doing these things, didn't take note of anything miraculous or out of the ordinary other than he was a troublemaker and got killed for it.

You are overlooking the fact that NOTHING was written about Jesus until he was dead for at least 30 years, and more was written 70+ years later.
30 years AFTER he was dead someone wrote about his years that you mentioned above. What was written about him "at birth" was written 63 years *AT THE EARLIEST * later!!!
You guys are using THE very writings that are suspect. You are using the book to source the book. You are telling us the equivalent that Sam I Am likes Green Eggs and Ham which yes he does but ONLY within the pages of the book. You are quoting dialog from Saving Private Ryan as if it is historical fact because you saw it on screen. In reality it is a story written 50+ years later that mixes real events in with fictional characters and dialog to tell the story the author wants told which was inspired by his father's time in WWII. Your counter to me saying that is "but in scene 48 when Captain Miller announces what his profession at home was before the war is proof that the story is real because that is what he said in the movie" YEAH! THERE IS ONLY ONE PLACE THAT "HAPPENED" which is within the confines of Spielberg's script and movie. NO different than what you are trying to pass off above by using similar writings in the NT. Which IS why Ehrman and the Jews make great points as to why the Jesus portrayed in the NT is not the same Jesus that was put to death at least 30 to 70 years prior to when the stories were written.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

It isn't like the Jews gave Jesus the Messiah runner up trophy,  they didn't even acknowledge his so called accomplishments. He was one of many men that had followers throughout Jewish history. The Jews take on him is the equivalent of "next".


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2021)

And the Weatherman always reports how wrong yesterday's forecast was.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Ehrman is not saying that there is no evidence in the NT that says Jesus mentioned H&H. You guys clearly give those verses.
What Ehrman is saying is that Jesus was a Torah practicing Jew and followed the Torah which did not contain verses about H&H. Judaism did not preach about H&H. It wasn't discussed. Therefore, Ehrman is saying that all that is written in the NT (which is the exact stuff you guys are using as examples) was added to, given to, tied to and associated with Jesus decades and decades after Jesus was already dead by writers who were not anywhere near Jesus ever to hear what he did or did not say. 
Ehrman is saying that Jesus being a follower of the Torah (which has the clout to Jews as the NT does to Christians) would have adhered to it's teachings.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> And the Weatherman always reports how wrong yesterday's forecast was.


A broken clock is right twice a day.

I am not sure what you are eluding to with your statement.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

To any and all that have participated in this thread:
How accurate of a story do you think it will likely to be if in 30 to 70 years from now(with no records to use) the Son or Daughter of a person who has lurked on here reading our conversations writes a book about us and those conversations based off of what their lurker Father has told them?
How many details would the author who has never met us get right about our time spent away from this site?
How precise would our quotes be?
What do you place the percentage of accuracy regarding what would be written about what our private PM's contained?
Could that author, or heck lets let a few more authors in on it also, get our exact individual beliefs down thought for thought?
What would the likelihood be that for many of those unknowns that the author(s) may be inclined to add in their own personal best guesses to fill the blanks?
Are such authors capable of spinning a story one way or the other depending upon which person more inspired them?
Is it human nature to tell the story the way they want it told in order to align with their personal beliefs?

Conversely would it be a little more accurate if they knew of our religious affiliation and based their stories off of what we most likely believed based from the general beliefs and teachings of the popular religion of the time period?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Which one of you here could accurately write a story about my life right now? Many of you could write multiple stories about me all with a similar theme regarding our conversations we've had among each other in here but how accurate would one story be from memory let alone including three years of conversations had almost daily at times?
Put that into perspective using 30 years from now, 50 years from now, 70 years from now as starting points by authors who were not part of the conversations at all, who never met me or any one of us. Lets say the new authors have extreme left wing ideals and are wanting to "teach" new readers about us. What spin may be placed on it in order to sway their stories a certain way? Which one of us would they align to fit their beliefs? 

I hope you all see the points I am making here.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The Jews aren't saying that he did all those things in the NT but missed being Messiah by one or two points, he isn't their messiah because the Jews who lived among him, with him, right there when he was supposedly doing these things, didn't take note of anything miraculous or out of the ordinary other than he was a troublemaker and got killed for it.
> 
> You are overlooking the fact that NOTHING was written about Jesus until he was dead for at least 30 years, and more was written 70+ years later.
> 30 years AFTER he was dead someone wrote about his years that you mentioned above. What was written about him "at birth" was written 63 years *AT THE EARLIEST * later!!!
> You guys are using THE very writings that are suspect. You are using the book to source the book. You are telling us the equivalent that Sam I Am likes Green Eggs and Ham which yes he does but ONLY within the pages of the book. You are quoting dialog from Saving Private Ryan as if it is historical fact because you saw it on screen. In reality it is a story written 50+ years later that mixes real events in with fictional characters and dialog to tell the story the author wants told which was inspired by his father's time in WWII. Your counter to me saying that is "but in scene 48 when Captain Miller announces what his profession at home was before the war is proof that the story is real because that is what he said in the movie" YEAH! THERE IS ONLY ONE PLACE THAT "HAPPENED" which is within the confines of Spielberg's script and movie. NO different than what you are trying to pass off above by using similar writings in the NT. Which IS why Ehrman and the Jews make great points as to why the Jesus portrayed in the NT is not the same Jesus that was put to death at least 30 to 70 years prior to when the stories were written.


I was just saying that I’d like to get to the bottom of Erhman’s conclusion of the “great irony” of what Jesus believed / disbelieved. Everything we know about Jesus is written in the Bible. There’s nothing else out there on him. They make great points but Erhman is telling us what Jesus didn’t believe, and the only thing we know written says differently.

To me it sounds like he has something else he’s using to determine that. For the rest, I am currently researching history.

I’m ok with someone saying most likely, but that isn’t the way it appears in Erhmans end result.,


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I was just saying that I’d like to get to the bottom of Erhman’s conclusion of the “great irony” of what Jesus believed / disbelieved. Everything we know about Jesus is written in the Bible. There’s nothing else out there on him. They make great points but Erhman is telling us what Jesus didn’t believe, and the only thing we know written says differently.
> 
> To me it sounds like he has something else he’s using to determine that. For the rest, I am currently researching history.
> 
> I’m ok with someone saying most likely, but that isn’t the way it appears in Erhmans end result.,


Ehrman used the Torah which is what Jesus used.
https://torah.org/learning/basics-primer-torah-bible/

Don't you find it odd if not disturbing that the only thing you know about Jesus was written decades after he was dead, nothing...literally NOTHING written about the supposed son of god while he was on the planet for 33 years and especially silent while for three of those years he was being "Jesus"?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I was just saying that I’d like to get to the bottom of Erhman’s conclusion of the “great irony” of what Jesus believed / disbelieved. Everything we know about Jesus is written in the Bible. There’s nothing else out there on him. They make great points but Erhman is telling us what Jesus didn’t believe, and the only thing we know written says differently.
> 
> To me it sounds like he has something else he’s using to determine that. For the rest, I am currently researching history.
> 
> I’m ok with someone saying most likely, but that isn’t the way it appears in Erhmans end result.,


This is the best analogy I can think of:

You are a Christian, you believe,  follow and share what is written in the Bible and especially the New Testament. You were raised by a family who used it, attended religious services that use it, you adhere to its practices and teachings and by all accounts your denomination is Christian. 

You die tomorrow. 

In 30 years from now would it be accurate for an author to say that you followed the contents of the NT and believed in H&H?
Or
30 years from now would it be accurate for an author who believed in H&H plus an additional after death realm (because that is where a new part of the Christian religion has gone in the 30 years after your death)to say that you followed the contents of the NT, believed in H&H but also believed in the new after death realm as the author does? Especially if the author was trying to recruit new members with his writings..

Which of those two above would be a more accurate description of you given that neither of the two ever met you?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Ehrman used the Torah which is what Jesus used.



Ehrman uses an empirical approach.  Do you think Jesus did the same?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Ehrman uses an empirical approach.  Do you think Jesus did the same?


I truly do not know for sure one single thing that an actual Jesus did, thought or said as there is absolutely zero evidence left for us to take into consideration by him personally.

Considering which wouldbe a more likely than not scenario based off of the religion that Jesus practiced at the time he lived, OR the new spin off religion which did not exist when Jesus was alive that centered around Jesus which was first written about decades after he was dead.....
I would say the Ehrman can use direct and indirect observation by following past and current Jewish religion history because he is alive and has the means to research the past and present. He can see what was added after Jesus's death and weigh the options.
On the other hand Jesus indirectly/directly observed the past (through the Torah and teachings) and his present 33 years worth (2,021 to 1,988 years ago) but never saw/knew/observed what direction it took 30+++ years after he was dead.

I can't use what is written about Jesus all those years after his death as accurate evidence of anything regarding Jesus. And neither could he.

Edit to add:
Ehrman and Jesus both have the Torah to use as an example,  Ehrman can go one further and use the NT also.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Ehrman used the Torah which is what Jesus used.
> https://torah.org/learning/basics-primer-torah-bible/
> 
> Don't you find it odd if not disturbing that the only thing you know about Jesus was written decades after he was dead, nothing...literally NOTHING written about the supposed son of god while he was on the planet for 33 years and especially silent while for three of those years he was being "Jesus"?


I guess that’s what I’m looking at but I probably haven’t expressed it clearly, or at least muddied up my attempt at what I’m wanting to say when I question what does Ehrman know that he concludes with what Jesus didn’t believe. 

My reasoning for saying that is everything we (including Erhman) do know about Jesus that’s written, is in the New Testament, and according to what’s written Jesus most certainly believed in heaven and the hot place.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I truly do not know for sure one single thing that an actual Jesus did, thought or said as there is absolutely zero evidence left for us to take into consideration by him personally.
> 
> Considering which wouldbe a more likely than not scenario based off of the religion that Jesus practiced at the time he lived, OR the new spin off religion which did not exist when Jesus was alive that centered around Jesus which was first written about decades after he was dead.....
> I would say the Ehrman can use direct and indirect observation by following past and current Jewish religion history because he is alive and has the means to research the past and present. He can see what was added after Jesus's death and weigh the options.
> ...


So the answer to my question is "yes"?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I guess that’s what I’m looking at but I probably haven’t expressed it clearly, or at least muddied up my attempt at what I’m wanting to say when I question what does Ehrman know that he concludes with what Jesus didn’t believe.
> 
> My reasoning for saying that is everything we (including Erhman) do know about Jesus that’s written, is in the New Testament, and according to what’s written Jesus most certainly believed in heaven and the hot place.


The difference is that Ehrman realizes and accepts the pitfalls with the authors, dates and contents of the NT where you do not.
None of those Gospels say "according to Jesus " They do say according to someone else and then were not even written by that specific someone else .
Ehrman knows that, accepts that and accounts for that and is why he uses the information available pre-Jesus (which is the same Jesus would use) because there is absolutely nothing available written about Jesus for 33 years of his life nor is there anything written shortly after his death which would give any indication of what Jesus did or did not believe in.
The information you keep wanting to interject into this IS the reason why Ehrman wrote his book about Jesus's beliefs in H&H and that reason is because 30, 40 50 60 70 + years later after Jesus is dead and gone we hear about what Jesus said according to them....not according to Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> So the answer to my question is "yes"?


Yes with an asterisk. 
*Jesus had less empirical evidence to go by than Ehrman.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> This is the best analogy I can think of:
> 
> You are a Christian, you believe,  follow and share what is written in the Bible and especially the New Testament. You were raised by a family who used it, attended religious services that use it, you adhere to its practices and teachings and by all accounts your denomination is Christian.
> 
> ...


I think for accuracy, I think you almost have to go with what’s written closer to that era of time by people who claimed to have been there as most accurate. 

I know more about the unwritten history of my Father............ 

So if write a book about him in 50 years after his death and some dude 2,000 years later says I’m wrong, which one would be more accurate?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The difference is that Ehrman realizes and accepts the pitfalls with the authors, dates and contents of the NT where you do not.
> None of those Gospels say "according to Jesus " They do say according to someone else and then were not even written by that specific someone else .
> Ehrman knows that, accepts that and accounts for that and is why he uses the information available pre-Jesus (which is the same Jesus would use) because there is absolutely nothing available written about Jesus for 33 years of his life nor is there anything written shortly after his death which would give any indication of what Jesus did or did not believe in.
> The information you keep wanting to interject into this IS the reason why Ehrman wrote his book about Jesus's beliefs in H&H and that reason is because 30, 40 50 60 70 + years later after Jesus is dead and gone we hear about what Jesus said according to them....not according to Jesus.


I can accept his assumptions. I guess what I was looking for is when he states what Jesus didn’t believe. He doesn’t have anything that Jesus says other these Authors.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I think for accuracy, I think you almost have to go with what’s written closer to that era of time by people who claimed to have been there as most accurate.
> 
> I know more about the unwritten history of my Father............
> 
> So if write a book about him in 50 years after his death and some dude 2,000 years later says I’m wrong, which one would be more accurate?


How accurate of a book could you write about my Father, right now while he is alive?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Yes with an asterisk.
> *Jesus had less empirical evidence to go by than Ehrman.


Got it.  Thanks.  I'll have to think about it a while but I think that an Empiricist Jesus may fill a few gaps.  I guess I should have seen that before.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> How accurate of a book could you write about my Father, right now while he is alive?


I can’t other than what you tell me or if I had contact with him. But, if you or someone he had contact with did write about him 50 to 79 after he’s gone, how could I dispute what your Father believed in 2,000 years later - if all that's there is written by someone who says they had a connection with him?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I think for accuracy, I think you almost have to go with what’s written closer to that era of time by people who claimed to have been there as most accurate.
> 
> I know more about the unwritten history of my Father............
> 
> So if write a book about him in 50 years after his death and some dude 2,000 years later says I’m wrong, which one would be more accurate?


If the Son of Jesus wrote about him, his Mother or Father wrote about him, his Brother, Sister, Nephew or Cousin wrote about him....heck a neighbor, Karaoke partner or staunch enemy that was around Jesus I would be more willing to accept it.

You are comparing apples to oranges trying to use yourself writing about your own father 50 years later.
A more accurate analogy would be how much would I get right writing about your father either now or 50 years from now?
And if whatever I wrote was accepted by whomever read it...does that make it true?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can’t other than what you tell me or if I had contact with him. But, if you or someone he had contact with did write about him 50 to 79 after he’s gone, how could I dispute what your Father believed in 2,000 years later - if all that's there is written by someone who says they had a connection with him?


That is my point.
You never talked to my Father, I am pretty positive you couldn't pick him out of a lineup and while he has traveled through Georgia on numerous  occasions I would say that it is more likely than not you have never crossed paths with him.
I cannot remember giving out much if any information about him to you. Yet your writings would be considered as a contemporary source.

Now, what do we know about the author of Mark? Who was he? Who did he talk to that knew Jesus? Did he know Jesus personally? Why does that make him one iota more credible writing about Jesus than you writing about my father right now?

If we cannot verify who these people actually are, and we we cannot be sure who they talked to and we cannot be sure who they knew HOW can we trust what they have written about a person? Outside of the bible we cannot find out a thing about who they are writing about which in their claims IS the Son of God. Pretty high credentials.

Now if you read something about my Father spending 4 years in the Army you CAN research that and find out that he spent 4 years in the Airforce. 50+ years from now there will be evidence of his existence. There should be evidence of the existence of who ever wrote about my father and you can research them also to find out how credible they are.
But, if in 50 to 2000 years you (or anyone) reads an article about a person that you do not know, has no historical record and the author is anonymous and his writings cannot be substantiated....well then I don't think it is wise to just believe it is it?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can’t other than what you tell me or if I had contact with him. But, if you or someone he had contact with did write about him 50 to 79 after he’s gone, how could I dispute what your Father believed in 2,000 years later - if all that's there is written by someone who says they had a connection with him?


Rather than say how can you dispute it, I ask why would you believe it?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

The ancients wrote a LOT. History shows that at a point in time when Christianity caught on to the world powers that writings were gathered  and destroyed.  I would say that it is more likely than not that happened because those writings either did not follow similar religious stories written during the time of Jesus and or flat out refuted them. All we have left is what was allowed to be left.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Rather than say how can you dispute it, I ask why would you believe it?


Part of it because most likely if it’s from someone that says they knew him, knew of him, and chances are they did from that era of time. I’m more inclined to believe their stories over someone 2,000 years later when the only things written about the subject is from those from that era of time that claimed they knew of him.

But the believing portion really comes down to what supports your belief and honesty it’s much much more and deeper than just reading the Bible and saying “I believe that”.

I know it appears that Christianity takes things written as face value, but they don’t.

I’m not being argumentative about this and hope I don’t appear that way. I see your point and can agree, I just don’t  know how to connect the dots to make my point lol.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Part of it because most likely if it’s from someone that says they knew him, knew of him, and chances are they did from that era of time. I’m more inclined to believe their stories over someone 2,000 years later when the only things written about the subject is from those from that era of time that claimed they knew of him.
> 
> But the believing portion really comes down to what supports your belief and honesty it’s much much more and deeper than just reading the Bible and saying “I believe that”.
> 
> ...


Spotlight,  I definitely don't take anything you've said as argumentative,  THIS is discussion, conversation,  point and counterpoint with examples.

Now how about this,
How many current believers claim to know Jesus right now? How many talk to him? I would venture to say the anonymous authors knew him just as well which we all know is not at all.
None of those ancient writings say " and Jesus asked me...or turned to me and said...or Jesus and I ...." out of 4 Gospels 2 are almost word for copies of another.
Mark being the oldest (closest to the time of Jesus) ends without anyone seeing a resurrected Jesus. Matthew and Luke written later expound upon it. If closer to the source is more accurate why didn't Mark talk about the Resurrection and just mentions an empty tomb?
There is a lot to get into regarding the styles of the anonymous writers of the gospels. The copying. The omissions in one and additions in another and on and on. Paul who wrote before all of them doesn't mention many of the things.
These were the best available that went along with one another. The rest are gone never to be seen again. Did god decide that?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spotlight,  I definitely don't take anything you've said as argumentative,  THIS is discussion, conversation,  point and counterpoint with examples.
> 
> Now how about this,
> How many current believers claim to know Jesus right now? How many talk to him? I would venture to say the anonymous authors knew him just as well which we all know is not at all.
> ...


I’m not 100% sure why the accounts are word for word, why some left some things out, etc. Is it what God wanted from that Writer?

It’s fair to say that if they were identical, the argument would be they were copied.

I’m open to some writings being lost - other writings have been discovered recently.

I’m open to 4 different people telling the same story in their version - ministers still do that today. The overall accounts still give the reader the same outcome.

Not knowing their style of writing (including / not including a source)  with or without stating “Jesus turned to me” or “Jesus asked me”......the words in red are supposed to be the words of Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I guess that’s what I’m looking at but I probably haven’t expressed it clearly, or at least muddied up my attempt at what I’m wanting to say when I question what does Ehrman know that he concludes with what Jesus didn’t believe.
> 
> My reasoning for saying that is everything we (including Erhman) do know about Jesus that’s written, is in the New Testament, and according to what’s written Jesus most certainly believed in heaven and the hot place.


Your point is legitimate. If what is written about Jesus is all we got..... well thats all we got and it says what it says.
Bullet/Ehrman are just taking everything else we know into consideration and factoring that in as to why what is written may be suspect.
Theres really only one who can actually tell us what He believed/thought but so far He hasnt posted on this forum. As far as we know.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Your point is legitimate. If what is written about Jesus is all we got..... well thats all we got and it says what it says.
> Bullet/Ehrman are just taking everything else we know into consideration and factoring that in as to why what is written may be suspect.
> Theres really only one who can actually tell us what He believed/thought but so far He hasnt posted on this forum. As far as we know.


He told me what to say


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> He told me what to say


It really is just that easy isn't it.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It really is just that easy isn't it.


That’s true. A lot do abuse it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> That’s true. A lot do abuse it.


Intentionally or not, Agenda or not, knowingly or not, willingly or not. There are reasons for them all.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Intentionally or not, Agenda or not, knowingly or not, willingly or not. There are reasons for them all.


Agreed.


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2021)

I can only speculate as to what "The Jew" in general, the supposed Torah believing/following Jew in his heart believes. I have talked and walked with some of the many that presently identify themselves as Jews, shared meals with some of that many, found faith in Messiah Yeshua with some, and been spit upon by a few of that many...in hope. I have loved some, been perplexed by others, been comforted and encouraged by others.

In short (much like christians and even some called atheists)...or just "people" in general...there's a broad range of beliefs expressed in word, behaviors, and dispositions...some seeming to align more closely with what is expressed as their beliefs while with some a chasm (at the least to me) appears more evident.

Yet of all of those I have had any intercourse with who call themselves Jews, that is what is common among them all, they call themselves Jews. And I am not lying that among those, I have not unusually found some, who calling themselves Jews, also claim to be atheists. Or even agnostic...but follow in some measure to them...Torah observance.

I am making no claim of broad experience, just what I have had.

Like "christian" or "real christian", "Jew", or "true Jew" is a road not as flat as might first appear.

But it appears the argument is being made to remove many of those stones or bumps in the road...Jesus the Christ is being reduced to, or confined to, limited to a stricter defining  (for walking this road of argument), that He would have been, must have been, is more than likely to have been a strict (so called) Torah believing and practicing Jew. What for argument's sake is being called "the Jew of _that day_".

But here is where the argument takes a turn, especially in regards to _that_ Jesus, _that Jew_. As Jews then (and many today, even if in vilification I have found them agreeing)_ this_ Jesus made claim of being Messiah. And so, even if the argument is made that "in those days" there were many making such claim and the Jesus of Nazareth is just one of that many...that would yet distinguish Him quite plainly from the "most" of Torah observant/believing Jews of that day...unless...one is prepared to say "In that day _most Jews_ (of Torah belief) considered and claimed themselves to be the Messiah."

So, He yet appears distinguished even if in any speculation he would have (even _must have_) been like "most Jews".

I read scriptures written (mostly) by Jews...who never denied they were. I follow after a man (as best I am enabled) who died under a sign reading King of the Jews who Himself never denied being Jew. And yes, I believe that Jew...was raised from the dead as testimony of full satisfaction for any and all debt I have incurred toward the God above all, by sin.

Yes, my hopes are pinned to One who never denied being a Jew...even if by many others calling themselves Jews (both then and today) would disqualify Him upon whatever grounds suits them. "Disowned" Him.

But oddly, I have often found that same disposition among what even today would call itself "christian". I have had police cars summoned for my removal by pastors and "good christians"...and that for being on a public sidewalk impeding no one, yet speaking. Been held in choke holds, half nelsons and escorted off from meetings and grounds...and been deposited one laughable time in a boardwalk dumpster (quite fitting), spent several overnites as municipal guest...also several weeks on occasions, and seen cops perjure themselves in court to ensure they convinced the judge of their legitimate grounds of arrest and detentions. They seemed provoked by my testimony of the Jew I have believed into. Even though I can make no claim to have rightly done anything. Or that my testimony is owed anything at all.

Interestingly no one (that I know of) ever calling themselves an atheist has been so offended or provoked at my offense to calling upon "the law". And I have suffered nothing except learning experiences I would dare not trade nor trade upon. Some have taught me I have never needed an excuse to be obnoxious, but am surely made glad to be forgiven it. I claim no innocence.

Except that I see it in Him, the King of the Jews.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

At that time, regardless of what any other Jew practiced or thought about Judaism,  the Torah WAS the Word of God. There was NO New Testament or NO Christianity at that time. Are you telling me that The Son of God or God incarnate, or 1/3 of the Godhead didn't believe his Father's words or his own word's or the words of the godhead?
You cannot have it both ways.
If Jesus was God and a Jew he WAS following his Father's/Own words and he darn sure believed them.
If Jesus was just a regular Jew and regular man then he sure as heck could have had different beliefs other than the Torah but that sinks the Jesus is god claims doesn't it?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> At that time, regardless of what any other Jew practiced or thought about Judaism,  the Torah WAS the Word of God. There was NO New Testament or NO Christianity at that time. Are you telling me that The Son of God or God incarnate, or 1/3 of the Godhead didn't believe his Father's words or his own word's or the words of the godhead?
> You cannot have it both ways.
> If Jesus was God and a Jew he WAS following his Father's/Own words and he darn sure believed them.
> If Jesus was just a regular Jew and regular man then he sure as heck could have had different beliefs other than the Torah but that sinks the Jesus is god claims doesn't it?


Matthew 5:17-43 would show you something different, but I doubt you care.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Matthew 5:17-43 would show you something different, but I doubt you care.


Not a single quill stroke of Matthew: Anything - At All  existed while Jesus was alive and THAT is the absolute entire point of all this which you and others cannot comprehend. It is the basis for Ehrman's book as to why Jesus followed the Torah.

And if Jesus came to fulfill the Torah law why did his followers abandon it and make a new religion around Jesus?
Again it reeks of men trying to make a god out of a man to start a new religion but when gone through piece by piece it just does not work.
It cannot be had both ways.
If H&H are not part of the Torah and Jesus was there to follow and fulfill the Torah who introduced H&H after Jesus death?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 12, 2021)

If you don't want to know, you don't want to know.
I can learn what you are telling me by going to the source, Comte.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> If you don't want to know, you don't want to know.
> I can learn what you are telling me by going to the source, Comte.


I want to know the truth, not rely on someone else pretending to know what Jesus said or didn't say 70 years after Jesus was dead.
Tell me exactly who wrote The Gospel according to Matthew.
Was Matthew Jesus' pen name?
Your "source" is the problem


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Matthew 5:17-43 would show you something different, but I doubt you care.


That shows me that Ehrman was correct in his assessment.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I want to know the truth, not rely on someone else pretending to know what Jesus said or didn't say 70 years after Jesus was dead.
> Tell me exactly who wrote The Gospel according to Matthew.
> Was Matthew Jesus' pen name?
> Your "source" is the problem





> Your "source" is the problem



I haven't read all that much so I certainly could be mistaken.
Are you saying that Comte is not a progenitor of higher criticism.


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2021)

I don't think that _in most cases _both the "Jew" and the "christian" would not find agreement as to the nature of, and what would qualify as scripture. Or better, what causes writings to be recognized as Holy scripture. The _nature of what inspires _might be (and most often is reduced to in argument)...whether such inspiration has come from the ruach ha kodesh...or something other. The Holy Spirit. Revealed by the God of all gods, or something other.

The Jew does not read Genesis and think some earthy "man" was present to see and hear (at that time of saying and doing) "Let us make man in our image..." It is believed revealed. And both Jew and christian believe inspired by God....(if that is not too presumptuous of me to say what any may believe).

The issue is, or comes down to, if able to be reduced succinctly...Moses (and the prophets) _really heard_ from God...but Jesus, having some _other spirit in ear..._did not. Moses spoke/led/wrote truly...Jesus lied...along with any who claim to follow Him. The question for neither is not whether God is ultimate and final speaker/authority...but who hears Him_ in truth._

Both agree the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is_ that God. _The _Jesus denying Jew _(used as descriptive not pejorative) was all at odds with the Jesus affirming Jew long before the term "christian" was uttered. But both claimed to be Jews...each and every disciple (with perhaps a few early exceptions) before Peter's visit to Cornelius and Paul's broad ministry were Jews...and every first called apostle. "Both" Jews believing in Messiah...with some convinced Jesus is...and some denying.

Yet both the Jew...yes, and even the "christian" (whether wanting to or not, whether acknowledging or not) share, or must bear a common question and questioning.

Even if "the Jew" takes his stand on Torah and all the other "OT" scripture, claiming some kinship to Moses, the Patriarchs, the prophets, and any called righteous there...the "book" is rife with spiteful dealings toward those prophets...so the question would remain...are you (or any?) "the Jew" like Korah (or Esau) ...or the Jew like Abraham or Moses?

For me the question has been...am I a disciple like Judas as Judas Isacriot was a disciple? Like Ananais of Ananais and Saphira? How am I in relation to that "Holy Spirit"?

Now, I don't think I need make any case of how common it is for a man to want to view himself..."in the best light"...but I have also heard a sobering something...of a darkness that can be mistaken for light...and then the question becomes...of how much value is _true light? _As opposed to, let's say, the desire to think well of one's self? To be seen among the "right company"?

That question (for me) never much changes "How am I in relation to that Holy Spirit?" I see by the many testimonies of scripture (equally in both "old" and "new") that a man thinking himself one thing, or of one way, can be entirely mistaken.

Such men as David...so celebrated, shown so much (as prophet), given so much (as King)...do not escape being slapped down in grief and repentance when their own sin is made clear. The delight of being given much is rightly tempered through Christ's words..."to whom much is given, much is required".

Saying (as any man, Jew or christian might) "I have God" and/or His presence by the Holy Spirit...even whether it be by "The faith that is found in Christ" or by that same spirit that spoke to both Moses and Abraham...yes...is often a far loftier a claim than it may appear in the "just sayin'..."

And both (or perhaps neither)...have any place to stand other than upon total dependence for light.

There is nothing in Jesus Christ, nor His teaching that denies this...but rather to the contrary, radically affirms it. Even to the giving of Himself over to death in display of trust to show in whom...and who is/was...His only hope.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

That God...who raises the dead...and before whom the alive live.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> *If the Son of Jesus wrote about him, his Mother or Father wrote about him, his Brother, Sister, Nephew or Cousin wrote about him....heck a neighbor, Karaoke partner or staunch enemy that was around Jesus I would be more willing to accept it.*
> 
> My friend,
> Christianity is a relationship not a religion. Every religion is the invention of some individual man that recruited followers. If said religion has a book, one guy wrote it.  The author of the Bible is the God himself as the Holy Spirit inspired over 40 different individuals over 1,500 years to convey His story of His love for you. The Bible itself is a miracle and I challenge you to produce it’s rival.
> ...


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Not a single quill stroke of Matthew: Anything - At All  existed while Jesus was alive and THAT is the absolute entire point of all this which you and others cannot comprehend. It is the basis for Ehrman's book as to why Jesus followed the Torah.
> 
> And if Jesus came to fulfill the Torah law why did his followers abandon it and make a new religion around Jesus?
> Again it reeks of men trying to make a god out of a man to start a new religion but when gone through piece by piece it just does not work.
> ...


Yes we comprehend it. But is it not possible to write about what someone says 70 years after they die? What if I was 25, fella I knew died at 35. I write about him when I was 90? Not possible? What if took notes? Like right now I have notes about my Grandsons that I plan to eventually turn into something. Writings they’re still finding in caves??


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

I am fine with "I don't Know" but I find my interests are to find out all that I can.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2021)

This is not my writing, copy and pasted but it’s related to the question of nothing being written while Jesus was alive. 

“First, I want to point out that there are eight references to the historical Jesus written within 70 years of the crucifixion (as well as several other references that are cast in an exclusively theological context). As far as ancient history goes, that is pretty much the best it gets. You would be hard-pressed to find any other figure of ancient history so well documented.
Take Julius Caesar, for example. He was born around 100 BCE and died in 44 BCE. The earliest biographical information on Caesar, outside of the works directly attributed to him, are found in Plutarch’s lives, written some time after 105 CE, more than 90 years after the death of Caesar himself. There are only four third-person primary sources on Caesar: Plutarch (90 years after Caesar’s death), Suetonius (roughly 120 years after Caesar’s death), Appian (roughly 140 years after Caesar’s death), and Cassius Dio (roughly 210 years after his death). Despite the fact that Julius Caesar was born nearly a century before Jesus, the primary sources on the life of Jesus were completed before the earliest biography of Julius Caesar.
It’s even worse when we look at Alexander the Great. His earliest biography was written 297 years after his death, and the last independent source on Alexander was written nearly 1,000 years after he died. There are only six primary sources on Alexander.
Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are considered two of the most well-document figures in ancient history, and Jesus has them beat by a considerable margin as far as the number of sources and their proximity to his life.
In the case of Jesus, we have the letters of Paul, the earliest of which was written roughly 20 years after the crucifixion, the gospel of Mark (40–50 years after the crucifixion), the gospels of Matthew and Luke (50–60 years after the crucifixion), and the gospel of John (60–90 years after the crucifixion). The anonymous letter to the Hebrews is conventionally dated to 49 CE, also within 20 years of the crucifixion. We also have references to the historical Jesus in the writings of Josephus (60–70 years after the crucifixion), Suetonius (90–110 years after the crucifixion), and Tacitus (roughly 100 years after the crucifixion).
The first answer to your question is that literate societies in antiquity were still largely oral cultures, despite the use of writing. Contemporary and eye-witness references to historical figures or events is exceptionally rare. The vast majority of ancient history was written by a relatively few historians and biographers who covered centuries, or even millennia, down to their own time.
The real question is not why the gospels were written so late, but why they were written so early. And that is after we resolve the question of why they were written at all, considering that Jesus himself was not historically significant in his own time.
Nevertheless, the factors influencing the dating of the gospels boils down to this:

As I mentioned, Jesus was not historically significant in his own lifetime. The only reason that the gospels were written at all is because the movement he founded considered his relatively mundane life to have been full of spiritual significance.
Christianity was primarily founded on the resurrection of Jesus, which took precedent over his actual life and teachings.
Jewish religious teachers in the first century typically believed that important teachings were worth memorizing, and many of them openly prohibited their students from writing anything down. The teachings of some of Jesus’ contemporaries are recorded in the Talmud, which was written nearly 300 years after the time of Jesus.
The disciples of Jesus initially believed that he would return in a matter of weeks, months, or a few years. It was only after a few decades passed that they felt the need to start writing things down.”


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes we comprehend it. But is it not possible to write about what someone says 70 years after they die? What if I was 25, fella I knew died at 35. I write about him when I was 90? Not possible? What if took notes? Like right now I have notes about my Grandsons that I plan to eventually turn into something. Writings they’re still finding in caves??


Spotlite, I totally understand what you are saying. Your examples fit for your purposes.
What about it fits for Jesus's purposes?  Who were the authors of the Gospels? Really who were they? Does one of them even mention knowing Jesus? Does one of them mention talking to Jesus?
You do not know a single thing about these authors and because of your faith you have pieced together a bond, a friendship, note taking and writings not yet found in order to connect dots that just are not there.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am fine with "I don't Know" but I find my interests are to find out all that I can.


I too, want to know and discover all I can. I’m hoping during this next study that I can find more than I know. I get tired of saying I don’t know about some things I should know more about. This is actually a good topic,


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I totally understand what you are saying. Your examples fit for your purposes.
> What about it fits for Jesus's purposes?  Who were the authors of the Gospels? Really who were they? Does one of them even mention knowing Jesus? Does one of them mention talking to Jesus?
> You do not know a single thing about these authors and because of your faith you have pieced together a bond, a friendship, note taking and writings not yet found in order to connect dots that just are not there.


See post 72


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> This is not my writing, copy and pasted but it’s related to the question of nothing being written while Jesus was alive.
> 
> “First, I want to point out that there are eight references to the historical Jesus written within 70 years of the crucifixion (as well as several other references that are cast in an exclusively theological context). As far as ancient history goes, that is pretty much the best it gets. You would be hard-pressed to find any other figure of ancient history so well documented.
> Take Julius Caesar, for example. He was born around 100 BCE and died in 44 BCE. The earliest biographical information on Caesar, outside of the works directly attributed to him, are found in Plutarch’s lives, written some time after 105 CE, more than 90 years after the death of Caesar himself. There are only four third-person primary sources on Caesar: Plutarch (90 years after Caesar’s death), Suetonius (roughly 120 years after Caesar’s death), Appian (roughly 140 years after Caesar’s death), and Cassius Dio (roughly 210 years after his death). Despite the fact that Julius Caesar was born nearly a century before Jesus, the primary sources on the life of Jesus were completed before the earliest biography of Julius Caesar.
> ...


Read the comments also, they make good points.
https://vridar.org/2010/05/01/compa...-jesus-with-other-ancient-historical-persons/


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Read the comments also, they make good points.
> https://vridar.org/2010/05/01/compa...-jesus-with-other-ancient-historical-persons/


Will do


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Read the comments also, they make good points.
> https://vridar.org/2010/05/01/compa...-jesus-with-other-ancient-historical-persons/


Yes they do. I thought this was an interesting comment.

“Historians have been unwilling or unable, for most part, to treat it at arm’s length like any other collection of ancient literature. (Of course they do not consider it an authority in the same sense as those fundamentalist preachers. But what both have in common is an unquestioned assumption that it does have an authoritative place in our culture and history, nonetheless.)

So even many atheistic or non-Christian historians still accept it as some sort of attempt to give an authoritative account of what happened. They may not believe the details, but they do still believe it is what our heritage says it is: an authority (however open to question), an historical account of our Christian origins.”


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes they do. I thought this was an interesting comment.
> 
> “Historians have been unwilling or unable, for most part, to treat it at arm’s length like any other collection of ancient literature. (Of course they do not consider it an authority in the same sense as those fundamentalist preachers. But what both have in common is an unquestioned assumption that it does have an authoritative place in our culture and history, nonetheless.)
> 
> So even many atheistic or non-Christian historians still accept it as some sort of attempt to give an authoritative account of what happened. They may not believe the details, but they do still believe it is what our heritage says it is: an authority (however open to question), an historical account of our Christian origins.”


In reality, just as much as the Greek gods are and the writings about them.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I haven't read all that much so I certainly could be mistaken.
> Are you saying that Comte is not a progenitor of higher criticism.


Sorry I missed this earlier.
I was not commenting on Comte at all. I got the impression that you were applying his words to your position.

I like the way he thinks:

Comte believed that Metaphysics and *theology* should be replaced by a *hierarchy* of sciences, from *mathematics* at the base to *sociology* at the top. The school is based around the idea that the only *authentic knowledge* is *scientific knowledge*, and that such knowledge can only come from *positive affirmation* of theories through strict *scientific method* (techniques for investigating phenomena based on gathering *observable, empirical and measurable evidence*, subject to specific principles of *reasoning*). For more details, see the section on the doctrine of Positivism


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Sorry I missed this earlier.
> I was not commenting on Comte at all. I got the impression that you were applying his words to your position.
> 
> I like the way he thinks:
> ...



You see then that, when applied to Theology in the form of Higher Criticism (Erhman), the underlying school of philosophies requires that everything related to the metaphysical (miracles, prophecy, revelation, etc.) must be ignored, as though it were not a part of the history, or text, or whatever.  Surely we know from observation that some people have experienced metaphysical things and some people have experience only sensible things (that's what I call "same old thing").  I see no reason that the former should try to impose their experience upon the latter; nor do I see that the latter should deny the experience of the former, for which the product of Higher Criticism is most often used.  Nothing in that sentence prohibits discussion of disparate experiences; it does prohibit disparagement of either based on their experience.  Although not a true synthesis of the positions in which we find ourselves, it is surely an improvement on the current condition .

As you can see I don't support the "conflict is necessary for growth" philosophy as it is usually applied (e.g. WWII), which I guess is why I found the "Teacher Lady" TEDx video funny.  She proposed a synthesis of New Atheism and Catholicism using Astrology as a catalyst and southern charm as a buffering agent.  That tickled my funny bone.  She thought she was making "Believers are mentally ill" more palatable.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> You see then that, when applied to Theology in the form of Higher Criticism (Erhman), the underlying school of philosophies requires that everything related to the metaphysical (miracles, prophecy, revelation, etc.) must be ignored, as though it were not a part of the history, or text, or whatever.  Surely we know from observation that some people have experienced metaphysical things and some people have experience only sensible things (that's what I call "same old thing").  I see no reason that the former should try to impose their experience upon the latter; nor do I see that the latter should deny the experience of the former, for which the product of Higher Criticism is most often used.  Nothing in that sentence prohibits discussion of disparate experiences; it does prohibit disparagement of either based on their experience.  Although not a true synthesis of the positions in which we find ourselves, it is surely an improvement on the current condition .
> 
> As you can see I don't support the "conflict is necessary for growth" philosophy as it is usually applied (e.g. WWII), which I guess is why I found the "Teacher Lady" TEDx video funny.  She proposed a synthesis of New Atheism and Catholicism using Astrology as a catalyst and southern charm as a buffering agent.  That tickled my funny bone.  She thought she was making "Believers are mentally ill" more palatable.


While we cannot deny that the metaphysical is experienced and we have to acknowledge it we cannot assign a specific source to it. So when dealing with unknowns they must be put aside so the knowns can be dealt with. They are knowns because they can be proven, replicated and traced through historical and scientific records.
Ehrman used the available resources and historical records to show what, how,  and who 1st century Jews believed in.  Though not every 1st century Jew believed in the same things (as evidence of splinter groups,  other gods worshipped etc , and off shoots of the main religion existed just like within Christianity and every other religion) those "others" are not Jesus are they? Jesus not only being a 1st  centuryJew but the supposed Son Of God if not God Incarnate would be THE finest example of someone who would follow HIS OWN WORDS in the Torah and not believe in what was written in the NT after he was dead.
To Ehrman (I think) and for Me for sure what is written about Jesus in the New Testament does not factor into this claim about what Jesus believed prior to those writings.
The writings which were written 30 to 100 years after Jesus was dead are trying to tell the readers that God came back to Earth and didn't believe what God himself said (or didn't say) earlier in the Torah and especially the first 5 books which are law.
Which is ridiculous.  In its usual ways the NT contradicts itself saying came to fulfill the Torah in one verse and then say that Jesus mentioned H&H in another verse which is not in the Torah.
It absolutely sounds like someone who was part of a splinter group (John Smith in more modern times for example) that used their writings "conversations " with a dead guy to gain followers who were not quite sold on the current Judaism and were devastated that all those years earlier Jesus was put to death. It absolutely sounds like things a person would say to try to gain followers for a new religion.
We know that Jesus did not renounce his religion and start a new religion. He never asked or commanded anyone to worship him while alive.
The writers based their material off of the most recent popular messiah contender in which the WRITERS believed in to gain followers. Once Jesus is dead anyone could (and did in my opinion) say anything as there was no Jesus to refute or corroborate any of it. And that does not have anything to do with the metaphysical which opens an entirely new can of worms on top of the rest.
Ehrman is going with the best available evidence up to the time Jesus was gone. Anything after that is the works of someone other than Jesus.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> While we cannot deny that the metaphysical is experienced and we have to acknowledge it we cannot assign a specific source to it. So when dealing with unknowns they must be put aside so the knowns can be dealt with. They are knowns because they can be proven, replicated and traced through historical and scientific records.
> Ehrman used the available resources and historical records to show what, how,  and who 1st century Jews believed in.  Though not every 1st century Jew believed in the same things (as evidence of splinter groups,  other gods worshipped etc , and off shoots of the main religion existed just like within Christianity and every other religion) those "others" are not Jesus are they? Jesus not only being a 1st  centuryJew but the supposed Son Of God if not God Incarnate would be THE finest example of someone who would follow HIS OWN WORDS in the Torah and not believe in what was written in the NT after he was dead.
> To Ehrman (I think) and for Me for sure what is written about Jesus in the New Testament does not factor into this claim about what Jesus believed prior to those writings.
> The writings which were written 30 to 100 years after Jesus was dead are trying to tell the readers that God came back to Earth and didn't believe what God himself said (or didn't say) earlier in the Torah and especially the first 5 books which are law.
> ...



If you are trying to convince me that you believe that stuff, you are wasting your time repeating it.

If you are trying to convince me that I should believe that stuff, you are wasting your time repeating it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> If you are trying to convince me that you believe that stuff, you are wasting your time repeating it.
> 
> If you are trying to convince me that I should believe that stuff, you are wasting your time repeating it.


I am not doing anything but stating my thoughts. I don't care to convince you or care if you are convinced or not.
I figure if you can refute it you would, if you cannot you'd post something along the lines of what I quoted you saying.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

HP, is your stance that God/Son of God didn't follow the teachings of the Torah?
Was Christianity a religion while Jesus was alive?
Did Jesus ask, beg or command anyone to start a new religion centered around him?
In your opinion, what religion was Jesus raised in, taught and followed?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> HP, is your stance that God/Son of God didn't follow the teachings of the Torah?
> Was Christianity a religion while Jesus was alive?
> Did Jesus ask, beg or command anyone to start a new religion centered around him?
> In your opinion, what religion was Jesus raised in, taught and followed?



Through no fault of yours, your terminology would make it very difficult for me to respond directly to your questions.  Maybe this will help.

The incarnate God complied with His revelation to His People.  What He reveals is Himself.  He doesn't change.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am not doing anything but stating my thoughts. I don't care to convince you or care if you are convinced or not.
> I figure if you can refute it you would, if you cannot you'd post something along the lines of what I quoted you saying.



You have learned well from the Higher Critics.  You assume that what you know is all that is to be known.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> You have learned well from the Higher Critics.  You assume that what you know is all that is to be known.


Assumption is all on you.  I am here to discuss, make points and receive counter points and am open to anyone providing information that bolsters their claims. I welcome anything that would change my mind.
If you don't have anything other than to assert things about me then I appreciate your contributions prior to that but move along if you have exhausted your points and all you have left is making it personal. I am not holding you back from showing what you got, I did not claim to know for certain much of anything. I did state my opinions and and what I believe.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Through no fault of yours, your terminology would make it very difficult for me to respond directly to your questions.  Maybe this will help.
> 
> The incarnate God complied with His revelation to His People.  What He reveals is Himself.  He doesn't change.


Well by all means correct my terminology and see if you can muster up enough intuition to decipher what I mean and address the questions directly.

Yeah, sure, something like that.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2021)

Bullet, if I had what you ask for I would gladly give it.  I don't.

I never said I did.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Bullet, if I had what you ask for I would gladly give it.  I don't.
> 
> I never said I did.


Then why veer from decent conversation to this?


> You have learned well from the Higher Critics. You assume that what you know is all that is to be known



To me your reply above is off target and does not give me any confidence that whatever else you are saying is any more accurate. This seems to be how it has gone between us over the years though.
Take care till next time.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Then why veer from decent conversation to this?
> 
> 
> To me your reply above is off target and does not give me any confidence that whatever else you are saying is any more accurate. This seems to be how it has gone between us over the years though.
> Take care till next time.



Please Bullet, Please look at what I was responding to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Please Bullet, Please look at what I was responding to.


You responded to a responce


----------



## Israel (Apr 14, 2021)

At times it seems hard enough to speak to one another, let alone make or refute an argument I am not even sure Ehrman is making.
Does he discount all accounts and the attending machinations around Jesus' death?
Especially that Jesus was crucified at the behest of the Jews in authority?

What is/are his source(s) for knowing what Jesus preached and taught?
If the Bible (gospels)...then why trust those accounts if some points are to be discarded? Why trust the recorder's testimony of what Jesus said that only align with what Ehrman believes a Jewish preacher _of that day _would say and discard those other parts?

If Jesus was so aligned with "Jewsih thinking" of that day, what need or cause for the leaders to hand Him over to Rome?
Yet, even if it is maintained they did not, but that Rome undertook the execution "for their own reasons", if he was no more nor less than any other Jewish teacher, was Rome executing all Jewish preachers?

And though my faith is not based upon this (but is not in the least discouraged by it)...if Jesus was simply one of a multitude of Messianic pretenders/rebels...why has He survived the millennia in a way no other has? I don't care if a man could name all the so called Jewish rebels or so called pretenders claiming Jesus to be no more nor less...history (if one takes their stand there) shows it to not be so.

But I did not see anything in Ehrman's article that accounts for these except his speculations of what he believes Jesus must have taught, and perhaps cherry picked from a few things he might concede could be found in the gospels.

But, if Ehrman is saying to me "The Jesus of your mind is not the true Jesus Christ" I couldn't possibly help but agree. He is infinitely more than _my mind _can contain.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html


Jesus was more Old School than the Pharisees.
He threw money lenders and selling of goods out of the Temple. He called out the Pharisees for their Hypocrisy. He healed on the Sabbath which the Pharisees considered "work".  He allowed sinful women to touch him.
All according to the NT but you knew this Israel.

And the main point is that like many of the Hebrew vs Rome cultural leaders before him and after him Rome did not put up with trouble and they nipped it in the bud before an uprising.  Rome was good at making examples of people. Jesus was a threat to Pharisees who tried him in front of the Sanhedrin who could find him guilty but had no power to punish him. Punishment was Rome's job.

All Ehrman, you and I have is speculation.  Some base it off available evidence that leads to a more likely than not conclusion. 
Cherry Picking is the name of the game for all that play.
What I think Ehrman did and I do is use the parts of the Gospels that can be affirmed based off of historical evidence and not mix in any of the miraculous or hear say.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Israel,  you asked why did Jesus(Christianity) survive.

Here is a more detailed account than I can put it.
https://barnesreview.org/why-did-christianity-survive/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Has anyone read the book Abe Lincoln, Vampire Slayer?
Not hard for a writer to take a historical figure and put their spin on it after the subject is dead.
What else was written about Abe 30 to 145 years after his death?

Edited to add:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/683734.Abe
Very similar to what I think went on in the Gospels as far as embellishing the unknown.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Has anyone read the book Abe Lincoln, Vampire Slayer?
> Not hard for a writer to take a historical figure and put their spin on it after the subject is dead.
> What else was written about Abe 30 to 145 years after his death?
> 
> ...


Studying history is one thing, but when there’s nothing written about the subject matter other than what is found in a book 90 years after his death then everything Ehrman can possibly conclude with is just that ^^^^^

He’s staking a claim about what Jesus didn’t believe (H&H) - yet there’s nothing there. Why is his claim any better than the Christians claim?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Studying history is one thing, but when there’s nothing written about the subject matter other than what is found in a book 90 years after his death then everything Ehrman can possibly conclude with is just that ^^^^^
> 
> He’s staking a claim about what Jesus didn’t believe (H&H) - yet there’s nothing there. Why is his claim any better than the Christians claim?


He is staking his claim about what Jesus believed on what the majority of Jews believed at that time due to following the Torah.
The NT and the Gospels did not exist when Jesus was alive.
Factor in Jesus being devine for a moment, Would Jesus follow his own Torah contents or something else not to be written about until decades later?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Let me ask you another way Spotlight, 
If in fact Jesus was God's Son would he more likely follow God's words and laws which were contained in the Torah or did Jesus come here to start an entirely new set of Jewish beliefs which would turn into worshipping him ?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

According to the NT Jesus was asked multiple times by the Pharisees and Romans if he was the Son of God . He replied  "So You Say" (meaning that is what THEY are calling him, not what he calls himself) and then went on to say that he was the Son of Man.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Let me ask you another way Spotlight,
> If in fact Jesus was God's Son would he more likely follow God's words and laws which were contained in the Torah or did Jesus come here to start an entirely new set of Jewish beliefs which would turn into worshipping him ?


The way it’s written about Jesus, he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The way it’s written about Jesus, he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.


Well we all know what is written about Jesus and those writings are full of contradictions. 
How can he fulfill the law if he is talking about H&H in the NT and H&H were not part of the Torah?

What I am saying is that if Jesus was God, part of God, in any way shape or form connected to God he would have known for eons before his time on earth, plus been brought up with as a mortal, studied throughout his life and then ultimately preached and taught The Torah. Period

If he was God and what is written in the NT about him preaching things not contained in the Torah would be lies.

If he was not God and just a mere man who had followers then what is written in the NT are perfect examples of OTHERS who tried to make more out of a man in order to continue his teachings and then their beliefs to keep it going after he was dead. Basically make him into a God through those writings and include anyone that will listen to gain followers.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> According to the NT Jesus was asked multiple times by the Pharisees and Romans if he was the Son of God . He replied  "So You Say" (meaning that is what THEY are calling him, not what he calls himself) and then went on to say that he was the Son of Man.


That gets pretty deep and covers a lot of ground. Which is fine, but in short it deals with the belief that God robed (manifested) himself in flesh and dwelt among the people. 
He came down and lived among us as the perfect human being. Fulfilling the Law of Moses and doing what no other human being was able to do. Using this title he’s identifying as man yet he prays to the Father (God / spirit) and can be one with the Father in spirit as the Christian belies they are also the body of Christ or with him in the spirit. 

Because God is a spirit with no flesh and bones and ultimately there’s no blood......he had to have to fleshy body to fulfill that law. 

That’s just a quick run down version and no attempt to use as “evidence” to convince.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Well we all know what is written about Jesus and those writings are full of contradictions.
> How can he fulfill the law if he is talking about H&H in the NT and H&H were not part of the Torah?
> 
> What I am saying is that if Jesus was God, part of God, in any way shape or form connected to God he would have known for eons before his time on earth, plus been brought up with as a mortal, studied throughout his life and then ultimately preached and taught The Torah. Period
> ...


It’s commonly agreed that the Disciples thought when they were told to go into all the world preaching and, he’d return for them - they believed it would be just a short time. But as weeks turned into years, they began writing things. You have the Torah which is accepted as the first 5 books of the Bible, plus the rest of the Bible. Nowhere is it written to ignore the first 5 books. They are cross referenced in hundreds of locations throughout the entire Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Studying history is one thing, but when there’s nothing written about the subject matter other than what is found in a book 90 years after his death then everything Ehrman can possibly conclude with is just that ^^^^^
> 
> He’s staking a claim about what Jesus didn’t believe (H&H) - yet there’s nothing there. Why is his claim any better than the Christians claim?


No need to highlight "I think". I purposely said those words because I am led to believe those thoughts based off of what I have been able research.

And think about this. Jesus (if actually the Son of God) has a couple stories (3 of which are so similar that 2 are accepted as copies of the 1st one Mark with some added writings) written over a span of 70 years and the first wasn't written until at least 30 years after his death. The three were not written together but decades apart from each other using the one before it to copy. The contents of those writings which include global phenomenon is recorded nowhere else outside of those stories. The miracles went unnoticed to EVERYONE outside of those stories. The majority of contemporary historians (like 8 out of 10 that is always cited by pro Christian sources) and writers who are said to have acknowledged Jesus have been found, shown and agreed upon by scholars to be later forged additions to older writings. The 2 that are legitimate mention someone who fits the most basic of a Jesus's description which a charismatic leader with some followers who was put to death for causing trouble. Those same contemporary writers mention the same and more about others too. Nothing miraculous, no reanimation, no divinity, NOTHING to suggest he was any more than a man.

It is incredibly awful that The Son of God exists nowhere outside of writings that were written 30 to 70 years after his death. Unless of course he was just a man.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> It’s commonly agreed that the Disciples thought when they were told to go into all the world preaching and, he’d return for them - they believed it would be just a short time. But as weeks turned into years, they began writing things. You have the Torah which is accepted as the first 5 books of the Bible, plus the rest of the Bible. Nowhere is it written to ignore the first 5 books. They are cross referenced in hundreds of locations throughout the entire Bible.


There is no evidence that the disciples wrote anything.
When Jesus did not fulfill his promise to return to them in their generation some anonymous followers/writers took it upon upon themselves to explain why and make him out to be obviously more than he was.
If he was God in the flesh he would have kept his promise.
If he was man, well....he would need someone who could not accept that he was just a man to make him into something more. That happens all throughout religions and history.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> No need to highlight "I think". I purposely said those words because I am led to believe those thoughts based off of what I have been able research.
> 
> And think about this. Jesus (if actually the Son of God) has a couple stories (3 of which are so similar that 2 are accepted as copies of the 1st one Mark with some added writings) written over a span of 70 years and the first wasn't written until at least 30 years after his death. The three were not written together but decades apart from each other using the one before it to copy. The contents of those writings which include global phenomenon is recorded nowhere else outside of those stories. The miracles went unnoticed to EVERYONE outside of those stories. The majority of contemporary historians (like 8 out of 10 that is always cited by pro Christian sources) and writers who are said to have acknowledged Jesus have been found, shown and agreed upon by scholars to be later forged additions to older writings. The 2 that are legitimate mention someone who fits the most basic of a Jesus's description which a charismatic leader with some followers who was put to death for causing trouble. Those same contemporary writers mention the same and more about others too. Nothing miraculous, no reanimation, no divinity, NOTHING to suggest he was any more than a man.
> 
> It is incredibly awful that The Son of God exists nowhere outside of writings that were written 30 to 70 years after his death. Unless of course he was just a man.


It’s my understanding that Jews have always been enslaved by some form and the reason there’s much documentary. I don’t know that to be truthful, I’m trying to find where I recently read that information.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> It’s my understanding that Jews have always been enslaved by some form and the reason there’s much documentary. I don’t know that to be truthful, I’m trying to find where I recently read that information.


Every race has been enslaved at some point or another.
The problem with the stories in the Bible that talk about the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt is that even the Jews admit it didn't happen.
Like Christians they know the supposed words of God are flat out untruthful but they continue on acting as if they are truthful anyway because that has how it has been and is whats needed to make it work.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> There is no evidence that the disciples wrote anything.
> When Jesus did not fulfill his promise to return to them in their generation some anonymous followers/writers took it upon upon themselves to explain why and make him out to be obviously more than he was.
> If he was God in the flesh he would have kept his promise.
> If he was man, well....he would need someone who could not accept that he was just a man to make him into something more. That happens all throughout religions and history.


I see your point, and that’s what I’m saying about Ehrman. He’s really no different than the Christian about Jesus. One is an advocate, the other is a critic. Neither have evidence.  My question is why is Ehrman more agreeable to the Atheist / Agnostic?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Every race has been enslaved at some point or another.
> The problem with the stories in the Bible that talk about the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt is that even the Jews admit it didn't happen.
> Like Christians they know the supposed words of God are flat out untruthful but they continue on acting as if they are truthful anyway because that has how it has been and is whats needed to make it work.


Yea but we know that “depends” on who you talk to and when. 

We have Jews coming into Christianity daily.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I see your point, and that’s what I’m saying about Ehrman. He’s really no different than the Christian about Jesus. One is an advocate, the other is a critic. Neither have evidence.  My question is why is Ehrman more agreeable to the Atheist / Agnostic?


Because he is using the belief system available to Jesus at the time when Jesus was alive. Most regular mortal Hebrews followed that system for thousands of years. The Son of God would have to follow that system. Ehrman is connecting the available dots. Christianity and it's writings were not available to Jesus. Each of those started after Jesus died. It is safe to believe that Jesus never told anyone to worship him or start a religion around him. The NT writings are in fact those two very things which Jesus while alive was never a part of.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yea but we know that “depends” on who you talk to and when.
> 
> We have Jews coming into Christianity daily.


And Christians leaving.
If everyone was a Christian and everyone believed the same and there was one denomination instead of 40,000 Id say it would more likely be "right"


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Because he is using the belief system available to Jesus at the time when Jesus was alive. Most regular mortal Hebrews followed that system for thousands of years. The Son of God would have to follow that system. Ehrman is connecting the available dots. Christianity and it's writings were not available to Jesus. Each of those started after Jesus died. It is safe to believe that Jesus never told anyone to worship him or start a religion around him. The NT writings are in fact those two very things which Jesus while alive was never a part of.


I can see that. Though I’m still convinced that a couple hundred years of time frame is still close enough to give an account of someone’s undocumented life - after their death.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can see that. Though I’m still convinced that a couple hundred years of time frame is still close enough to give an account of someone’s undocumented life - after their death.


It is within a couple hundred years prior to now with lots of historical evidence, birth certificates,  contemporary sources, even enemies to corroborate the people or events.

We'd be writing about George Washington as if he just came onto the scene if we followed the styles of 2000 years ago. When in fact we can go back now and find evidence and examples of the things I metioned above. We have corroborated many of histories mysteries by finding evidence from the time it happened. Other than some places, some people, some events which can be corroborated outside of the bible, for the majority of what takes place in the biblical stories there just is no other evidence for it anywhere else.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can see that. Though I’m still convinced that a couple hundred years of time frame is still close enough to give an account of someone’s undocumented life - after their death.


I can agree that back then in that time frame a writer can give a general outline about someone but it cannot be accurate to the point where anyone knows which direction a person turned, what hand movement was made as he turned and pinpoint a detailed conversation  between 2 people word for word when the writer was not one of the two or one of the group. Artistic liberty comes into play and that does not make for accurate history just a good story.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

The truth is the truth. Facts are facts.
Neither require anyone to constantly come up with excuses as to why they are not what they should be or are claimed to be like the contents of the bible.
I accept the contents of the bible for what it is, I gave up making excuses for the bible as to why it wasn't what it claimed to be.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It is within a couple hundred years prior to now with lots of historical evidence, birth certificates,  contemporary sources, even enemies to corroborate the people or events.
> 
> We'd be writing about George Washington as if he just came onto the scene if we followed the styles of 2000 years ago. When in fact we can go back now and find evidence and examples of the things I metioned above. We have corroborated many of histories mysteries by finding evidence from the time it happened. Other than some places, some people, some events which can be corroborated outside of the bible, for the majority of what takes place in the biblical stories there just is no other evidence for it anywhere else.


We are still finding writings in caves. Plus, we are supposed to get better with age ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> We are still finding writings in caves. Plus, we are supposed to get better with age ?


Are you saying that your God who wants his words to be heard is content with us occasionally finding postage stamp sized or smaller and extremely fragile portions of writings in caves and that in those morsels we are to find something that has not been seen before and clear all this up?
The Bible didnt fall from Heaven complete.
If you are relying on (hoping) that some fragment which contains maybe one whole and a few partial words is found in a cave today, tomorrow or in a thousand years and telling me that I should also await that day because it "could " happen you are making yet another excuse like I referred to above.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that your God who wants his words to be heard is content with us occasionally finding postage stamp sized or smaller and extremely fragile portions of writings in caves and that in those morsels we are to find something that has not been seen before and clear all this up?
> The Bible didnt fall from Heaven complete.
> If you are relying on (hoping) that some fragment which contains maybe one whole and a few partial words is found in a cave today, tomorrow or in a thousand years and telling me that I should also await that day because it "could " happen you are making yet another excuse like I referred to above.


Oh I haven’t made any excuses. The Bible is very clear and detailed to me.

I’m referring to this portion of your comment “we can go back now and find evidence and examples of the things” when I say things like we are still finding stuff. Especially when one believes that new evidence can still be found.

But for what I think - Knowing that even films that are based on true stories doesn’t give you every single word / act the person said / did, I think anything that is relevant is what we have. Anything new wouldn’t affect the contents other than it might provide enough evidence to connect an event or the possibility of an event.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Oh I haven’t made any excuses. The Bible is very clear and detailed to me.
> 
> I’m referring to this portion of your comment “we can go back now and find evidence and examples of the things” when I say things like we are still finding stuff. Especially when one believes that new evidence can still be found.
> 
> But for what I think - Knowing that even films that are based on true stories doesn’t give you every single word / act the person said / did, I think anything that is relevant is what we have. Anything new wouldn’t affect the contents other than it might provide enough evidence to connect an event or the possibility of an event.


If that is your criteria then every other religious book is as relevant , as accurate and must be taken with as much respect regarding it's contents.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If that is your criteria then every other religious book is as relevant , as accurate and must be taken with as much respect regarding it's contents.


I don’t disrespect other religions, I can disagree with them and be partial to mine. There’s no benchmark that applies that says I have to weigh them equally.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t disrespect other religions, I can disagree with them and be partial to mine. There’s no benchmark that applies that says I have to weigh them equally.


Sure there is a benchmark. What is written in their books by who ever wrote it is an accurate record of its authenticity because the authors may have been there, heard about it or heard of it within a few hundred years. And someone may find some more of their writings that we don't know about in a cave.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Sure there is a benchmark. What is written in their books by who ever wrote it is an accurate record of its authenticity because the authors may have been there, heard about it or heard of it within a few hundred years. And someone may find some more of their writings that we don't know about in a cave.


But I have the choice to not believe it and choose what I do believe is what I’m saying. 

None of it, including mine can be proven and all of them have that door open that it might be right. No atheist will tell that they’re 100% sure.


----------



## Israel (Apr 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html
> 
> 
> Jesus was more Old School than the Pharisees.
> ...



I am not sure if your response "Jesus was more old school..."  is facetious or declarative based upon what then follows:



> He threw money lenders and selling of goods out of the Temple. He called out the Pharisees for their Hypocrisy. He healed on the Sabbath



for all _that written testimony_ of "what He did" and how He spoke with the Pharisees no less contain the testimony of His resurrection. It is not that I need convincing Jesus was seen as a sore trouble for the religious_ leaders of that day_, because I know quite experientially He remains that today. He does remain the same yesterday, today, and yes, forever.
(And it is not that He exempted me from being troubled by those things and in which ways I have needed it)



====================================================





bullethead said:


> Israel,  you asked why did Jesus(Christianity) survive.
> 
> Here is a more detailed account than I can put it.
> https://barnesreview.org/why-did-christianity-survive/




It is not that I was asking that at all. Only that if one were to take their stand upon histories, make claim that Jesus was "just one of many trouble makers"...(believing messianic pretenders were a dime a dozen)...which comes, I imagine, from some form of digging around there in history, then that one...who would be willing to take that stand might find it incumbent to not deny all the history between_ those days_ and this. How that it would appear martyrs have appeared in every age...finding in their times...Jesus "speaking" no less to them...whether declared as literal hearing...or His appeal in Spirit. His integrity and truth making such appeal that they have counted their own lives forfeit.

But I make no such appeal. Nor do I find history as the comfort above all. I don't deny it, but it is not the measure of my faith that "some others have obviously also believed". I do not face God upon their testimony but rather upon in that same place Peter was reduced to after "who do men say I am?"...to "whom do you say I am?"


It would seem I did not make myself clear.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> I am not sure if your response "Jesus was more old school..."  is facetious or declarative based upon what then follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, as usual more sides than meat in your buffet.


----------



## Israel (Apr 15, 2021)

If one contends Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple, the testimony of that is found also among the testimony He rose from the dead.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> If one contends Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple, the testimony of that is found also among the testimony He rose from the dead.


Again and maybe for the 100th time within this forum, one of those seems to have happened and is mentioned outside of the bible and one exists nowhere else.



> Joseph Klausner, a Jewish researcher, sums up some of the conclusions which can be drawn from the Talmudic theories about Jesus: “There are some reliable theories regarding the fact that his name was Yeshua (Yeshu) of Nazareth; that he practised sorcery (that is to say that he performed miracles, as was common in those days) and seduction and led Israel astray; that he mocked the words of the wise and discussed Scripture in the same way as the Pharisees; that he had five disciples; that he said he had not come to revoke the Law, nor to add anything to it; that he was hung upon a piece of wood (crucified) as a false authority and seducer on the eve of the Passover (which fell on a Saturday); and that his disciples cured disease in his name” (J.Klausner, _Jesus of Nazareth_, p.44)
> 
> – Although, from an historical point of view, Klausner’s résumé and his observations would require clarification, they demonstrate sufficiently that what can be deduced from these sources, if not comprehensive, is certainly significant. Checking this information against that provided by the Roman writers allows us to affirm with historical certainty that Jesus existed, and even to become familiar with the most important facts about his life.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

I just cannot find ANY outside sources that record anything of Jesus coming back from the dead. None.


THE TALMUD

The Talmud is essentially the collection of Jewish oral traditions that were put into writing with additional commentary between the years of AD 70 and 200. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a includes:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover.

"The facts in this passage are somewhat difficult to assimilate. Although Yeshu is referring to Jesus, the announcement that he was to be stoned (a lethal punishment) is followed by the statement that he was hanged (crucified). One possible explanation is that the Jewish leadership's call for his stoning preceded his eventual arrest by at least those forty days. This would be consistent with Scripture's accounts of his numerous near-stonings (John 10:31-33, 11:8 ).

"Jesus' death by crucifixion may have then just been a matter of Roman involvement in the affair. Perhaps it is more likely that his sudden crucifixion (which immediately followed his arrest and dubious midnight trial) was gladly allowed by the Jewish leaders to pre-empt the normal forty day holding period for a condemned man. The leaders may have feared that, during this time, Jesus' followers might have been able to organize his release or stir up an outcry against them."


----------



## Israel (Apr 15, 2021)

The Talmudic theories? The Talmud used as some authority...and then theories derived. OK, thanks.

From what I can see the Babylonian Talmud was assembled c 350-400. Those the dates you have?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I just cannot find ANY outside sources that record anything of Jesus coming back from the dead. None.
> 
> 
> THE TALMUD
> ...



A few things to think on.
*Talmud* (“study” or “learning”) commonly refers to a compilation of ancient teachings regarded as sacred and normative by Jews........

Looks like the there’s a possible answer to why not much was written during specific times?

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral and transferred from one generation to the next



Talmud - It was compiled in the *4th century* in Galilee. The Babylonian Talmud was compiled about the year 500, although it continued to be edited later. The word "Talmud", when used without qualification, usually refers to the Babylonian Talmud.

The Christian Bible has two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the original Hebrew Bible, the sacred scriptures of the Jewish faith, written at different times between about 1200 and 165 BC. The New Testament books were written by Christians in the *first century* AD.

Hard to use a book written in the 4th century to dispute a book written in the 1st century.

The Talmud can’t hold any more water than the Bible if it’s based on writing the event down as it happened.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> The Talmudic theories? The Talmud used as some authority...and then theories derived. OK, thanks.
> 
> From what I can see the Babylonian Talmud was assembled c 350-400. Those the dates you have?


"
Some parts of the Talmud began developing hundreds of years before the birth of Messiah. Oral laws which expanded upon the Torah were passed down from rabbi to rabbi as a way to ensure that the Law was followed as closely as possible. In theory because of the serious lack of well-educated rabbis alive at the time, Rabbi Judah the Prince chose to write down these oral codes, called the Mishnah, around AD 200. Not only did Rabbi Judah record these rules and commentaries, but he arranged them systematically into six different sections and 63 subsections called "tractates." This introduced a vast difference in the study of the Torah, for never had a rabbi been able to look up in one place everything said in the Torah, along with oral laws, on one subject.

Around AD 400 Jewish rabbis in Palestine edited together the many commentaries, called Gemara, and legal discussions, called Halakha, which had since been made about the Mishnah. This document is known as the Jerusalem Talmud. Over 100 years later, rabbis in Babylon compiled and edited these documents as well, creating the Babylonian Talmud. This later document, containing more and what are generally held to be more advanced commentaries on the Mishnah, is almost exclusively used for study by Jewish rabbis and scholars today. If "The Talmud" is referenced, one may assume the Babylonian Talmud is intended.

It should be noted that the term "Talmud" is sometimes, or even often in some circles, used in place of "Gemara" and therefore placed in parallel with the Mishnah. This is not technically correct, but is somewhat pervasive, and must be determined by context.

From the perspective of Followers of Jesus, the Talmud and its various parts are of value in understanding how the Torah was and is interpreted, and is invaluable in understanding post-temple Judaism. This compilation is the heart and soul of Jewish life and thought today. However, it does not acknowledge or provide the hope of Jesus, Messiah."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> A few things to think on.
> *Talmud* (“study” or “learning”) commonly refers to a compilation of ancient teachings regarded as sacred and normative by Jews........
> 
> Looks like the there’s a possible answer to why not much was written during specific times?
> ...


By your standards then it is hard to use a book written in the 1st century to dispute a book written (you can choose from a couple hundred to many thousands) years before it.

But here is this
The Talmud actually consists of two works:


Mishnah - the oral Torah which, according to tradition, was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai alongside the written Torah. The Mishnah was written down for the first time by Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) following the destruction of the Second Temple in ~70CE. However, while Rabbi Yehuda started the process of writing down the Mishnah, the work was completed by his sons and also includes and references the commentaries of earlier rabbis; the collection of rabbis whose works went into the Mishnah are referred to as the Tannaim, and the Tannaim lived from ~30 BCE - ~200 CE.
Gemara - rabbinic commentaries and discussions on the Mishnah which, together with the Mishnah, comprise the Talmud. These commentaries were arranged by the Amoraim who lived ~200-500CE.
So, in other words, it was a long process (~30 BCE - 500 CE), and that is ignoring the history of the oral law prior to the commentary of the Tannaim.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> The Talmudic theories? The Talmud used as some authority...and then theories derived. OK, thanks.
> 
> From what I can see the Babylonian Talmud was assembled c 350-400. Those the dates you have?


Assembled around those dates but written starting around 30 CE to 200 CE


----------



## Israel (Apr 15, 2021)

The Babylonian Talmud...as much as I find written about it on the British Library site:



> The Talmud developed in two major centres of Jewish scholarship: Babylonia and Palestine. The Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud was completed c.350, and the Babylonian Talmud (the more complete and authoritative) was written down c. 500, but was further edited for another two centuries. The Talmud served as the basis for all codes of rabbinic law.
> 
> From the Palestinian tradition of Jewish worship came the Ashkenazi rite used in Western and Eastern Europe and Russia. From the Babylonian tradition came the Sephardi rite followed in Spain, Portugal, North Africa, and the Middle East. Both rites, as well as some others, are still practised in Orthodox Jewish communities worldwide.
> 
> In genealogical discussions, people often use the term Ashkenazi and Sephardic to describe Jews who come from the respective regions.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> The Babylonian Talmud...as much as I find written about it on the British Library site:


It seems that the dates vary by sites/sources. 
Some seem to indicate that the writings started in or near 30CE, continued through 200CE and were then compiled around 300CE+.
Seems to be similar to the span of many religious oral, written, compiled works.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Similar to this Israel:
https://www.catholic.com/qa/who-compiled-the-bible-and-when

The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon—or list of books—of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.

Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.

The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).

Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

It seems what's good for the 30CE to 1546CE Goose is good for the 30CE to 500CE Gander.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It seems that the dates vary by sites/sources.
> Some seem to indicate that the writings started in or near 30CE, continued through 200CE and were then compiled around 300CE+.
> Seems to be similar to the span of many religious oral, written, compiled works.


Contradictions??? Sorry, had to lol


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It seems what's good for the 30CE to 1546CE Goose is good for the 30CE to 500CE Gander.


Well yeah that’s why we question your using it to dispute the Bible, or at at least advocate it for more accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Well yeah that’s why we question your using it to dispute the Bible, or at at least advocate it for more accurate.


Here is the basics.
I use it because it fits the standards you use for yours. I am trying to show you things using your terms, your criteria, the timeframes in which you use as some sort of proof and evidence that convince you.

To me it is the equivalent of discussing Who flies faster, Mighty Mouse or Superman and one side is saying that I don't have to believe mice can fly even though I believe a guy from another planet can fly instead of admitting that while mice and men actually exist in this particular case their ability to fly only exists in fictitious realms equally.
In order to participate in make believe, I have to talk make believe.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

I do not for one second believe that the Torah is any more truthful, right, accurate (whatever term ya want to use) as the New Testament.
But, being Jesus was a 1st Century Jew I can fathom that he used the Torah the same way that Christians use the New Testament.
I also have to use timelines and sources as close to "your" timelines and sources because they meet the same standards "you" use.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2021)

If some anonymous author writing metaphysical tales about Jesus 60 years after Jesus is dead is accepted by "you" because it is "all you got to go by",  I provided you another non anonymous source to "go by" which was written about the same time frame and referenced the same Jesus and does not mention a single metaphysical occurrence. Both authors tell the same basic story , one without the embellishments.

I cannot understand why 8 contemporary sources which have been proven to be forgeries and later additions are always used by Pro Christians and yet the same Pro's try to refute contemporary sources which have not been proven to be anything but genuine unless it is solely because they do not want to hear anything that does not agree with what they believe even though these other sources fit the criteria given by the Pro side as to why they believe the rest.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 15, 2021)

bullethead said:


> If some anonymous author writing metaphysical tales about Jesus 60 years after Jesus is dead is accepted by "you" because it is "all you got to go by",  I provided you another non anonymous source to "go by" which was written about the same time frame and referenced the same Jesus and does not mention a single metaphysical occurrence. Both authors tell the same basic story , one without the embellishments.
> 
> I cannot understand why 8 contemporary sources which have been proven to be forgeries and later additions are always used by Pro Christians and yet the same Pro's try to refute contemporary sources which have not been proven to be anything but genuine unless it is solely because they do not want to hear anything that does not agree with what they believe even though these other sources fit the criteria given by the Pro side as to why they believe the rest.


Because it really has not as much do with what is written as you think. I mean it does, but it’s more than those words, and whole heck of a lot more than just deciding to believe what’s written.

Lay aside standards and criteria. It’s an experience, and it’s real.


----------



## Israel (Apr 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I just cannot find ANY outside sources that record anything of Jesus coming back from the dead. None.
> 
> 
> THE TALMUD
> ...



What you quote above:



> "On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover.



Is also all I can find (and only in the Babylonian Talmud) of any possible reference making _that Yeshu_ fit the Jesus hanged on the tree outside of Jerusalem (though lacking _that specificity_).

OK.

But it's just a repeat of what the gospel's themselves relate as the view some held...and of which Jesus was already accused:



> "It is by the prince of demons he casts out demons"


 Mt 9:34

i.e. sorcerer.

Also added is the same accusation of "enticing and leading astray"...a deceiver



> And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.


 Jn 7:12

Not at all different than most accusations today, charismatic liar/magician with powers attributed to deceive multitudes (even down through the ages.)

Or something else altogether.


And has also, is also "troubling the world".

(We are quite close...for those who have _not yet known it_, or been able to receive it...that His words and preaching in truth have never been compatible with the world and again His word and preaching will be broadly criminalized...for the spiritually dense who have some how thought the world has become a more "enlightened" place.)

The witness of Christ who bears His testimony has always known this. Some have been awakened to it, while others still slumber. The time of light is appointed to each as it is ordained.

But, if taking (as I do take) the truth _that some have always said_ He is a liar, a deceiver, a leader astray and even sorcerer, none of that makes the case that _he must_ have been (_in His time_) a good and simple (as a Jew of authority in that time would appraise) Torah believing teacher and preacher. It only supports that to some who had the power to do so, He was rejected as any such thing. Leveling accusations and acted upon by which they found Him worthy of death for them.

Yes, Jesus Christ is/was and remains public enemy #1 to the status quo.

But to the some _who have been made able to receive_ their righteous judgment as criminal and treacherous to their Maker He's more than good friend...a Savior...who has graciously included them in His death to, and for, sin.

Yep, I believe the Jesus that says and said this to some of those Jews, no longer ignorant nor naive of how provocational [sic] it is:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Yes, that man meets each and every man (whether Jew or not) with the same testimony...everything you may think is a something in and of itself is _nothing but about me_. Yes, even all of resistance.

How can that not be an offense to men who believe they can choose to attach significance where they will? And count as of so little significance...the One about whom all creation is centered.

(yep Bullet...even ballistic tables, the physics is all _of Him_)

And as to Jesus Christ's relationship to Torah I hold no doubt as He embraced it as the only man ever to.._.in truth._


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 16, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Because it really has not as much do with what is written as you think. I mean it does, but it’s more than those words, and whole heck of a lot more than just deciding to believe what’s written.
> 
> Lay aside standards and criteria. It’s an experience, and it’s real.



If I may add: And experiences can only be meaningfully shared with someone who has a similar experience to that which is being shared.

Although, with a sufficiency of love/trust, one can believe that the other person actually possesses the experience, while not meaningfully understanding the experience itself.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Because it really has not as much do with what is written as you think. I mean it does, but it’s more than those words, and whole heck of a lot more than just deciding to believe what’s written.
> 
> Lay aside standards and criteria. It’s an experience, and it’s real.


It took centuries of forced indoctrination based off of those words to have them moulded into people's daily routines. It was the law that you must believe them. Words matter and without those words you would be telling me the same thing about some other story. As much good as bad has been perpetrated from those words.
And I can relate to it all. I once lived it also. I thought as you do. I felt as you do. I felt as though I experienced it. I know where you are coming from and I know what you are trying to describe to me even if you do not think that you are saying it exactly as you mean it sometimes. I can also tell you that it took years for me to lose those "feelings" so I can look at it all objectively.
I cannot buy into Santa for Adults anymore.
Edited for spelling


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> What you quote above:
> 
> 
> 
> Is also all I can find (and only in the Babylonian Talmud) of any possible reference making _that Yeshu_ fit the Jesus hanged on the tree outside of Jerusalem (though lacking _that specificity_).


It was just another crucifixion. It happened constantly.



Israel said:


> OK.
> 
> But it's just a repeat of what the gospel's themselves relate as the view some held...and of which Jesus was already accused:


The argument is as strong for it to being a precursor to what the Gospels wrote as your claim of a repeat.



Israel said:


> Mt 9:34
> 
> i.e. sorcerer.
> 
> ...


Even Pharoah's magician could turn a stick into a snake thousands of years prior.



Israel said:


> Not at all different than most accusations today, charismatic liar/magician with powers attributed to deceive multitudes (even down through the ages.)


Bingo



Israel said:


> Or something else altogether.


Here comes the proselytizing,  injection of personal beliefs and assertive claims




Israel said:


> And has also, is also "troubling the world".
> 
> (We are quite close...for those who have _not yet known it_, or been able to receive it...that His words and preaching in truth have never been compatible with the world and again His word and preaching will be broadly criminalized...for the spiritually dense who have some how thought the world has become a more "enlightened" place.)
> 
> ...


It's like every Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ever, you know the same lines will be repeated at some point.



Israel said:


> (yep Bullet...even ballistic tables, the physics is all _of Him_)


Usual off tangent run trying to connect the real with the metaphysical just like your favorite anonymous authors



Israel said:


> And as to Jesus Christ's relationship to Torah I hold no doubt as He embraced it as the only man ever to.._.in truth._


You and Ehrman


----------



## Israel (Apr 16, 2021)

I too well understand that what seems anonymous to you, is not.

Sometimes a man doesn't even know himself, but that does not mean he never will.

There's a far better precursor to the gospels written by a Jew.

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2021)

Israel said:


> I too well understand that what seems anonymous to you, is not.
> 
> Sometimes a man doesn't even know himself, but that does not mean he never will.
> 
> ...


Oyyyy


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 16, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It's like every Arnold Schwarzenegger movie


----------



## ky55 (Apr 18, 2021)




----------



## Israel (Apr 19, 2021)

The believer either _already concedes_ to revelation as source of truth for the writings or he is only a believer _in word_ (OR he has not yet considered things too obvious to overlook.) He has _not yet _had his faith tested in this area.

This is the_ believe_ part of his being a believer...that all truth comes only by revelation and that the truth in, and of Jesus Christ, is the fullness of all truth to man. Why would it be a "new" thing to consider that some time as distance _in experience _would diminish the truth of matters?

And of course he (the believer) concedes he walks in a place and ways unknown to what does not believe, or perhaps...does not yet believe.

When a man reads of Jesus in the garden or Jesus' temptations in the wilderness the ground is already set to faith...no matter if such were written a day, a week, a year or 20, 100, after (or 10 minutes for that matter)...it is plain (as far as the presence of an earthly recorder being there...) that Jesus is alone. Who "overheard" his conversation with the woman at the well? Who saw? Heard?

Does the believer imagine (must he?) that Jesus later said "lemme tell you all exactly what happened and what was said..." (There surely is a brief window for this between the garden and His crucifixion). He can, or might imagine this to be the truth of it...but does the believer think he sees Jesus saying to His disciples (so there be a full recording and no error)

"First I said 'Father if it be thy will let this cup pass'...and then I wept a bit more and said..."?

The very faith that I have learned as gift to me is also the very faith that tells me Jesus does not have any interest in throwing open his "closet door" of prayer, no self interest in making a display of Himself...and fully trusts only in His Father to make Him known...even such workings interior (in Christ) that take place. He is quite bold (and content) in _all parts_ (if they can be divided) of this saying:

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and _he_ to whomsoever the Son will reveal _him_.

Of course this is far too strange a place for the unbeliever to tread, the reasoning seems too circular, too infantile, even perhaps too grandiose. But the believer is learning all true reason is circular in nature...leading back (and also forward!) to God, source of all reason...and of all reasons for anything in the creation.

But this is Christ's great promise (too grandiose?) to bring us to the Father, safely, and in (His) person. Even inclusive to whatever moment of truth this is made known:

"I will show you whom you should fear..."

This bringing to, this showing in the person of Christ is fearful! All of man's reasons and reasonings are shown folly, corrupt...all prior "standing" removed...intellect, education, religious practice, so called goodness, seeming acts of piety meaning no more than most depraved undertakings. Everything cut away...but the Christ of God.

But this is where the surety of Christ is alone made sure. There is no "other" way...fearful as it may be in experience. And it is fearful in experience. But there...promise also holds sure...and even especially there. Confirmed.

To think Jesus Christ Himself did not experience this is folly. Even entrance into the passing pains of that circular reasoning in which all other must be abandoned that might seem proffered way of escape.

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

In short, "I am here precisely for this". To be abandoned, rejected, raised to scorn and debased in the sight of man to all casual disregard. Just "another" criminal. Another man who went "too far". "Since I am here for this, what would be working toward any desire that I escape this?"

It was settled there the evil one "had no place in Him" and there would be not much speaking after this. Now was the time of execution...of doing. Miracles would not suffice here for testimony; words, teachings, parables, instructions, commandments (as fine and true as ever they were) were not offered here...for this was now the time and place of their securing in truth, and as truth...where push came to shove, put up or shut up, put your money where your mouth is (but _the something_ that makes money worthless was truly "put up")...this was where their establishment as spoken by the true man, would be secured, signed so to speak, in His own blood.

If the case is being made, or is to be made upon "historical facts" that Jesus was the "run of the mill" Jew two thousand years ago, there are myriad other historical facts that argue that name has held some power over the millennia...arguing against (for better or worse, depending upon a perspective) He was anything but _run of the mill._

If one cares to take their stand upon the wrings being false, augmented, or amended in some way by cunning men_ trying to get a_ "new" religion off the ground...and so full of obvious contradictions, lies, and bias...one would have to also persuasively make the case that if so malleable and easily subject to editing their assembly (in such co called _obvious contradiction) _was accomplished by the most stupid and blind of all men to not see them, or choose to ignore them (these seeming obvious contradictions)...which contrariwise would be a very poor way to seek to launch some new endeavor.

And if fanciful to some absurd degree (to even claim a man was resurrected)...why not carry such fancy to its fullest course...have Jesus laughing and dancing up the hill singing "you can't keep me down cause I am the Messiah" rather than show a man in so many "outward ways" appearing much as any other...even with loud cries and tears in a garden considering what was facing Him? Stumbling up the hill. Even made to ask that "if it were possible"...to be avoided. Yes, why not give Him x-ray eyes to boot?

What any man does with the writings in his relationship to them, or even as to any believing in what he thinks is a _right relation_ to them I find succinctly stated by Christ Himself:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


The plea that they may appear too contradictory, too unstable, too fanciful and insubstantial...even too infantile for such grand intellects to find valuable...are really the same accusations so often found leveled at Christ and His followers. But, of course!

Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

A man has come who, in loving us, nevertheless has hated perfectly what men do of concupiscence...while showing He has no part with it, has yet given His life a ransom for many.

Yes, who can believe that?

Not without His Father's testimony of Him.

And every man is following some father's son.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2021)

Israel said:


> The believer either _already concedes_ to revelation as source of truth for the writings or he is only a believer _in word_ (OR he has not yet considered things too obvious to overlook.) He has _not yet _had his faith tested in this area.
> 
> This is the_ believe_ part of his being a believer...that all truth comes only by revelation and that the truth in, and of Jesus Christ, is the fullness of all truth to man. Why would it be a "new" thing to consider that some time as distance _in experience _would diminish the truth of matters?
> 
> ...


Ehrman, not sermon.


----------



## Israel (Apr 19, 2021)

What is Ehrman to be found so worthy of consideration? Except another late 20th early 21st Century vapor making a living off the name of Jesus Christ? Perhaps not as profitably as the many religious hucksters also merchandising on that name, but not without some success.

The buyers and sellers in the Temple have always had their day, that is sure.
But what will they do in the end?
Except discover as all who even now seek to follow Him, nothing is, or even has been...as it seemed. It could be profitable to learn that of Him, now. Each will be spent, and is being spent upon their esteem of value.

I am sure Bart's father is or was no better nor worse a man than I am, I just don't much invest myself in his son; for at best, his son has nothing invested in me except a hope to buy his opinions and books. There are far more than enough of those who claim Jesus is the Christ of God that I am too happy to shun, how much less is esteemed what denies.

Call me_ narrow minded._ 

But don't think such compliments will endear you to me more than you already are.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2021)

Israel said:


> What is Ehrman to be found so worthy of consideration? Except another late 20th early 21st Century vapor making a living off the name of Jesus Christ? Perhaps not as profitably as the many religious hucksters also merchandising on that name, but not without some success.
> 
> The buyers and sellers in the Temple have always had their day, that is sure.
> But what will they do in the end?
> ...


Bart isn't doing anything you are not doing except it is his profession.
Ehrman's book about Jesus's beliefs is what the thread is about. Everyone knows your beliefs, claims, assertive statements and sermon-esqe posts as they take up the overwhelming majority of your input into threads. None of which are a bad thing but if any of it has anything to do with what us others have been talking about I'll be darned if I can find it in there. Too much fluff. It would be endearing to see more on point discussion,  refutation,  point/counterpoint and examples that focus on the topic. If it takes a while to explain I can gladly read through it, when the opening paragraph or 6 have nothing to do with the topic at hand and instead are meant to sway the conversation away from it, I have learned to focus my attention elsewhere.
Narrow minded is more like One Track.
In this attempt you are trying to shoot the messenger instead of refuting the content. Bringing Ehrman's dad into it....for What?


----------



## Israel (Apr 19, 2021)

bullethead said:


> In this attempt you are trying to shoot the messenger instead of refuting the content. Bringing Ehrman's dad into it....for What?



Cause everyone is following some father's son in agreements.

(And don't overdo the compliments in calling me one track...I get too easily distracted as it is; flattery has always been one of my more obvious weaknesses)


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 19, 2021)

Israel said:


> Cause everyone is following some father's son in agreements.


And none of us get to choose what we believe. Every one of us believes according to what bears the most pressure upon our mind.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2021)

Experimental Robot ant farm just going by the script. Sure why not.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 19, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> And none of us get to choose what we believe. Every one of us believes according to what bears the most pressure upon our mind.


I’m not sure I’m completely understanding this, it’s almost placing a fine line between “spiritual / non-spiritual” peer pressure and brain washing, or possibly combining the two.

Can you elaborate on how your statement resulted in someone like Ehrman and myself to have completely opposite views of Jesus - neither of us having a choice?

I’m thinking of John 20 and “Doubting Thomas”.


----------



## Israel (Apr 20, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Experimental Robot ant farm just going by the script. Sure why not.



How does one escape _purpose_?

Can one?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 20, 2021)

Israel said:


> How does one escape _purpose_?
> 
> Can one?



“Choose you this day”

Humbling yourself under God’s will is the same as choosing to believe in God’s care?

Because of the continued rebellion against God - it repented the Lord he even made man. Was that purposed?


----------



## Israel (Apr 20, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> “Choose you this day”
> 
> Humbling yourself under God’s will is the same as choosing to believe in God’s care?


I seriously love that question. I hope you do, too.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2021)

Israel said:


> I seriously love that question. I hope you do, too.


Try answering it


----------



## Israel (Apr 20, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> “Choose you this day”
> 
> Humbling yourself under God’s will is the same as choosing to believe in God’s care?
> 
> Because of the continued rebellion against God - it repented the Lord he even made man. Was that purposed?



Hey, I see you edited to include another question...and it is another lovely one...O! the riches of the wisdom of God!


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 20, 2021)

Israel said:


> Hey, I see you edited to include another question...and it is another lovely one...O! the riches of the wisdom of God!


Oh sorry, I thought I edited in time before you quoted it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 21, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Can you elaborate on how your statement resulted in someone like Ehrman and myself to have completely opposite views of Jesus - neither of us having a choice?
> 
> I’m thinking of John 20 and “Doubting Thomas”.


John 20 is a great example. Where do you see freedom of choice there?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 21, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> John 20 is a great example. Where do you see freedom of choice there?


Verses 29 - 31 in particular. Thomas believed because he saw..... blessed are those will believe by faith.

But it goes on to say things are written that you “might believe”

I know the “we are chosen”......and I know the “I stand at the door and knock”

I don’t see a contradiction, although I see the I may be a chosen people, I also see the “Gentleman” nature of it not being forced on you.

“Might believe” tells me you have a choice?

What’s the purpose of faith if there’s no choice?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2021)

What is the point of telling people to go out and preach to others about Jesus if it is already in stone those others were designed to never believe? Why command to convert the unconvertable? For those that do switch,  they were already programmed to be on the team anyway so did they really switch?
Aren't the non believers doing exactly what they have been programmed to do?
Cherry picking verses makes it all so clear while entirety is full of contradictions.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 21, 2021)

bullethead said:


> What is the point of telling people to go out and preach to others about Jesus if it is already in stone those others were designed to never believe? Why command to convert the unconvertable? For those that do switch,  they were already programmed to be on the team anyway so did they really switch?
> Aren't the non believers doing exactly what they have been programmed to do?
> Cherry picking verses makes it all so clear while entirety is full of contradictions.



BINGO.....

That and what’s the point of “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together” (church service) Why “continue”, why strive?

Why not just go fishing?


----------



## Israel (Apr 21, 2021)

Nevertheless, at thy word...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> BINGO.....
> 
> That and what’s the point of “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together” (church service) Why “continue”, why strive?
> 
> Why not just go fishing?


I think this is what happens when one story written by one author is compared to many stories written by many authors over many decades at the shortest and thousands of years as a whole.
And why none of it is god-like to me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2021)

Israel said:


> Nevertheless, at thy word...


Thy word is contradictory so one must pick and choose whichever word they want to follow and disregard thy word they don't. 
Which words supersede the other when each are saying something different about the same thing?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 21, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I think this is what happens when one story written by one author is compared to many stories written by many authors over many decades at the shortest and thousands of years as a whole.
> And why none of it is god-like to me.


I can certainly understand that view.


----------



## Israel (Apr 21, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Thy word is contradictory so one must pick and choose whichever word they want to follow and disregard thy word they don't.
> Which words supersede the other when each are saying something different about the same thing?



I've yet to find any (even seeming) contradiction of:


New International Version
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

New Living Translation
And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.

English Standard Version
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

Berean Study Bible
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Berean Literal Bible
And He said to them, "Having gone into all the world, proclaim the gospel to all the creation.

King James Bible
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

New King James Version
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

NASB 1995
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

NASB 1977
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Amplified Bible
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Christian Standard Bible
Then he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

American Standard Version
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he said to them, “Go to the entire world and preach my Good News in all creation.”

Contemporary English Version
Then he told them: Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

English Revised Version
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

Good News Translation
He said to them, "Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all people.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then Jesus said to them, "So wherever you go in the world, tell everyone the Good News.

International Standard Version
Then he told them, "As you go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to everyone.

Literal Standard Version
and He said to them, “Having gone into all the world, proclaim the good news to all the creation;

NET Bible
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

New Heart English Bible
And he said to them, "Go into all the world, and proclaim the Good News to the whole creation.

Weymouth New Testament
Then He said to them, "Go the whole world over, and proclaim the Good News to all mankind.

World English Bible
He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the Good News to the whole creation.

Young's Literal Translation
and he said to them, 'Having gone to all the world, proclaim the good news to all the creation;


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2021)

Israel said:


> I've yet to find any (even seeming) contradiction of:
> 
> 
> New International Version
> ...


Like I said Izzy, when someone chooses to zoom in on one verse (cherry pick) that person can make it seem like the Bible says thy one word only. Step back and include Thy ALL words and you have contradictions.
Predeterminism vs Free Will
Check out those verses


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2021)

100 verses for Free Will:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/free_will
100 verses for Predestination:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/predestination


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 21, 2021)

bullethead said:


> 100 verses for Free Will:
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/free_will
> 100 verses for Predestination:
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/predestination


Somewhere in the middle of that is where I’m landing with my thoughts - with the caveat I can accept being wrong.

You have enough scriptures to support both Free Will and Predestination. There’s also enough to support walking away. But where I’m at is open to the reality that we as mankind, a generation, and even as individuals were predestined to serve God, but we have the choice to turn it down because “whosever will”. And, if that’s what @gemcgrew meant he said we don’t get to choose what we believe because of the pressure on our minds....

That’s what I was wanting to know. Because to me that’s not removing my choice, it’s my allowing an influence to weigh heavily on my choice.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Somewhere in the middle of that is where I’m landing with my thoughts - with the caveat I can accept being wrong.
> 
> You have enough scriptures to support both Free Will and Predestination. There’s also enough to support walking away. But where I’m at is open to the reality that we as mankind, a generation, and even as individuals were predestined to serve God, but we have the choice to turn it down because “whosever will”. And, if that’s what @gemcgrew meant he said we don’t get to choose what we believe because of the pressure on our minds....
> 
> That’s what I was wanting to know. Because to me that’s not removing my choice, it’s my allowing an influence to weigh heavily on my choice.


I understand that but for every middle of road person like yourself you have a hard core Predestination and a hard core Free Will person plus a "religious politician"  who avoids answering questions directly while supporting both sides equally contradicting themselves in doing so.


----------



## Israel (Apr 22, 2021)

Where it is only at best inferred by man that man is free in anything (which would certainly include his will most of all) Jesus is not unclear at all that souls in bondage are completely so, and that He Himself (through continuance in His word from which He is not separate) is the only way to freedom.

And so it is not without noting that this truth is as offensive to some believers today....even as in the day He first spoke it to some "believing Jews" that He is, and remains to the exclusion of all else, the only _way_ to be free. Suddenly they were offended, taking a stand upon their lineage, their history, and matters _they thought_ they shared in common with Abraham. But this winnowing out of histories, kinships of the flesh, all natural matters to which a man might hold for the establishing of himself...mean nothing. And yet not merely nothing...but real hindrances to any knowing of God.

Yet, they will be discarded as nothing, as mere rubbish, d*ng...when they are recognized as the obstacles they are.

But my stand is not upon predestination nor election nor any of those things, nor is my call to it though it is plainly stated, but to the Christ of God in whom, and by whom, God has chosen to make Himself known to man. That very Christ who has said both "you have not chosen me but I have chosen you and ordained you..." and "have I not chosen you, the 12, and yet one of you is a Devil?" Being ordained and predestined is along His way revealed, but the call is never away to the mere knowing of things...but He, Himself.

He is the elect One of God to that. Make no mistake that I am as common as all men, seeking to find some delight in my choices, and such choices that I have framed then as superior, seeking to take to myself such superiority. How common a man I am. But when the matter of choice is too pressed upon me, in matter of life and death (and beyond) and the dread of making the "wrong one" becomes all too plain in its terrors, it is only there my previous delights found in "my choosing" are revealed as the trap I have laid for my own soul. I suckered and merely succored...my own self's soul.

Only there can relief be found in Christ as the One not of my choosing nor deciding as who He is. Yes, only there am I made very glad such has been entirely decided well before I knew of hands into which I might take anything...and now made plain all is, and has been already quite "out of my hands" as ever it was. The preeminence of Christ in all matters may remain questionable to me in some matters (as I am allowed question...even encouraged to it...ask, seek, knock) but this is not to indulge me...but that all asking might lead to what already is, and is established.

And such right of being encouraged, comforted, _allowed_...which so thoroughly eclipses fears and torments was secured, is secured only by One, not myself. Do not think that to myself this question is strange as though never entertained, "But when do I get mine...when do I get "my own"? The answer has been so plainly and consistently the same through these few decades of seeking Him as to have become undeniable that "If it is not enough that this man Jesus is made both Lord and Christ to you, then nothing of all else in all creation will suffice".

"What will it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

and

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

It is enough Christ be my life. Yet so much more.

Who forsook His own choosing to be the Choicest (where choice finally fails and is laid to rest in comparisons).

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

What is the substance of that man that forsakes what is His by right so that it could not even be called _escape _by any? What little I may know of His _taking on_ there makes it quite plain...even as I get to know Him...that I am not Him.

For what He took on there is all that separated me from God and even all others...that the only man I could ever know was myself. With no knowing, at all. (And if any man doubt that any and all he may know of himself is _only through feeding and feedback_, may such a man find grace in the time it is to him, silenced...and only voices are to him, other)

And God in wisdom says "It is not good for the man to be alone".

What He took away, put away, put to death in Himself in His dying for me, that work is all and only what allows a man, even a man as me...to be...without shame.

This gift is proffered to as many as can receive it.
I will appear more foolish, still.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2021)

Uhhh ohhhh Here we go ^^^
Equivalent of a religious filibuster.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 22, 2021)

Below is a quote from from the Career of Ehrman and, from himself. Was he chosen to be a believer or a nonbeliever? In a spiritual sense, what’s the difference with him and serpent / Eve scene in the garden? Both were deceived? Did either have a choice in being deceived, did either have a choice in their fate after being deceived? Why was the hedge removed from Job? What’s the point of allowing the devil to take his best shot at him if it’s written in stone that he’ll pass / fail?

From the Career of Ehrman:

- “His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages” (his desire to study / we are instructed to study)

“I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?”


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 22, 2021)

Israel said:


> Where it is only at best inferred by man that man is free in anything (which would certainly include his will most of all) Jesus is not unclear at all that souls in bondage are completely so, and that He Himself (through continuance in His word from which He is not separate) is the only way to freedom.
> 
> And so it is not without noting that this truth is as offensive to some believers today....even as in the day He first spoke it to some "believing Jews" that He is, and remains to the exclusion of all else, the only _way_ to be free. Suddenly they were offended, taking a stand upon their lineage, their history, and matters _they thought_ they shared in common with Abraham. But this winnowing out of histories, kinships of the flesh, all natural matters to which a man might hold for the establishing of himself...mean nothing. And yet not merely nothing...but real hindrances to any knowing of God.
> 
> ...



Well said.

Some see the choice; some see the Power behind the choice.
Some see potentiality; some see pure Actuality.
Some seek to make a change; some seek the Unchanging.
Some hear thunder; some hear an Angle.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2021)

https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Well said.
> 
> Some see the choice; some see the Power behind the choice.
> Some see potentiality; some see pure Actuality.
> ...


Some see the Psaki


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 22, 2021)

bullethead said:


> https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/


*



			Free persons of all faiths from the tyranny of their religion
		
Click to expand...

*
reliable sources


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> reliable sources


Since they provide content which has yet to be refuted your credentials as a source are at least step below theirs. Forgive me for not taking your word without something to back it up.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 22, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Since they provide content which has yet to be refuted your credentials as a source are at least step below theirs. Forgive me for not taking your word without something to back it up.


I have offered my opinion, even stated my belief at times, but I don't recall having asked you to "take my word" for anything.  I have no such standing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I have offered my opinion, even stated my belief at times, but I don't recall having asked you to "take my word" for anything.  I have no such standing.


I thought you might provide something to go along with your statement about reliable sources. Maybe enlighten us as to why they are or are not reliable and then address their content. I'll know for next time not expect anything but laughing one liners.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 22, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I thought you might provide something to go along with your statement about reliable sources. Maybe enlighten us as to why they are or are not reliable and then address their content. I'll know for next time not expect anything but laughing one liners.



That ground has been covered more times that the path from my office to my bathroom (reference BPH).


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> That ground has been covered more times that the path from my office to my bathroom (reference BPH).


Hopefully those trips have been more effective for you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 23, 2021)

bullethead said:


> 100 verses for Free Will:
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/free_will
> 100 verses for Predestination:
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/predestination


Can someone please point out which one of those verses supports free will? I may have overlooked it.


----------



## Israel (Apr 23, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Can someone please point out which one of those verses supports free will? I may have overlooked it.



yeah...I know. I didn't make it past #1.

The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 23, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> And, if that’s what @gemcgrew meant he said we don’t get to choose what we believe because of the pressure on our minds....
> 
> That’s what I was wanting to know. Because to me that’s not removing my choice, it’s my allowing an influence to weigh heavily on my choice.


I am not saying that we don't get to choose what we believe. I am saying that our choice is not a free choice. Freedom must be relative to something.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2021)

Every call to repent or believe is call to choose.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2021)

Duet 30:15-19


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 23, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I am not saying that we don't get to choose what we believe. I am saying that our choice is not a free choice. Freedom must be relative to something.


Gotcha


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 23, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Can someone please point out which one of those verses supports free will? I may have overlooked it.


bullet gave it to you - see below.


bullethead said:


> Duet 30:15-19


Added Note - God commands humans to be fruitful and exercise dominion over the animal kingdom and the earth (Gen. 1:26). The fact that God must command us to carry out his will reveals that we are not forced to carry out his will. We can choose to obey God or not.

Dueteronomy 30

15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


Israel said:


> yeah...I know. I didn't make it past #1.
> 
> The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.


While our foot steps are established to either draw, lead us, and God has a plan for our lives, etc., to................ultimately - "whosever will" "if any man" and many more - we still have to make that choice to obey. If not so, we must remove everything about the disobedient from the Bible. What are they disobeying? What are we striving for?


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2021)

There can be no obedience seen, nor to even be followed (if one accepts following) apart from seeing the obedience of God's Christ. To go to the heart of that particular matter (if one is first able to find agreement with that...which _I do not presume)..._is to face the question "Can a man will himself to see?" And in this particular matter of revelation...will himself to see Christ to entrance and for entrance?

GEM has made himself clear that he does not deny choice. And neither do I in various matters. And I do not think either of us are saying man has no will, I know I have made myself clear to that matter in discussions over the years. Even to "_not my will _be done..." spoken by the Lord Jesus.

But we are speaking in this matter exclusively as pertaining to "free" will as the ascribed term of usage in description of man's estate. A will unhindered to any and all accomplishment (free) which by its function finds nothing at all_ not under its purview in, and of, exercise._ Can one see this is a quite different matter?

The man in prison may choose to be free, earnestly desire himself free...even in whatever measure he tells himself...might _will himself_ to be free. And if one does not understand this as man's _natural estate, (_yes, even a man in Christ) I might only ask "What then do you see...and what need then of Savior?" Likewise a man in the blackest and darkest miry swamp (though I find cesspool more fittingly applicable) might think "free" is all accomplished by his choice of floating, treading, backstroke or breast stroke...but until or unless solid ground is revealed to him, standing is as far from his will to accomplish as swimming over the moon.

But again, as GEM has sought to make clear, "Free" that is free of "relative freedom" to the absolute, and especially as to will (which is endowment of all power to accomplishment) who alone would know it as His? With yet another question..."What is able to "catch up" (even a believer) in considerations of anything other than the absolute or absolutes?"

Will is indeed one thing...but "free" will quite another by its specificity.

Do not doubt that as a most common brother I have asked (and am still in process of asking/seeking/knocking) "What Lord...do you mean by 'free'?"

And as most common man and brother I am always more inclined to apply my understanding to his words, than to ask for His meaning to apply to my understanding. But thankfully I am kept from losing heart by rebuke. (But that is His work to keep me from fainting dead away at His often and necessary chastenings)

Even so with love. Mercy. Forgiveness. Life. Oh, yes, I know what I think they mean...but...apart from their meaning, meant in and by Him alone...I do indeed know nothing.  I am debtor in all things to Him for understanding.

And again, if I present myself as something other, or greater, I am liar. I am all too ready to stop and argue (as did the believing Jews who were offended) by any imagined implying they were not "free". But Jesus is not speaking of a relative freedom (of that much I am assured even if in experience I do not yet know the fullness of it, nor express it by my being)

"If you continue in my word then are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free"

I only have been given enough to believe Jesus never speaks in less than the absolute and absolutes...no matter the poverty of my understanding. Spirit and life are in...and are indeed His words...and not "some" spirit nor "some" life to be found. Many men will say (and have) "Oh, yes, Jesus says some very good things" And though I am not better than they, I cannot deny the folly of settling there. It has been made too abundantly clear to me there are pains I invite by my choosing _of some. _Cramps at best. Woodshed visits.

But regardless, it would be folly to deny testimony of scourgings...when those very scourgings testify of being received. No matter how much they may also testify of my own thick headedness. All about may be saying "there's someone really really sick in there"...but I cannot live apart from the physician's visit. He makes all worth it.

I have no choice as to who is Lord. I do not, did not...make Him so. I did not give Him words for my approval nor agreement (even if I find myself being brought into agreement and approval)...He speaks _of what is. _

And I am only beginning to be taught.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Every call to repent or believe is call to choose.


And a man repents why or how?
"the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" Romans 2:4

And a man believes why or how?
"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him" Philippians 1:29


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

We know man is led, offered, guided, moved upon, etc. And in cases after he’s rejected his calling that his heart is hardened........so the question remains - can man simply say yes or no?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> And a man repents why or how?
> "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" Romans 2:4
> 
> And a man believes why or how?
> "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him" Philippians 1:29


I am well aware of the contradictions. It is you (and all followers of scripture) that choose which one cancels the other out. Some stick to their beliefs 100%, some cherry pick for various matters.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> bullet gave it to you - see below.
> 
> Added Note - God commands humans to be fruitful and exercise dominion over the animal kingdom and the earth (Gen. 1:26). The fact that God must command us to carry out his will reveals that we are not forced to carry out his will. We can choose to obey God or not.


Of course we are not forced. God is all power. He controls our resistance.



> 15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;


God established the choices.



> 16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.


Being commanded to do something does not indicate an ability to do it.



> 17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;


And who controls the heart?
"The king's heart _is_ in the hand of the LORD, _as_ the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Proverbs 21:1



> 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.


Established.



> 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


Established choices. Why or how would we choose life?
"as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48

All of creation is God's activity.

"And all the inhabitants of the earth _are_ reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and _among_ the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am well aware of the contradictions. It is you (and all followers of scripture) that choose which one cancels the other out. Some stick to their beliefs 100%, some cherry pick for various matters.


The contradictions are in your mind. I am well aware of your inability.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> We know man is led, offered, guided, moved upon, etc. And in cases after he’s rejected his calling that his heart is hardened........so the question remains - can man simply say yes or no?


He has to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> The contradictions are in your mind. I am well aware of your inability.


The print in black and red on white pages says otherwise.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The print in black and red on white pages says otherwise.


And I, speaking for myself only, but I think for others as well, believe you when you say what they say to you.  However, that does not mean that they say the same to me.  Nor does that mean that >>either of us is<<  intellectually defective in any way.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> And I, speaking for myself only, but I think for others as well, believe you when you say what they say to you.  However, that does not mean that they say the same to me.  Nor does that mean that >>either of us is<<  intellectually defective in any way.


I agree with you 100% above.
My thoughts regarding the conundrum: If only such a being existed that could forsee such differences and see to it that the contents did not lead to such differences between all those that read them.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 24, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> And I, speaking for myself only, but I think for others as well, believe you when you say what they say to you.  However, that does not mean that they say the same to me.  Nor does that mean that >>either of us is<<  intellectually defective in any way.


Or that Being does exist and does foresee those differences and the differences precisely serve His Good Purpose.  Perhaps that is the meaning conveyed by Garden of Eden.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> We know man is led, offered, guided, moved upon, etc.


When we do know that, we also know that our will is not independent. A dependent will is not free.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Or that Being does exist and does foresee those differences and the differences precisely serve His Good Purpose.  Perhaps that is the meaning conveyed by Garden of Eden.


In each and every discussion about each and every topic it boils down to that one specific missing link.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> In each and every discussion about each and every topic it boils down to that one specific missing link.


Yep, "Same Old Thing"


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Yep, "Same Old Thing"


Yes. Hearing thunder (power without consciousness), angels (having some power and some consciousness), or God speaking.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> He has to.


I guess it’s a terminology issue. I’m not big into phrases / labels (free will, etc)
I agree a man has to choose. I’m relating having a choice to what most call free will.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Of course we are not forced. God is all power. He controls our resistance.
> 
> 
> God established the choices.
> ...


Yes, you choose one or the other. He’s not choosing for you. What the choices are doesn’t mean you can’t decide which one.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m relating having a choice to what most call free will.


And most do the same thing, even though the choice is not free either.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes, you choose one or the other. He’s not choosing for you. What the choices are doesn’t mean you can’t decide which one.


Nor does it mean that you have any ability of your own... to decide rightly.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

Too much assumption and assertion takes place through individual interpretation in order to have Billions of people make individual conclusions which all differ. Each telling the other how and why one is wrong while thinking themself as understanding it all perfectly right...and those discrepancies are just among the believers.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Nor does it mean that you have any ability of your own... to decide rightly.


Deciding rightly, or wrongly is a separate topic. The choice to make that decision still belongs to man to make. 

Ehrman chose his path, be it right or wrong.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Too much assumption and assertion takes place through individual interpretation in order to have Billions of people make individual conclusions which all differ. Each telling the other how and why one is wrong while thinking themself as understanding it all perfectly right...and those discrepancies are just among the believers.


Believers aren’t exempt from wrong choices.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Believers aren’t exempt from wrong choices.


Absolutely agree.
Nor is one any better at deciphering which verse trumps the other verse when both are written in the same book.
The "yes god said that but he meant this one more" when believers use scripture to counter scripture is all opinion. There is no authority that clears that up.


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2021)

Authority is.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Deciding rightly, or wrongly is a separate topic.


Not as it relates to freedom.


> The choice to make that decision still belongs to man to make.


"The way of man _is_ not in himself" Jeremiah 10:23


> Ehrman chose his path, be it right or wrong.


Ehrman was not first consulted when the choices were established.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Too much assumption and assertion takes place through individual interpretation in order to have Billions of people make individual conclusions which all differ. Each telling the other how and why one is wrong while thinking themself as understanding it all perfectly right...and those discrepancies are just among the believers.


This is called "progress" within the scientific community.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

Israel said:


> Authority is.


No doubt.
Beyond humans, nothing has been established as to what, who or if any exists.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> This is called "progress" within the scientific community.


Way more in depth than just that is required scientifically. There is a process and standards which must be met.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Way more in depth than just that is required scientifically. There is a process and standards which must be met.


And when that depth is explored the foundation is axiom and the accepted end is consensus.  At least that is what I have found.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> "The way of man _is_ not in himself" Jeremiah 10:23


That’s taught and commonly accepted that it’s not within a man to direct his path - trust in God to direct you.

There’s a way that seems right to man, when he’s directing his own path without God....the end is destructive.

Doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the choice he makes to follow God or himself (flesh).


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> And when that depth is explored the foundation is axiom and the accepted end is consensus.  At least that is what I have found.


Yeah, much more complex than that but way better than going with what someone asserts. Plus it is always open to accept new information if and when it becomes available.

Edited to remove a double "what"


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> That’s taught and commonly accepted that it’s not within a man to direct his path - trust in God to direct you.
> 
> There’s a way that seems right to man, when he’s directing his own path without God....the end is destructive.
> 
> Doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the choice he makes to follow God or himself (flesh).


Or it has everything to do with it, and that is why we trust in God and not our decision making skills.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, much more complex than that but way better than going with what someone asserts. Plus it is always open to accept new information if and when it becomes available.
> 
> Edited to remove a double "what"


I can't claim to be familiar enough with the methods of either side of the basic issues to speak with anything resembling certainty on the broader scale, but the more I chew around the edges the more I am impressed with the similarity of the two fields that so many believe stand in complete opposition.  For now, it is my opinion that it boils down to "the same old thing".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or it has everything to do with it, and that is why we trust in God and not our decision making skills.


So many on the planet get by just fine using their own decision making skills.
The "we" you mention is a small group.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I can't claim to be familiar enough with the methods of either side of the basic issues to speak with anything resembling certainty on the broader scale, but the more I chew around the edges the more I am impressed with the similarity of the two fields that so many believe stand in complete opposition.  For now, it is my opinion that it boils down to "the same old thing".


On the outside they seem similar.  Science requires way more checks and balances.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So many on the planet get by just fine using their own decision making skills.
> The "we" you mention is a small group.


16% of the world’s population are non believers. 

31.11% Christianity.

The remaining are a mixture of others believing / trusting in a higher power. 

Christianity is the largest group world wide.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> 16% of the world’s population are non believers.
> 
> 31.11% Christianity.
> 
> ...


That is 5 billion non Christians 
2 billion Christians are broken up into over 40,000 denominations because they all cannot agree alike.
Go a few floors up in the Christianity forums and "we" have a hard time agreeing on much.
I will absolutely tip my hat to Gem. We do not agree on religion but he is the most hard core tow the line proponent of Predestination that I have seen in these forums. His "we" is a very small group that trusts God over their own decision making skills. Saying it and living it are two very different things.
When everyone else was either tiptoeing around or flat out filibustering and never answering the "Would you kill your child if God told you to" that was asked in another thread, Gem flat out, no hesitation... Yes.
How many in here are that type of "we" on trusting God vs your own decisions? How many of the 2,170,000,000?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> That is 5 billion non Christians
> 2 billion Christians are broken up into over 40,000 denominations because they all cannot agree alike.
> Go a few floors up in the Christianity forums and "we" have a hard time agreeing on much.
> I will absolutely tip my hat to Gem. We do not agree on religion but he is the most hard core tow the line proponent of Predestination that I have seen in these forums. His "we" is a very small group that trusts God over their own decision making skills. Saying it and living it are two very different things.
> ...


Every believer trust God. A bunch of us trust that he’s not going to ask us to commit a crime. That was actually an easy question to answer knowing you aren’t going to be asked to do anything illegal. The debate can’t conveniently lump all Christianity together to give us a black eye and then unlump us to give us a black eye. 

But my question never asked about trust, it was concerning the freedom to choose to obey. Are you programmed to obey without choice? If so, that isn’t trust, that’s protocol.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> That was actually an easy question to answer knowing you aren’t going to be asked to do anything illegal.


Being "asked to" was not part of the question. Being "demanded to" was part of the question. The only right thing to do is obedience.


Spotlite said:


> But my question never asked about trust, it was concerning the freedom to choose to obey. Are you programmed to obey without choice? If so, that isn’t trust, that’s protocol.


Or that's providence and the trust is providential.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> That is 5 billion non Christians
> 2 billion Christians are broken up into over 40,000 denominations because they all cannot agree alike.
> Go a few floors up in the Christianity forums and "we" have a hard time agreeing on much.
> I will absolutely tip my hat to Gem. We do not agree on religion but he is the most hard core tow the line proponent of Predestination that I have seen in these forums. His "we" is a very small group that trusts God over their own decision making skills. Saying it and living it are two very different things.
> ...


Bullet, I did a little investigation on that number a while back; and found that it is inflated by counting regional organizations and other such "different in name only" factors as different in doctrine.  I don't know what the true number is, or where to find it, but a realistic number is still going to be plenty big and more convincing by its truthfulness.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Being "asked to" was not part of the question. Being "demanded to" was part of the question. The only right thing to do is obedience.
> 
> Or that's providence and the trust is providential.


I’m not going to get a simple yes / no am I ?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not going to get a simple yes / no am I ?


What was the yes or no question?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or that's providence and the trust is providential.



Ahh, an opportunity to post this once again:

PROVIDENCE
The unceasing activity of the Creator whereby, in overflowing bounty and goodwill, He upholds His creatures in ordered existence, guides and governs all events, circumstances, and free acts of angels and men, and directs everything to its appointed goal, for His own glory.
J. I. Packer

GEM, please feel free to disagree with Packer if your intended use differs.  His use of "free acts" does need some nuance.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> What was the yes or no question?


If "Are you programmed to obey without choice?" is your yes or no question, I can only answer "No".

I am designed to disobey. Perfect obedience belongs to Christ alone.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 25, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Ahh, an opportunity to post this once again:
> 
> PROVIDENCE
> The unceasing activity of the Creator whereby, in overflowing bounty and goodwill, He upholds His creatures in ordered existence, guides and governs all events, circumstances, and free acts of angels and men, and directs everything to its appointed goal, for His own glory.
> ...


I had no choice but to disagree with him. You nailed it with the "free acts".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Bullet, I did a little investigation on that number a while back; and found that it is inflated by counting regional organizations and other such "different in name only" factors as different in doctrine.  I don't know what the true number is, or where to find it, but a realistic number is still going to be plenty big and more convincing by its truthfulness.


Lets break this down:
40,000 is not the real number. (Ok, then what is the real number)
You don't know what the real number is but it is a lot.(ok, extremely vague but still adds to my point that Christianity is comprised of thousands of groups that differ from each other with each one claiming they know more or different about god than the next one)
The number is inflated due to the separate denominations having different names(yeah that is what makes them a different denomination.  Something caused them to want to be known as something else and distance themselves from the previous denomination)and different doctrines (again yes, different doctrines would be grounds to separate into a new denomination)
You don't know where to find the true number. (Ok, 40,000 might be on the light side)
The number will still be plenty big.(ok and again A lot of Christians felt it necessary to believe in their own ways because they couldn't agree with others who couldn't agree with others and this happened to turn into thousands of groups comprised of billions of people who all have a slightly different belief individually even while in those separate denominations.)
Now to your last part:
"but a realistic number is still going to be plenty big and more convincing by its truthfulness."
What are you saying/claiming with that statement?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I had no choice but to disagree with him. You nailed it with the "free acts".


Yeah, from my reading of him, "tongue in cheek" is not foreign to his speech or writing.  Guided and governed freedom looks to me to be such a case.  I can picture him with a smile on his face.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Lets break this down:
> 40,000 is not the real number. (Ok, then what is the real number)
> You don't know what the real number is but it is a lot.(ok, extremely vague but still adds to my point that Christianity is comprised of thousands of groups that differ from each other with each one claiming they know more or different about god than the next one)
> The number is inflated due to the separate denominations having different names(yeah that is what makes them a different denomination.  Something caused them to want to be known as something else and distance themselves from the previous denomination)and different doctrines (again yes, different doctrines would be grounds to separate into a new denomination)
> ...





hummerpoo said:


> ...counting regional organizations and other such...





> Now to your last part:
> "but a realistic number is still going to be plenty big and more convincing by its truthfulness."
> What are you saying/claiming with that statement?



To assume that the Georgia SBC, the Pennsylvania SBC, and the Missouri SBC (if they exist under those names, I didn't look) are different denominations does not ring of truthfulness to me.  If two SBC churches in neighboring towns have a different number of Deacons they are not different denominations.  If one SBC church holds a Wednesday evening Bible Study and their neighbor across town holds a Wednesday evening Prayer Meeting, they are not different denominations.

I have not intended to pick on the Southern Baptists, they were just handy.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2021)

Is this accurate?
"A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church, convention, communion, assembly, house, union, network, or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one denomination and another are primarily defined by authority and doctrine. Issues regarding the nature of Jesus, Trinitarianism, salvation, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, conciliarity, and papal primacy among others may separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations, often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties—can be known as "branches of Christianity" or "denominational families" (e.g. Eastern or Western Christianity and their sub-branches).[1] These "denominational families" are often imprecisely also called denominations"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> To assume that the Georgia SBC, the Pennsylvania SBC, and the Missouri SBC (if they exist under those names, I didn't look) are different denominations does not ring of truthfulness to me.  If two SBC churches in neighboring towns have a different number of Deacons they are not different denominations.  If one SBC church holds a Wednesday evening Bible Study and their neighbor across town holds a Wednesday evening Prayer Meeting, they are not different denominations.
> 
> I have not intended to pick on the Southern Baptists, they were just handy.


I think while sharing the SBC moniker the cultural differences between your Georgia, Pennsylvania and Missouri examples leads to differentiating practices within each which separates them to their own uniqueness and denominations.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2021)

Here is an article that makes a case for 33,000 denominations back in 2000.
At the very bottom it lists the number as 51,629 "today"
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Is this accurate?
> "A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church, convention, communion, assembly, house, union, network, or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one denomination and another are primarily defined by authority and doctrine. Issues regarding the nature of Jesus, Trinitarianism, salvation, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, conciliarity, and papal primacy among others may separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations, often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties—can be known as "branches of Christianity" or "denominational families" (e.g. Eastern or Western Christianity and their sub-branches).[1] These "denominational families" are often imprecisely also called denominations"



After that "primary definition" it's just wandering in the weeds, and how tall you want the weeds to be (your motivation).





bullethead said:


> I think while sharing the SBC moniker the cultural differences between your Georgia, Pennsylvania and Missouri examples leads to differentiating practices within each which separates them to their own uniqueness and denominations.



I think that if you ask a member of an SBC affiliated church in one of those states, "What denomination are you?" the answer will be "Southern Baptist".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> After that "primary definition" it's just wandering in the weeds, and how tall you want the weeds to be (your motivation).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Both are as clear as "Christian "


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Both are as clear as "Christian "


 Sorry.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry.


No need for you to be sorry, you didn't create all those.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 25, 2021)

I'm not concerned by the number of denominations. Even if there were only 2, there is no guarantee of a single believer in either of them at any given time.


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2021)

Many for will come in the name of me saying I am the Christ and many they will mislead.




It is not unlike the woe that follows when all men think well of you. One doesn't have to set out to make himself safe from that by one's own intention of being ignored or disliked. 

Jesus Christ gives safe revelation (read: salvation) of Himself that prevents a "many" following after. He winnows a man free of the snares in himself with bent toward being received, found acceptable, those places where desire to not offend can be manipulated to repeating only smooth things. Even being believed, for that matter.

As for any residual contention in the OP that somehow Jesus lived, spoke, acted in owing Jewery anything, even as it might be "generally" understood or defined by a Jew (other than His seeing of the hand of God in it) one could chew on this for whatever time:

All who ever came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

The Jews revered Moses. Jesus Christ knew him as dust formed to God's purpose even saying_ in particular of John the Baptist _that none among women born had arisen greater.

Yet


"he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I'm not concerned by the number of denominations. Even if there were only 2, there is no guarantee of a single believer in either of them at any given time.





Israel said:


> Many for will come in the name of me saying I am the Christ and many they will mislead



Big ole can of worms right there.
You two know that if some “radical” Christian / denomination hit the news doing something stupid in the name of God.......

In a former debate when trying to condemn westboro Baptist church hate speeches, it was noted that it didn’t matter, those radical still belong to Christianity because they read the same Bible as the “true Christians” and the “true Christians” were judging if they questioned them being a believer.

Depending on the narrative being discussed, denominations isn’t relevant - everyone thumping a Bible is lumped into “Christianity”

Hence, the largest group on the planet.

Edited to add: I’m not disagreeing with either of you.


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Big ole can of worms right there.
> You two know that if some “radical” Christian / denomination hit the news doing something stupid in the name of God.......
> 
> In a former debate when trying to condemn westboro Baptist church hate speeches, it was noted that it didn’t matter, those radical still belong to Christianity because they read the same Bible as the “true Christians” and the “true Christians” were judging if they questioned them being a believer.
> ...



I see it as a trap for the believer to set out to defend christianity.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Big ole can of worms right there.
> You two know that if some “radical” Christian / denomination hit the news doing something stupid in the name of God.......
> 
> In a former debate when trying to condemn westboro Baptist church hate speeches, it was noted that it didn’t matter, those radical still belong to Christianity because they read the same Bible as the “true Christians” and the “true Christians” were judging if they questioned them being a believer.
> ...


The highlighted is correct, however this seems relevant to me, with the caveat that it does not speak to salvation, but to the visible church:

1 Cor. 5
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I _did_ not at all _mean_ with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But [f]actually, I wrote to you not to associate [g]with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within _the church_? 13 But those who are outside, God [h]judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

We are not to judge salvation but actions.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

One must heed the words of the guy who started his own religion.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia.​
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.​
PAUL, ST.​
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.

While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).

Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.

The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.

Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.

Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.

Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made many converts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, *who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).*

At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.


*It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.* *At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.*

The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him. Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority over his converts as their inspired teacher. The view often asserted, however, that Paul writes in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. His occasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> The highlighted is correct, however this seems relevant to me, with the caveat that it does not speak to salvation, but to the visible church:
> 
> 1 Cor. 5
> 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I _did_ not at all _mean_ with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But [f]actually, I wrote to you not to associate [g]with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within _the church_? 13 But those who are outside, God [h]judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
> ...


Yes Sir, and that’s always been where I’ve left it - “the fruit that it bears”.......


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> One must heed the words of the guy who started his own religion.


When I think of someone that starts a new religion, I think of the likes of David Koresh - someone claiming to be the “son of God”......demanding the “worship / praise” to themselves or being that direct line of communication to a supreme being.

For Koresh - “He claimed that when he was a child, God had spoken to him and said, ‘You’re the chosen one. You are my messiah,’ journalist Mary Garafolo, who covered the events at Waco for the news program “A Current Affair,” told ABC News.”

In Paul’s defense, he didn’t do that. He promoted Jesus as the Messiah. Could Paul be more along the lines of a follower, an “advocate” for and not actually the “inventor of a new religion”?

Then again, how accurate are the sources describing the life of another man we don’t know much about, outside the Bible?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

You've read Paul's writings. He wasn't there with Jesus, didn't know Jesus, never met Jesus. His vision puts him in the same standing as Koresh.
Promotion is a good way to start something isn't it?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You've read Paul's writings. He wasn't there with Jesus, didn't know Jesus, never met Jesus. His vision puts him in the same standing as Koresh.
> Promotion is a good way to start something isn't it?


I can see that side. But ideally, I would think if one wanted to start something new in the capacity of religion, it’d be more about taking center stage for themselves. But I guess motives and outcomes play a role.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I can see that side. But ideally, I would think if one wanted to start something new in the capacity of religion, it’d be more about taking center stage for themselves. But I guess motives and outcomes play a role.


You've heard of the Vatican right?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2021)

I ventured over to Bart's blog to just to see how he's faring and came across this, apparently written by Bart since it's his blog.

https://ehrmanblog.org/the-conversion-of-paul/



> To start with, it is impossible to know either what led up to Paul’s conversion or what exactly happened at the time.   We do have a narrative description in the book of Acts, and it is this description that provides the popular images of Paul seeing a blinding light on the road to Damascus, falling from his horse, and hearing the voice of Jesus asking “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me” (Acts 9:1-19).   The account of Acts 9 is retold by Paul in both chapter 22 and chapter 29.



Had to laugh.  I suppose it is impossible to know exactly what _ did _happen and have conflicting accounts of Paul's conversion when you add an extra chapter to the book of Acts.  Acts only has 28 Chapters.  With a 29th the possibilities for conflicting accounts are virtually boundless.  Wikipedia credits him with writing or editing 33 books.  Seeing something like this makes you wonder just what kind of writing and editing these 33 include.   Again one would think someone so distinguished and lauded ................, but I'm sure doing 30 minute lectures in such heady venues as the Mythicism Milwaukee Conference https://ehrmanblog.org/paul-and-the-historical-jesus/ takes it toll.   The script just write's itself.  No pun intended.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I ventured over to Bart's blog to just to see how he's faring and came across this, apparently written by Bart since it's his blog.
> 
> https://ehrmanblog.org/the-conversion-of-paul/
> 
> ...


So you are a paying member of Ehrman's Blog?


----------



## Israel (Apr 30, 2021)

I'm not. Just follow the link to his page where it appears he has had 5 years to correct what SFD points out.


*The Conversion of Paul*
June 16, 2016



> My book on the “Triumph of Christianity” will deal with how and why people converted to the Christian faith.   (As I think I’ve said, unlike some scholars I have no problem calling the earliest followers of Jesus who came to believe in his resurrection “Christian.”)   The best known and most important conversion was Paul.   Seeing how/why he converted is a key for understanding his own subsequent mission to convert gentiles to the faith.  Here is my current thinking on the issue
> To start with, it is impossible to know either what led up to Paul’s conversion or what exactly happened at the time.   We do have a narrative description in the book of Acts, and it is this description that provides the popular images of Paul seeing a blinding light on the road to Damascus, falling from his horse, and hearing the voice of Jesus asking “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me” (Acts 9:1-19).   The account of Acts 9 is retold by Paul in both chapter 22 and chapter 29.








THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  So JOIN, will ya?  It’s easy to do, costs but little, gives a whole lot, and raises money for charity.  So GET WITH IT!!!


(Man, that sounds like a religious pitch if ever I have heard one)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

Israel said:


> I'm not. Just follow the link to his page where it appears he has had 5 years to correct what SFD points out.
> 
> 
> *The Conversion of Paul*
> ...



The fact that none of his sheep have caught it for him speaks to both their intention and commitment to what IS actually true.


----------



## Israel (May 1, 2021)

I could hardly fault Ehrman for either ignorance or a typo.

But you raise the better point SFD in some wonder about the who and _how many_ (how many being inferred by me) have read that _in ignorance._

It's interesting to consider, no? The "let standing" of error. It provokes me to think of what follows from initial error to what eventually must come to full bloom and thence, fruit.

The nature of which, in offering itself for consumption, provides in itself (by its consumption and _taking in_ if done_)_ to either life or death. But the life and/or death is only later experienced by others or one, after exchange with the tree and _after the fruit is tasted._

And if we could grant this as always and only experiential (for some very poisonous fruit display themselves in no less apparent glory than the sweetest cherry) it would be hard to fault a man, knowing nothing of death previously, to believe something looking so good or at least as good as the many other things he is allowed for life, for that error. After all, he is paying with his life for it; what could be added? Taunt?

The man dying, or being made aware he is in grip of death...a thing never previously experienced (for all he has ever known is life) is suddenly thrust into the great paradox for which he is never prepared "alive dying"...or alive to dying. Aware of his _now dying_ in his now _living in it. _

Long before Jesus made the ascent up the hill he referred to the taking up the cross to follow Him, how odd a saying that must have seemed _at that point._ This fellow is just going around eating, sleeping, drinking with others, and preaching (even some very bizarre things...even a cross no one sees him bearing...but which he says he is, if following is inferred to mean "do as I do") Yes, peculiar. But later...the "this is that" moment comes. Later, eyes are opened. Later, things true are made to be things seen.

Just as Jesus was doing what no man saw till he sees it, yet spoke it, just as Gethsemane seems only an _eventual place_ where "not my will but thine be done" _happened..._and the killing/dying of Jesus Christ seemed not plain till it _manifestly happened _(“The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?”)...Jesus knew all these matters, places, things....long before they were made seen, made apparent, seemingly "made true"...as true.

A "knowing" seed given to what is in all of unknowing and bearing all the fruit of error in disobedience, sin, to a continued poisoning of one another with the "fruit" of their seeming knowledge.

If a "closed" system...absolutely no hope. To maintain it as closed, in mind presenting argument, is to be, and remain, locked up in all ignorance...even while seeking to argue...intelligently. 

The holding of it being open against all other assault otherwise does not imply the knowing of all things "open to", only that an opening has been made seen as true_ to truth_. We know a seed that has never appeared of the creation but that has been given from above it. Creation subject to "it".

If you continue in my words then are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

Some (and perhaps even many) claim their knowing has come from "turning back" from a continuing, believing they have followed to the very end of devotion (devoutness)...or sufficiently "long" to "now know" what is the truth of matters.

As peculiar as it may seem; odd, strange or disgusting, etc, to watch a dog return to its own vomit, the fruit becomes too plainly obvious and though even laughable by its proffer...there is never need to add taunt. For it is plain the man is dying, and paying with his own life for his ignorance.




> I could hardly fault Ehrman for either ignorance or a typo.



But the plain fruit reveals the seed it came from:

THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. So JOIN, will ya? It’s easy to do, costs but little, gives a whole lot, and raises money for charity. So GET WITH IT!!!

There is simply too much there...to be a typo.

Thanks be to God Christ demonstrates ability to "spit out"...and is now also made ours...even when something so terrible is tasted. A man _seeking followers_ who is responsible neither to, nor for them. But wants something...from them.

Jesus comes for His sheep, but not to stand upon them, but in all support.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2021)

There are writings which are referred to as Acts 29.
They are not in the bible, I know.

https://rejectedscriptures.weebly.com/acts-of-the-apostles-chapter-29.html


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2021)

Israel said:


> But the plain fruit reveals the seed it came from:
> 
> THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. So JOIN, will ya? It’s easy to do, costs but little, gives a whole lot, and raises money for charity. So GET WITH IT!!!
> 
> There is simply too much there...to be a typo.


Does your Church take offering,  ask for donations, expect a certain percentage of your wages? Do you give?
Fruit. Seed. Source.


----------



## Israel (May 1, 2021)

Your questions can be forgiven for showing how little knowing is in them.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2021)

Confuse'us is so wise.
I didn't ask you to forgive my questions, I asked them so you'd answer them, directly and on point.
Enlighten us dummies. What does Jesus need all that money for?


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2021)

A substantial amount of testimony has been given by many here over the years in the context of "I have been on the inside (once a "christian", with some claiming devout) but am now on the outside (atheist, or agnostic), and the outside is (either) 'the better view' or 'the better view I can live with' " Which, of course, are merely my inferences now submitted as my interpretation of things I believe implied by things I believe I have heard said.

And interpret "view" as one cares to; as a thing more right, (to some perhaps) now the _only right_, sustainable vs unsustainable...substantial vs insubstantial...real vs unreal, informed vs uninformed, even pleasant vs unpleasant...or whatever myriad of reasons a man expresses in regards to his view and his hold to it. Or merely a view that displays all the "weakness and fault" in any other.

It is not without significance (at the very least to me) that in all this has never been expressed (not that I imagine it could, would, nor especially _should be_) as "I was once a man in Christ". And there may be plain reason this cannot be said; and I know it is more plain to God. It makes in the man now denying an untenable position to himself, for to say there is a being "in Christ" is to establish that such is...which the man in his present denial cannot reconcile. For if in the present "view" there can be no such thing as being in a thing that_ is not anything to be "in"_...I refute myself.

For how could one affirm "I was once in spirit with Christ" that could support a present denial of any such thing as being able to be in what _is not _by a present denial..."the Spirit of Christ". In shortest terms "I found Christ...and he has nothing to give. And there sure ain't no spirit of Christ (let alone one He can give) cause I don't even believe in spirit."

But, I can say I was once a "christian"...I can identify with thing, a thing man can admittedly "see", and has to man some sort of definition...but not "that" being. Or form of being which I now deny as being. For how could one affirm "I was once in spirit with Christ" that could support my present denial of any such thing as being able to be in what is not by their denial..."the Spirit of Christ". (My brothers in Christ understand how the word _being_ could be as usefully capitalized for clarity in these sentences as not)


But the implication to me by derivation is such that "as a 'once' christian" I know about Christ and what it means to follow him as a christian. For this is useful to argument "I have seen both sides and know now which is true".

Therefore "I am useful for information (giving fruit) for having been "in" all that is real of "christianity" and discovered it false in whatever measure (no man can fault another for learning, else we should have to fault Edison for all his trials till tungsten) and I can talk knowingly about it. But the "it" to be talked about is surreptitiously inserted by the assumed equation hopefully implied (by a thing with no hope) "christian=knower of Christ"...and can then be said "there's no there, there".

Oh yes, _things_ are made subject to assault (even christianity is assault-able) but the "thing" this thing wants to assault is always Christ. It is a spirit. (Again, my brothers understand the quotes around thing.) For he, this spirit, would that Christ be thing as he, created, and no more than he. Never more than he. He is furious at Christ's triumphal display.

And specifically, over him, in all. Done in a man. A "thing" once made lower than him...clay. And over which (to whatever pleasure he knew as pleasure) he once held sway (to his mind). Holding in bondage through fear of death.

And who can fault any man for living in whatever derivation nor deviation, for Christ has paid full price for this. He sets free, does, will, and can, any of man of His. He knows His own. His speaking is such as call from derivation due to deviation (sin, which price of owing for has been paid) not to "a" life, some form of life nor "lifestyle", not to a truth, nor some form of truth, ( and especially not truth from consensus)...but to Himself as truth and life...those "things" once _only known as things._ (Truth and life)

Therefore any man who seeks to conflate his expression of "once a christian"="once" a knower of Jesus Christ (yes, just as some yet conflate "Baptist=christian=knower of Christ', "RC=christian=knower of Christ"...Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Mormon, or of the "Non" denominational denomination and on and on and on...........) yet, with whom I cannot deny any brotherhood, I will act by the grace of God in being as straightforward as such grace enables me.

So, (and I can barely begin any sentence with that any longer without thought of a dear one) if any man is in Christ, or even somehow claims to have been by "once" being a christian, who claims to see Christ. or claims he has seen all he has to offer and now claims nothing was there...the answers (by any man...especially myself) to such questions as:



> Does your Church take offering, ask for donations, expect a certain percentage of your wages? Do you give?



Must be meaningless.

And this one in particular



> What does Jesus need all that money for?



Is no less than "Have you stopped beating your wife?" For the assumption of great presumption...is already in the question.

Any man in Christ, if not yet seeing this...will. Only Christ can answer as to need; and where, and if, it be.

But, Christ has suffered my presumptions in all, with mercy. Such mercy as teaches me man needn't be that way. Nothing is owed it. Nor for it. No man in Christ is debtor to presumption...either others, but _most especially_ his own.

One knowing Christ as Lord knows (or will) what takes place in His bride, the Church. And one who now claims to know all about Him sufficiently to reject Him...then is also without excuse for "not knowing".

Jesus Christ "takes place" in His church...exclusively. And that is our salvation, for His place is given and  prepared for Him, _not by us_, but for us...the One who goes ahead to prepare a place for us. Has gone ahead (the lamb slain from the foundation of the world)...revealed in these last days...for us. Jesus Christ, the end of man, and Jesus Christ, the end of man. (no typo)

No man apart can of himself bear _having to be told_ everything_. _Unless he has been prepared for the receiving of everything...by Him who showed and shows the joy of being told and shown...everything...that is His.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Is that sinking in...going down into the hearing? (Christ answering a question of "why" in His "therefore")

because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

There's no "O, dear, poor me" in that at all.

Christ...never victim. But Christ..."watch this!" Watching over all His to keep us watching...

I like the corollary to

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

as

"Extraordinary evidence require extraordinary claims"

Creation...there's only one of it. How un-ordinary!

And you.

How many do you think you are?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

A substantial amount of testimony has been given here over the years by many who tell tales of once living very different lives compared to the life they live now.
Talk of womanizing, cheating, stealing, drinking, selling, buying using drugs, unfaithfulness, admitting to having to spend time in jail for deeds done to which they do not share those intricate details perhaps because they would cast a new light on them that they want not shown. "Another life" " a Previous life" as it has been called.
Many of those stories included tales about how the unbeliever came to believe. One who didn't know or care to know grew into knowing often helped by their actions which led them to a rock named bottom. Then suddenly (and great for them) it gets turned around. The person they once were is no more and they Preach and Praise how that transformation takes place. They proselytize about it every chance they get by producing sermons filled with "this is who or what I used to be, but look at me now" . "I am a changed man" "I once did this but now I do that" "I am not the same that I used to be" and on and on and even more on and on and on and on's. They make it a point(or try to after having to read through a dozen times to sort it out) to show how a person was once a non believer and now a believer. They show why they didn't believe but now believe. They preach on how there are TWO things, opposite things, and how a transition can be and is made from one thing to the other thing.
But in their minds those "I once was" stories are only acceptable if you were once like them "was". THEY can transition from one thing(non belief or not enough belief)to another thing( belief) and sing the merits in joyous proclamation song. They shout daily how IT CAN BE DONE! "Look at me I am proof that one can become another" ..but let someone come in and tell an opposite tale that goes from being every bit of a believer as the believers "think" the believers are now, to becoming a non believer and suddenly the hypocrisy shines through. These dedicated men who model their existence after the Christ suddenly write novels questioning another persons testimony. The once dredges now transformed into followers of god make and expound upon presumptuous assertions about and question the progression which life has taken others because it does not match the path they took. These same Christ like followers who go on and on and on about how they are living proof that a person can go from non believer to believer now, with presumably a straight face, say that someone who once was a believer and now a non believer was really never a believer to begin with because if they were (translation: I am now and you must think like me) the switch couldn't have taken place. They posit that a person can be Once a non beliver can become a believer but once a believer would remain a believer...the ONLY way to go from believer to non believer is that the person was faking their initial belief.
So, ( and when I begin any sentence with that any longer I will think of a hypocritical one) if any man who claims to be in Christ now who also claims to have been by "once" not in Christ, who claims to see Christ. or claims he has seen all he has to offer by "knowing both sides" and now claims nothing was there previously but something is there now yet does not acknowledge that the reverse can and does happen....the answer to such preposterous hypocritical presumptions, assertions and analogies as: 


> Everything Written in Post #275


Is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2021)

Israel said:


> A substantial amount of testimony has been given by many here over the years in the context of "I have been on the inside (once a "christian", with some claiming devout) but am now on the outside (atheist, or agnostic), and the outside is (either) 'the better view' or 'the better view I can live with' " Which, of course, are merely my inferences now submitted as my interpretation of things I believe implied by things I believe I have heard said.
> 
> And interpret "view" as one cares to; as a thing more right, (to some perhaps) now the _only right_, sustainable vs unsustainable...substantial vs insubstantial...real vs unreal, informed vs uninformed, even pleasant vs unpleasant...or whatever myriad of reasons a man expresses in regards to his view and his hold to it. Or merely a view that displays all the "weakness and fault" in any other.
> 
> ...





> For this is useful to argument "I have seen both sides and know now which is true".


1st - Hey Israel, hope you are well 
2nd - This may just be a matter of semantics but broken down to its most basic form, for many (me), we dont KNOW now which is "true". We just arent willing to take MAN's word for it any more.
And note, that ^ is an issue with MAN, not "God"/Jesus/Higher Power(s) etc etc.
Semantics? Maybe. But I dont think so.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st - Hey Israel, hope you are well
> 2nd - This may just be a matter of semantics but broken down to its most basic form, for many (me), we dont KNOW now which is "true". We just arent willing to take MAN's word for it any more.
> And note, that ^ is an issue with MAN, not "God"/Jesus/Higher Power(s) etc etc.
> Semantics? Maybe. But I dont think so.


The Great Confuse'us purposely leaves out mentioning all the times that many of us have clearly and repeatedly posted admitting that "We dont Know".
Instead he inserts the assertions such as "For this is useful to argument "I have seen both sides and know now which is true"." in order to continue on with the points he knows he cannot honestly make without fudging the conversation which way he needs it to go. Take away the assertions,  presumptions, and forced narratives and all that bandwith is yet again wasted on tangents that are not accurate to what really goes on but what he needs to falsely assert goes on in order to promote the theatrical proselytizing and self serving sermons.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 2, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st - Hey Israel, hope you are well
> 2nd - This may just be a matter of semantics but broken down to its most basic form, for many (me), we dont KNOW now which is "true". We just arent willing to take MAN's word for it any more.
> And note, that ^ is an issue with MAN, not "God"/Jesus/Higher Power(s) etc etc.
> Semantics? Maybe. But I dont think so.



Sorry to BUTT in Walt, but I have a thought, or perhaps just a question.

Where do you think all of this would go if two assertions, whether explicit or implied, or perhaps improperly inferred, were eliminated?

1) I don't know, so you can't know.

2) I know, so you should know.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry to BUTT in Walt, but I have a thought, or perhaps just a question.
> 
> Where do you think all of this would go if two assertions, whether explicit or implied, or perhaps improperly inferred, were eliminated?
> 
> ...


Hummerpoo, I am not sorry for butting in because if I felt that I had to make a statement of apology first I just wouldn't butt in at all.

If #1 and #2 were eliminated then the conversations would need to be geared towards providing a reasonable expectation of examples and proof to go along with the claims. Which is what I and a few others already ask for anyway but receive replies geared towards 1 and 2 as smoke screens to avoid having to provide such proof.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 2, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Hummerpoo, I am not sorry for butting in because if I felt that I had to make a statement of apology first I just wouldn't butt in at all.
> 
> If #1 and #2 were eliminated then the conversations would need to be geared towards providing a reasonable expectation of examples and proof to go along with the claims. Which is what I and a few others already ask for anyway but receive replies geared towards 1 and 2 as smoke screens to avoid having to provide such proof.



Same Old Thing,

Your argument is:
If  there is no supernatural, as you content, then there is no supernatural.


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st - Hey Israel, hope you are well
> 2nd - This may just be a matter of semantics but broken down to its most basic form, for many (me), we dont KNOW now which is "true". We just arent willing to take MAN's word for it any more.
> And note, that ^ is an issue with MAN, not "God"/Jesus/Higher Power(s) etc etc.
> Semantics? Maybe. But I dont think so.



Yes, thanks, as to the well part, with hope for your being well, no less.

Your points are well taken for exploring which I believe Hummer addresses.

We can go down as many roads as seem necessary.
How much interest you have in walking this road together will be plain.

So, (oy!)...are you able to believe me when I say I have come to what I infer as _that point_, (mentioned) no less...and even as (at least I see it now) every man must...or must not?

That point where it is _too clear_ (maybe just "clear"?) that here...at this point of extreme import (maybe just _all import_) it is all too plain there is too much at stake (wow, talk about a metaphor!) for man to be trusted about it. It's just not in me to gamble (go all in) the all that is now seen as even beyond all my own all...upon man and his word.

OK, it's great if Paul saw and heard stuff. Yes it's great there's a Bible...(and men tell me to "believe" it)...yeah, it's great all the stuff about Jesus. If you can read all those "greats" as if a man is gasping for his last breaths and a friend comes in and tells him he (the dying man) just won the lottery, you might be able to see where those greats fall. And how I hope them to be read.

Great...but none of it matters. Not now...something's at stake now that man in claim of winning or losing...cannot help with. Life. Something is bringing me face to face with what is beyond my ability to comfort myself with, and less, from any other man; nor his testimony, his words, his writings, his "self"...for my self is plainly dying.

Is there nothing?

Or everything?

Where my own dying seems the _only thing at all_ true to me. And I see nothing but it. Like a worm eating its way through all my knowing.

Bullet may be all correct about me. That (of all) I use, and have used Christ for nothing but empty boast and egotistical grandstanding...assuring myself to myself...and for myself as just another man afraid of the dark. _All my biases are against death for myself. _A man so dark at center that he forbids himself there going... and makes plain he knows himself not at all...while asserting things.

Yes, what could be more contrary to truth?

Is there nothing to be put at hand that such a man might touch...to know?

Or everything?

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Oh, look, there I am. That's me there. Easiest to see. But this "thing" I laid hands on...to use...O! my God...what have I done?

Once in a lifetime. Is needed the ultimate question to hear the ultimate answer, "Precisely as I always willed man do, man"

So please man (who claims to not be able to trust _any man, ultimately) _do you trust yourself? Please man who has never worked on or at CERN, built the Hubble, done all and/or whatever...of yourself that you can, by_ your own experimentation _show me that atoms exist, that electrons are shared of molecules, the methods of virus infecting a cell...and pass it all off knowingly as _the science says_, the history says, the distinguished professor says, the archaeologist says (when you have never touched a spade at site)...that _here the word of man is trustworthy._

There's an experiment any man can do...to know. But no man can do till he is dying to. Dying to know. It's only offered to the dying. (The physician comes not for the well, but for the sick)

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Yes. God is fascinating. Yes, God is beyond interesting. Yes, God makes for more things to be considered and spoken of...than can be.

Bullet...you may be so right in all things and well you have never known the physician's visit. God knows.

But man, us sickies are just too overjoyed to shut up. Someone came into what no other dare for fear of contagion, even into a very heart of such darkness we dared not even peer there...ourselves.

But it's ok, now...there's a light on.

So much for being afraid of the dark.

Once in a lifetime a man sees all he thought was his own...is not. Once in a lifetime a man may see things are not...as he presumed.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Same Old Thing,
> 
> Your argument is:
> If  there is no supernatural, as you content, then there is no supernatural.


It seems like the same old thing to you because you refuse to acknowledge the information that directly refutes your claim.
You are absolutely and 100% wrong in your assertion.
I have said numerous times in the AAA in numerous threads that " I don't know".
I have not only agreed that the supernatural exists but I have also shared my own unexplainable experiences in this AAA forum.
Your statement is intellectually dishonest and provably false.

My position is that nobody can prove what supernatural force is responsible for all of it, any of it, or for even one single instance of it. And so far NOBODY has.
I have always said that I am open to hearing what others have to say and I would be thrilled for you or anyone else to provide anything concrete about it.
Feelings, beliefs, ancient writings just do not meet the standards.

Here it is in black and white again for you. Hopefully you can book mark the page and refer to it the next time you want to purposely try to pass off a blatantly false claim.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 2, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It seems like the same old thing to you because you refuse to acknowledge the information that directly refutes your claim.
> You are absolutely and 100% wrong in your assertion.
> I have said numerous times in the AAA in numerous threads that " I don't know".
> I have not only agreed that the supernatural exists but I have also shared my own unexplainable experiences in this AAA forum.
> ...



And you did it again.
Your standard, pure materialism.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> And you did it again.
> Your standard, pure materialism.


There is a definitive line between this realm and a supernatural realm.
That line is material.
When we talk about the supernatural it is all about beliefs.  I do not and have not ever claimed beliefs do not exist. I have never claimed that your beliefs or anyone's beliefs are wrong. I am asking you or anyone to show me how the beliefs in your mind are more accurate than the beliefs of another.
Who is stronger,  Mighty Mouse or Superman? Who is the one God? Which religion has it correct?
When you can answer those questions I will listen when you can back those answers up I will be impressed. I have stayed that course for my entirety in here. You want me to play in the supernatural discussion and then don't like that I bring up the fact that other supernatural exists and is either as believable or is as unbelievable as your own. You cannot connect your supernatural with this realm and you cannot distance your supernatural from everyone else's.
None of that is my fault. I just point it out and ask you to do it and change my mind.

You keep deflecting from the fact that your direct claims made against me are flat out wrong. You just cannot man up to admit your initial assessment was wrong so now you are desperately moving goal posts in order to try to find something to remotely make a connection with.

Here is the floor once again. Expose my misconceptions and show everyone why your supernatural is truthful and others are not.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 2, 2021)

bullethead said:


> There is a definitive line between this realm and a supernatural realm.
> That line is material.
> When we talk about the supernatural it is all about beliefs.  I do not and have not ever claimed beliefs do not exist. I have never claimed that your beliefs or anyone's beliefs are wrong. I am asking you or anyone to show me how the beliefs in your mind are more accurate than the beliefs of another.
> Who is stronger,  Mighty Mouse or Superman? Who is the one God? Which religion has it correct?
> ...





> That line is material.


No need for me to speak.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> No need for me to speak.


When there is nothing to say that really is the only option.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st - Hey Israel, hope you are well
> 2nd - This may just be a matter of semantics but broken down to its most basic form, for many (me), we dont KNOW now which is "true". We just arent willing to take MAN's word for it any more.
> And note, that ^ is an issue with MAN, not "God"/Jesus/Higher Power(s) etc etc.
> Semantics? Maybe. But I dont think so.


But that’s why a Christian can dismiss assumptions and most likelys from those that claim this isn’t real. We didn’t take man’s word for it - from either side, believer / nonbeliever. We have all traveled the “road to Damascus”.


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> But that’s why a Christian can dismiss assumptions and most likelys from those that claim this isn’t real. We didn’t take man’s word for it - from either side, believer / nonbeliever. We have all traveled the “road to Damascus”.


And/or on it still.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> But that’s why a Christian can dismiss assumptions and most likelys from those that claim this isn’t real. We didn’t take man’s word for it - from either side, believer / nonbeliever. We have all traveled the “road to Damascus”.


So 2 Billion + have all had Damascus moments or would you say that out of that number a few may very well have but the majority have gotten their Jesus on by going to church and referencing , perhaps reading the bible?


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2021)

Bullet...it might be wise for both of us to shut up, I think the adults are talking.



bullethead said:


> I am realistic that life is tough and there is no invisible buddy to help.
> 
> 
> The way to what? I am not singing the song asking how to get to Sesame Street. I am telling you that there is no Sesame Street.
> ...



Assert...much?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

Israel said:


> Bullet...it might be wise for both of us to shut up, I think the adults are talking.
> 
> 
> 
> Assert...much?


Like science I am going with the best available evidence until something new comes along.
If you can refute it I would be happy to hear it. I am open to new evidence and to changing my mind.
That is an adult way to look at things.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2021)

bullethead said:


> So 2 Billion + have all had Damascus moments or would you say that out of that number a few may very well have but the majority have gotten their Jesus on by going to church and referencing , perhaps reading the bible?


To narrow it down specifically, “the conversion” part. How a man got to that point really isn’t relevant for me. But you bring up a good point. He didn’t just take man’s word, he may have listened, read and went to church but eventually “he saw it work” for him. That’s what I’m meaning by “he didn’t take man’s word” that it’s real, he knows it’s real now because he experienced it.

I’m focusing on once that conversion happens, there’s a life changing experience that you hold on to that you know is only God. You know it goes against “logic” and “reason” but you also know God isn’t bound to those things and know what has happened to you.

I’m working with a man now that’ll tell you it doesn’t make  sense sometimes, but he knows that one night can’t be explained away. If hadn’t of happened to him personally, he wouldn’t believe it’s real.


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2021)

Israel said:


> And/or on it still.


Yes Sir.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> To narrow it down specifically, “the conversion” part. How a man got to that point really isn’t relevant for me. But you bring up a good point. He didn’t just take man’s word, he may have listened, read and went to church but eventually “he saw it work” for him. That’s what I’m meaning by “he didn’t take man’s word” that it’s real, he knows it’s real now because he experienced it.
> 
> I’m focusing on once that conversion happens, there’s a life changing experience that you hold on to that you know is only God. You know it goes against “logic” and “reason” but you also know God isn’t bound to those things and know what has happened to you.
> 
> I’m working with a man now that’ll tell you it doesn’t make  sense sometimes, but he knows that one night can’t be explained away. If hadn’t of happened to him personally, he wouldn’t believe it’s real.


I totally get that for some Christians. 
How many do you think had such experiences?


----------



## Spotlite (May 2, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I totally get that for some Christians.
> How many do you think had such experiences?


I’m not real sure that’s an answerable question, at least from me.

But, as many life experiences that people have, they can recall that one night - June , 22, 1983. August 5, 1979, etc. They never forget that one time.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not real sure that’s an answerable question, at least from me.
> 
> But, as many life experiences that people have, they can recall that one night - June , 22, 1983. August 5, 1979, etc. They never forget that one time.


Them and many others in many religions.  If it was unique I would totally think something is different.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry to BUTT in Walt, but I have a thought, or perhaps just a question.
> 
> Where do you think all of this would go if two assertions, whether explicit or implied, or perhaps improperly inferred, were eliminated?
> 
> ...





> Sorry to BUTT in Walt


Your comments/thoughts/questions/arguments are always welcome on ANY of my posts.
However Im not sure how to address your thought/question above.
I dont subscribe to #1 or #2. I think they are both silly assertions. Or maybe unrealistic assertions is a better description.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> To narrow it down specifically, “the conversion” part. How a man got to that point really isn’t relevant for me. But you bring up a good point. He didn’t just take man’s word, he may have listened, read and went to church but eventually “he saw it work” for him. That’s what I’m meaning by “he didn’t take man’s word” that it’s real, he knows it’s real now because he experienced it.
> 
> I’m focusing on once that conversion happens, there’s a life changing experience that you hold on to that you know is only God. You know it goes against “logic” and “reason” but you also know God isn’t bound to those things and know what has happened to you.
> 
> I’m working with a man now that’ll tell you it doesn’t make  sense sometimes, but he knows that one night can’t be explained away. If hadn’t of happened to him personally, he wouldn’t believe it’s real.





> If hadn’t of happened to him personally, he wouldn’t believe it’s real.


And maybe thats ^ what it all boils down to.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 3, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Your comments/thoughts/questions/arguments are always welcome on ANY of my posts.


Such a universal welcome is most appreciated, and I will attempt not to abuse it.


> However Im not sure how to address your thought/question above.
> I dont subscribe to #1 or #2. I think they are both silly assertions. Or maybe unrealistic assertions is a better description.


I agree that those assertions are unrealistic and silly.




> If hadn’t of happened to him personally, he wouldn’t believe it’s real.





WaltL1 said:


> And maybe thats ^ what it all boils down to.


And with that statement you have, to my mind, quite adequately addressed the two assertions:
1) I don't know, so you can't know.

2) I know, so you should know.


----------



## Israel (May 3, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> And maybe thats ^ what it all boils down to.


Is anyone else having a personal experience of themselves?

Truth?

Can a man say "I am a liar", and it be true?

When you see blue, do you see my yellow? Do you see that even the most perfect measure in nano meters of frequency, if provable, does not resolve this?

How prone are we to, in thinking say, "Ultimately I really don't and can't
trust man...but I trust myself as a man to believe that"? (Unless of course you really do think yourself more than "man")

I think I hear men tell me they want extraordinary evidence. In a world I am told are something like 8 billion...only one me as me. Add history if one believes it exists and multiply that by whatever factor. My being alone to me is extraordinary evidence, but I do really need a lot of you's to even further enforce it.

Or, if one wants to really "get out there" in thinking...if time and space are infinite then if there is one me, there are an infinite number of me's, not only possible but in the infinite, definite. It's in keeping perfectly with what one once had as a sig line to the effect of "only what can happen does (or will) happen". And "once" it happens satisfies any requisite proof in the infinite that it will be infinitely repeated. Cannot but be...(yes, even "now") infinitely occurring. (unless there's _something _even the "infinite" is subject to.)

But, of course...me telling you this, to you becomes questionable due to that funny twist 2 and 3 paragraphs up...it's far easier to doubt a me for you, than you for yourself. You're quite sure _you are._ But me? Appearing at some remove from you, and certainly not you...all my "realness" becomes questionable. Now just extrapolate God's form of being _from you...if you can..._you who in your consciousness (we call it el concho in da bidness) think you can approach Him with your own reason. Unless He come down, you ain't goin' up to Him.

Confuse'us say..."When you think that other man is confused and confusing, or to the extreme crazy...how do you really know where da crazy be? Unless you tryin' to build yer truth upon consensus." Now SFB (that's short hand in da el concho bidness) what could be crazier than that...establishing truth by consensus among what you already admit you can't ultimately trust.

So get the "S" out yer own head (that "S" in that SFB shorthand) thinking you can say "But the science says" cause da science ain't sayin' nothin...all you hearin' is what men say "da science sez". Y'know, dem things you can't ultimately trust. Unless you got yer own Large Hadron Collider in yer backyard. Most all you ever got in dat head is what men already dun told you is evidence. Their evidence.

We professionals (course I ain't de onliest one) know el conho (consciousness to the amateurs) as a thing shared "to" a thing and not one's own...though in all creation nothing seems more self convincing to a man than that the mind he's playing in and with is "his own". We got invited to a 'speriment by a man "sent down to us". Dat 'speriment drove us all but crazy in search of how to do and what to do to be in a will that was perfectly true.

How we gun know it? Dis it? Dat it? No matter what we tried that would scientifically demonstrate to ourselves (yeah...we got nuthin personal gainst knowledge) that we were in that perfect will of truth...we could never demonstrate it to ourselves. Cus we never found any peace in all dat 'sperimentation that proved to ourselves from ourselves we were in perfect consistency with perfect will. Nope. Dere was always "something else to be done" to reach for dat (we in da bidness call) da "smooth sailing" of perfection.

Den...presto, bingo, bango! Lights went on.

Dis concho we been playin in, sperimentin' in was not our own! No wonder we couldn't get "our own" results. We need help here in what ain't our own...but shared wid us. And first came the necessary disposing of dat disposition that first fooled us, and would continue still if not dealt with...the "our own". How'd we get hoodwinked? What's the hoodwink that was telling us, in us...that the concho starts and ends with us? Originates and originated in us...so that we thought it "our own"...and not only so...but that in "our own" concho...all other (seeming) concho became questionable to all exclusion? Yeah...we gun need lotsa help wid dat to get to what we (in da bidness) call the clean slate of things...the removal of that tain't dat contaminated all de sperimentations. Dat...false starting point from which we launched all "our own" sperimentations.

And not only help...but all the help...there is.

Oh. Yeah.

Dere's an imitation concho...being allowed. It speaks like this:



> Nobody will see anything. I'll be dead and unable to tell you. You'll be dead and unable to know.



It wants you to think el concho is all and only only knowable as what begins and ends in the man. The very last thing it wants you to know is concho is a shared matter and shareable...cuz the concho that has been shared with it of its end makes it absolutely furious. And so it shares in fury. An imitation concho shared...saying death is the end of el concho, and that it's not really sharing its concho with you...it's "your own".


But how you gun know?
Not without all the help there is.

Do the speriment.

If any man will do His will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.


Have a good day.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 3, 2021)

I think Rene Descartes just rolled over.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

It seems that mankind is untrustworthy of itself but is capable of imagining a better version of itself in a better world other than this one.
I am not going to sit around and let this life go to waste in the hopes that someone's conscious invented a better one run by a better version of man after I am dead.
The concept of a supernatural being creating two people and giving them a paradise to thrive in and live forever(sounds like a heaven) in and then not only taking it away because they ate fruit from a tree but also punishing every other person that came afterwards for the deeds of those two is twisted and untrustworthy. And now I am expected to believe this great father figure has made a new place to go after death but only if I follow his kid on Supernatural Media? Sounds like another bait and switch. My incentive to follow a god that created me in his image, who loves me and who watches over me and wants me to reside in the Golden Gates Community is to have me burn while being tortured every single second of every single day for eternity if I don't hit the "like" button.
I am sorry men. I can conceptualize a different version of a being that makes sense of the supernatural in my life. No membership required.
Being man I trust myself but realize that I may have it all wrong. Like everyone else I am going with what suits me.
To each their own. Cheers


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

Israel said:


> Is anyone else having a personal experience of themselves?
> 
> Truth?
> 
> ...


Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking. 
~Gen. G. Patton


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
> 
> If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking.
> ~Gen. G. Patton


Aint that the truth!


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It seems that mankind is untrustworthy of itself but is capable of imagining a better version of itself in a better world other than this one.
> I am not going to sit around and let this life go to waste in the hopes that someone's conscious invented a better one run by a better version of man after I am dead.
> The concept of a supernatural being creating two people and giving them a paradise to thrive in and live forever(sounds like a heaven) in and then not only taking it away because they ate fruit from a tree but also punishing every other person that came afterwards for the deeds of those two is twisted and untrustworthy. And now I am expected to believe this great father figure has made a new place to go after death but only if I follow his kid on Supernatural Media? Sounds like another bait and switch. My incentive to follow a god that created me in his image, who loves me and who watches over me and wants me to reside in the Golden Gates Community is to have me burn while being tortured every single second of every single day for eternity if I don't hit the "like" button.
> I am sorry men. I can conceptualize a different version of a being that makes sense of the supernatural in my life. No membership required.
> ...


Yep, the whole "story" behind "God" is just too whacked out for me to say "yeah I'll take your word for it". The story drips of man's fears, desires, hopes, dreams etc. etc. which leads me to deduce, among other things, the story is man made.
But, I will readily admit that (what I deduce) to be a whacked out man made story does NOT = "God" does not exist. It's man's story about "God" I dont believe without proof. "God" may very well exist even though man's story is crap.
So I guess unless or until I have one of those "come to Jesus" experiences, I will remain an A/A.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking.
~Gen. G. Patton 


Spotlite said:


> Aint that the truth!


I think thats the attraction of this forum for me -
Probably the most important subject in mans history.
Widely different thinking/beliefs etc. on that subject.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Aint that the truth!



No.  It's not.  It depends on the whether what everyone is thinking IS true.  Everyone thinking 2 plus 2 is 4 doesn't mean no one is thinking.  Be careful what narratives you accept as truisms, and realize the conditions upon which must exist for them to be true.

This one is a false narrative, a false flag: the notion that belief doesn't make something true. Of course it doesn't.  It's the exactly the opposite of what IS true:  that belief is based of what people HAVE FOUND to be true.  Me believing a chair will support me doesn't mean it will.  That's a silly notion everyone recognizes immediately as being self-evident.    Yet, when it's offered up as an argument against spiritual belief somehow it's accepted as a profound proverb.

Conversely, in truth,  I believe a chair will support me because I have found it will after trying it.  I believe in God precisely because I HAVE FOUND  that He exists. His existence isn't conditional upon my belief which is the false flag.

I don't know if you're very familiar with Bart Ehrman, but he makes his shilling by doing just such.  He's very adept at subtly framing the context of his arguments in such a fashion that in accepting his presuppositions for his premise, one has already lost the argument.   Take for example his argument against the resurrection.  He starts with the presumption that miracles are the most improbable act of God (if there is one), and that if Christ was indeed resurrected then it is the most improbable explanation for his post-resurrection appearances, far more improbable than him just not dying and being rescued by his Apostles, swooning or any other excuse he feels free to offer up.  The problem lies in accepting  the presumption that miracles are the most improbable act of God.  You swallow that premise, the argument is lost.

The opposite of that is what I have found to be true: that miracles ARE the most common act of God: so common in fact, that most people are completely desensitized to them.   Start there, with the truth, and his argument is childishly silly.  It all comes down to starting with the truth.  Any thing else leads to folly.


----------



## Israel (May 3, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> I think Rene Descartes just rolled over.


LOL...prolly spinneratin'...



dem Frenchies can be a bit high strung at times...

jes lookit da high dudgeon "le hot dog" put em in.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  It's not.  It depends on the whether what everyone is thinking IS true.  Everyone thinking 2 plus 2 is 4 doesn't mean no one is thinking.  Be careful what narratives you accept as truisms, and realize the conditions upon which must exist for them to be true.
> 
> This one is a false narrative, a false flag: the notion that belief doesn't make something true. Of course it doesn't.  It's the exactly the opposite of what IS true:  that belief is based of what people HAVE FOUND to be true.  Me believing a chair will support me doesn't mean it will.  That's a silly notion everyone recognizes immediately as being self-evident.    Yet, when it's offered up as an argument against spiritual belief somehow it's accepted as a profound proverb.
> 
> ...


2 plus 2 equals 4 isn't thinking or a belief it is fact. At one time someone had to figure out (by thinking) that 2 of something and 2 more of those things added up to having 4 of them. 
Now it is considered fact.
Thought/Thinking does not have to be truthful.

From :
https://mncriticalthinking.com/video-critical-thoughts-2-belief-vs-fact/

A belief is an idea you can change at any time. There may be real world things that support a belief or many people can share a belief, but by it’s very nature, belief is something that has not been proven to be real.

A fact is an idea that you cannot change no matter how much you change your mind about it or wish it was different. The fact is the fact regardless of what you think about it.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-thinking-and-critical-thinking/


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  It's not.  It depends on the whether what everyone is thinking IS true.  Everyone thinking 2 plus 2 is 4 doesn't mean no one is thinking.  Be careful what narratives you accept as truisms, and realize the conditions upon which must exist for them to be true.
> 
> This one is a false narrative, a false flag: the notion that belief doesn't make something true. Of course it doesn't.  It's the exactly the opposite of what IS true:  that belief is based of what people HAVE FOUND to be true.  Me believing a chair will support me doesn't mean it will.  That's a silly notion everyone recognizes immediately as being self-evident.    Yet, when it's offered up as an argument against spiritual belief somehow it's accepted as a profound proverb.
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
> 
> If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking.
> ~Gen. G. Patton


It can’t be “No. It’s not” and “depends”.
“TRUTH” as in what’s true / false / fact / fiction isn’t relevant to my comment.

The highlighted in bullets” comment is TRUTH because I’m going with the option “it depends” - how many times in real life do two people, let alone a big group fully agree on anything? How many times have we’ve been better off because someone thought differently? Like getting to the round wheel to the rubber tire?

In a religious setting, even with the same denominations preaching the same doctrines each Pastor has standards for his church that are outside of the Bible or they “interpret” differently. An example would be dress codes for the platform, Staff, etc.

It’d be next to impossible to have everyone of those Pastors to think alike on those. Because these are concepts where there isn’t a right or wrong.

Aside from that, because everyone thinks is true doesn’t make it true. Because everyone thinks is false, doesn’t make it false.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> It can’t be “No. It’s not” and “depends”.
> “TRUTH” as in what’s true / false / fact / fiction isn’t relevant to my comment.
> 
> The highlighted in bullets” comment is TRUTH because I’m going with the option “it depends” - how many times in real life do two people, let alone a big group fully agree on anything? How many times have we’ve been better off because someone thought differently? Like getting to the round wheel to the rubber tire?
> ...



So let me get this straight.  You, and more importantly, you as a believer are telling me truth is relative?  I just want to make absolutely certain I understand you correctly?


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So let me get this straight.  You, and more importantly, you as a believer are telling me truth is relative?  I just want to make absolutely certain I understand you correctly?


First - does it matter if I’m a believer or a non believer in saying that the statement “If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking” is true?

I never attached that statement to a topic such as “religious truth” or adding 2 + 2.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> First - does it matter if I’m a believer or a non believer in ......



Yes.  Absolutely.  It impacts every single aspect of your life, every perspective you have or form,  how you think, every word you choose, every thought you have.  So yes. It makes a difference.  I’m not being critical, but it matters.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I totally get that for some Christians.
> How many do you think had such experiences?


My friend, have you ever hit the pause button long enough to ponder why you are spending so much of your time fighting against someone who you believe isn’t there?  
If you are completely convinced Jesus Christ isn’t who He said he was/is and the Bible isn’t the living word of God, what’s the point of anything at all?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> My friend, have you ever hit the pause button long enough to ponder why you are spending so much of your time fighting against someone who you believe isn’t there?
> If you are completely convinced Jesus Christ isn’t who He said he was/is and the Bible isn’t the living word of God, what’s the point of anything at all?



Yes ,  He doth protest tooooo loudly.  It’s been noted on many occasions.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 3, 2021)

"If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking."

Self-defeating


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  Absolutely.  It impacts every single aspect of your life, every perspective you have or form,  how you think, every word you choose, every thought you have.  So yes. It makes a difference.  I’m not being critical, but it matters.



Addressing the second part of this separately.

You only quoted this portion of my post:


Spotlite said:


> First - does it matter if I’m a believer or a non believer in........


To give this as your reply:


> Yes.  Absolutely.  It impacts every single aspect of your life, every perspective you have or form,  how you think, every word you choose, every thought you have.  So yes. It makes a difference.  I’m not being critical, but it matters.



So your reply is a misrepresentative of what I asked.



Spotlite said:


> First - does it matter if I’m a believer or a non believer in saying that the statement “If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking” is true?
> 
> I never attached that statement to a topic such as “religious truth” or adding 2 + 2.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> My friend, have you ever hit the pause button long enough to ponder why you are spending so much of your time fighting against someone who you believe isn’t there?
> If you are completely convinced Jesus Christ isn’t who He said he was/is and the Bible isn’t the living word of God, what’s the point of anything at all?


Can you fight against someone you dont believe is there? Does that make a lick of sense?
Doesnt fighting against the people who insist he's there but cant prove he's there make a whole lot more sense?
And doesnt that change who you are fighting against?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> "If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking."
> 
> Self-defeating


How is that statement self defeating?
Some of our greatest discoveries/advancements in medicine/history/geology etc are made by people who arent thinking like everybody else.
At one time everyone thought the earth was flat. Then some fool comes along and thought differently from everyone else. What a self defeating idiot that guy was huh?


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> My friend, have you ever hit the pause button long enough to ponder why you are spending so much of your time fighting against someone who you believe isn’t there?
> If you are completely convinced Jesus Christ isn’t who He said he was/is and the Bible isn’t the living word of God, what’s the point of anything at all?


I am not fighting against Jesus. I can't find him to talk to so I have to talk to his followers about their claims of Jesus.
I am trying to find out more. If the hard questioned cannot be answered and the Bible cannot stand up to scrutiny I am certainly finding out what I want to know. Have you considered that this what I am supposed to be doing if not by your god then certainly in the AAA forum? Why are you here?


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes ,  He doth protest tooooo loudly.  It’s been noted on many occasions.


Semper Fil Doc, your repeated notations mean nothing.
Praising is always met with Protest. Too much is relative.


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> How is that statement self defeating?
> Some of our greatest discoveries/advancements in medicine/history/geology etc are made by people who arent thinking like everybody else.
> At one time everyone thought the earth was flat. Then some fool comes along and thought differently from everyone else. What a self defeating idiot that guy was huh?


They’re relating it strictly to religious beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> They’re relating it strictly to religious beliefs.


Right which for religious beliefs,  truth, definitions, actions etc are different than their other portions of life.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> They’re relating it strictly to religious beliefs.


People thinking differently from others is what spawned Christianity


----------



## gemcgrew (May 3, 2021)

Am I the only one to read the statement as written? I feel like I've just entered the Twilight Zone.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Am I the only one to read the statement as written? I feel like I've just entered the Twilight Zone.


Ive heard this forum called lots of things but I think the Twilight Zone is a new one 
I vote the A/A/A Forum be renamed to the Twilight Zone!


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am not fighting against Jesus. I can't find him to talk to so I have to talk to his followers about their claims of Jesus.
> I am trying to find out more. If the hard questioned cannot be answered and the Bible cannot stand up to scrutiny I am certainly finding out what I want to know. Have you considered that this what I am supposed to be doing if not by your god then certainly in the AAA forum? Why are you here?



I hope you are truly trying to learn more. If that’s your true motivation, the Holy Spirit is working on you.
If you’re just here to argue,
1 Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

No one has ever received Christ in the middle of an intellectual debate. You can’t reason your way to Christ as an unbeliever. You view Christianity as a religion when it isn’t. It’s a relationship.  You have to receive Him in faith and then the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to spiritual things. Until then it will remain foolishness to you. You’re trying to fit the infinite God into your finite mind.  A million post won’t change that fact.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 3, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Am I the only one to read the statement as written? I feel like I've just entered the Twilight Zone.


There is one other.


----------



## Spotlite (May 3, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Am I the only one to read the statement as written? I feel like I've just entered the Twilight Zone.


There’s more than one way to read it. The problem is applying a religious view to something like man’s inventions. If everyone just thought alike, where would we be? Thinking alike also means not thinking further (outside the box) not just the mindlessly “not thinking” at all because you’re content.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> I hope you are truly trying to learn more. If that’s your true motivation, the Holy Spirit is working on you.
> If you’re just here to argue,
> 1 Corinthians 2:14
> But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
> ...


I am trying to see if what is written in the Bible is as advertised first. I have heard your claims before, forgive my doubt.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> There is one other.


You guys can discuss it with Patton someday if qualified.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 3, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I am trying to see if what is written in the Bible is as advertised first. I have heard your claims before, forgive my doubt.


There’s nothing to forgive. Really all me or any other Christian can do is share what we know to be true (that’s every single word written in the Bible) and have experienced. I have had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ since 2003. I cannot see him yet with my eyes, but I can walk you through my 44 years of life and show you where I have experienced Him over and over. The most meaningful experiences have come in toughest times.  Every day brings its challenges, but I have total peace in knowing why I was put on this earth, why the challenges are there, and what my ultimate future holds.
 I don’t know how you can choose to live any other way.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> There’s nothing to forgive. Really all me or any other Christian can do is share what we know to be true (that’s every single word written in the Bible) and have experienced. I have had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ since 2003. I cannot see him yet with my eyes, but I can walk you through my 44 years of life and show you where I have experienced Him over and over. The most meaningful experiences have come in toughest times.  Every day brings its challenges, but I have total peace in knowing why I was put on this earth, why the challenges are there, and what my ultimate future holds.
> I don’t know how you can choose to live any other way.


From and earlier post:

A belief is an idea you can change at any time. There may be real world things that support a belief or many people can share a belief, but by it’s very nature, belief is something that has not been proven to be real.

A fact is an idea that you cannot change no matter how much you change your mind about it or wish it was different. The fact is the fact regardless of what you think about it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> I hope you are truly trying to learn more. If that’s your true motivation, the Holy Spirit is working on you.
> If you’re just here to argue,
> 1 Corinthians 2:14
> But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
> ...





> You’re trying to fit the infinite God into your finite mind.


Honest question -
Isnt that what every Preacher/Pastor/Priest does with his congregation every Sunday morning?


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2021)

Mathematics is a belief system.
Of course 2+2=4 is stated as fact, that it is a fact, will always be a fact...but...only because that = sign _is created to say_ things on the left side of it are _the same_ as things on the right side of it. It's all conceptual, numbers, or those things we take as fact, state as fact, and in fact...say are always factual, are only so in their system. The system is useful...applicable to assignment for exchange only of _certain_ information by minds and to minds but only in acceptance, and only in dependence upon an axiom...

That = sign _only works _by consensus. Which "speaks" of the certainty for which the "certain" above was italicized.

(Hummer, is any of this relevant, or redolent of the matter you touched elsewhere recently in some discussion of the seeming "factuality" or better reliance found of and/or in science? That you, by deconstruction/reduction saw merely as starting with an axiom to the end of consensus?
It amused me that someone said it is more complex than that, ready to "take you to school" while I smelled your intellectual sweat in labor already expended upon the matter. I have the sense ("smell") that that mind...so willing to take you to school, had only in mind an explaining to you of "scientific method"... idea as hypothesis...advanced to theory...and when "testable" advanced to testing/experimentation to the gathering of results/"evidence" that by their interpretation either establish or nullify the original hypothesis. While all the while the axiomatic "assumption" is that this is the best and most complete way of establishment of "things" as true. That minds then, and only then may "agree upon")

Would any man say this is all and only a matter of "semantics"...(shall we discuss the disciplines of language?)

Hardly...

Semper touched the same thing...if the axiom can be made accepted (a primary advanced)...then the whole of the system/argument/contention upon which it all rests by axiom...has the appearance of total consistency= (drum roll please)....truth. In other words consensus of truth is established upon consensus in and to the original axiom. 

What would we call "reliant truth"?

Of all it is only, and plainly, circular reasoning.
Which I have no issue with except it tries to present itself as "not circular"...more refined or "complex" (which has an appeal "given" from somewhere...) for the eschewing of circular reasoning. But these systems ultimately show no more than that...even in their supposed..."complexity"

I _am not saying _there is no utility to it. Far from it. But the utility of it...the transference of matters from mind to mind to an acceptable agreement (by these functions/methods alone as superior to all else...is an axiom one either accepts as ultimate, or not)
And they are applicable...to some extent. That "some" being limited and subject to limitation. As concept they establish their own internal elegance as though needing no further support, but they, if seeking to exert primacy for all applicability...also, and no less, break down in application. They no less require and depend upon _other agreements_ to append _in their dependence...to legitimacy._



_Do 4 pumpkins = 4 pumpkins?_










Admittedly, matters of scale I hope might be applied here, (we can tackle another discipline/system i.e. that _of language...also _and at any _time allowed) _are implied.
Pumpkins supported by pallet and pumpkins in plastic container. ("How big is the pallet?" And plastic can be made to any dimensions. This tells me nothing.)

And me telling you of a thing..."hope" I claim to have...well...another? or an = matter?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

Mathematics is a Science


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> From and earlier post:
> 
> A belief is an idea you can change at any time. There may be real world things that support a belief or many people can share a belief, but by it’s very nature, belief is something that has not been proven to be real.
> 
> A fact is an idea that you cannot change no matter how much you change your mind about it or wish it was different. The fact is the fact regardless of what you think about it.


Thank you for posting this definition of fact.  Even though the evidence is all around you, you can choose not to believe in gravity. You would be wrong, but you can’t change the fact that gravity exists and you will be affected by it. 
Jesus Christ is God and he is the creator of all things and all things were created as good. God is all loving, Holy, and just and therefore cannot tolerate sin.  Man and Satan chose to sin. Sin has consequences and we now live in a world infected with sin and the troubles that come from that.  God loves every human being exactly the same and he stepped down from the glory of heaven to become one of us and allowed his created children to beat him nearly to death and nail him to a cross. This great sacrifice is the punishment that our sin deserves.  He stood in our place and rose from the dead and returned to his place of glory. The Bible is the word of God and is like no other book. He told us he was coming to die for our sins and he did. He told us he is going to return and he will.  
You are going to die. That is another fact. If you receive Christ as your savior, at that very moment your eternal life with him begins and you will be with him forever.  If you continue to reject him, you will suffer for your sins. You can choose not to believe these facts. You will soon find out if you’re right or not. 
Why continue to reject love, forgiveness, peace, true purpose, and eternal security?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Thank you for posting this definition of fact.  Even though the evidence is all around you, you can choose not to believe in gravity. You would be wrong, but you can’t change the fact that gravity exists and you will be affected by it.


I can prove gravity exists.
What goes up comes down.



CarolinaDawg said:


> Jesus Christ is God and he is the creator of all things and all things were created as good. God is all loving, Holy, and just and therefore cannot tolerate sin.  Man and Satan chose to sin. Sin has consequences and we now live in a world infected with sin and the troubles that come from that.  God loves every human being exactly the same and he stepped down from the glory of heaven to become one of us and allowed his created children to beat him nearly to death and nail him to a cross. This great sacrifice is the punishment that our sin deserves.  He stood in our place and rose from the dead and returned to his place of glory. The Bible is the word of God and is like no other book. He told us he was coming to die for our sins and he did. He told us he is going to return and he will.


Those are assertive claims that you stated but literally have no way to prove. What you said is on the same level of all the worlds religions that make unsubstantiated and unprovable claims for their gods.


CarolinaDawg said:


> You are going to die. That is another fact. If you receive Christ as your savior, at that very moment your eternal life with him begins and you will be with him forever.  If you continue to reject him, you will suffer for your sins. You can choose not to believe these facts. You will soon find out if you’re right or not.
> Why continue to reject love, forgiveness, peace, true purpose, and eternal security?


Yes , I absolutely will die. That has, can and always will be proven. I am not worried about it enough to need comfort while I am alive by hoping and then convincing myself there is a better place. I don't need a religion,denomination, church, pastor that relies on the natural human fear of mortality in order to peddle the goods.
The rest of your claims after that do not stand up to scrutiny.
Jesus at the door: Knock-Knock, let me in.
Person behind door: Why would I let you in?
Jesus: Out of fear for what I am going to do to you if you do not let me in.

You are telling me that YOU know all about an Infinite god in your finite mind. (I have to address your willful avoidance of Walt's extremely valid point)

Ps: I don't want to do anything for eternity.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> You are going to die. That is another fact. If you receive Christ as your savior, at that very moment your eternal life with him begins and you will be with him forever.  If you continue to reject him, you will suffer for your sins. You can choose not to believe these facts. You will soon find out if you’re right or not.
> Why continue to reject love, forgiveness, peace, true purpose, and eternal security?


A couple of questions for you since you seem to "know".
If Jesus wants me to believe is he capable of contacting me? Would he know just how to do it in a way that I would be sure to recognize and understand?
If I accept Jesus and when I then die at what stage of my worldly life/body will I frolic in Heaven with? Will I be 18 again with the knowledge and experience at my cognitive peak? Will I be 81 and can't remember my wife's name? Will her and I be there..together for eternity(cause I gotta be honest..we've been together since ages 15 and 16, will be married 32 years shortly, seems like we will be together till Death Do Us Part...but ETERNITY...I mean I love her ,but not THAT much) or will it be the Woodstock era, free love and all?
An eternity of just sheer joyful bliss in everything I do...IDK about all that.
After landing my 100th 20lb Largemouth on my 101st cast (snagged a harp on 4th cast) the magic will start to wear thin. A 180" Whitetail EVERY morning just after sun up...will I have the wall space? Shooting thousand yard 10 shot groups that are no larger than the diameter of one shotgun pellet....yep that is right my turkey gun patterns very tightly in a world where everything goes my way....that will get old after a week.
But you say for all that to happen, to get my eternal hugs from a god that loves me...there are conditions? That I have to accept his Son(which is really himself) as my best friend and tell him how great he is every day(or at least on Sundays between the hour of 9am and 10am. And if I do not then the All Loving god will drop me like a hot potato down into the Coal Furnace for eternity?
Really CarolinaDawg?


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 4, 2021)

Good luck with all that!


----------



## ky55 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You are telling me that YOU know all about an Infinite god in your finite mind.



A “personal” relationship with an infinite god who created the entire Universe. 

What’s not to like about that?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I can prove gravity exists.
> What goes up comes down.
> 
> 
> ...





> You are telling me that YOU know all about an Infinite god in your finite mind. (I have to address your willful avoidance of Walt's extremely valid point)


Thats the problem with alot of those standard/stock Christian "responses" like "fitting an infinite God into a finite mind".
Meanwhile there is Sunday school, Bible camp, Church services, the Bible itself etc etc all doing what?....... teaching about God. In other words.... 
attempting to fit an infinite God into a finite mind.


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Good luck with all that!



Helpful tip. If Omar Hacksaw witnessed to you about Allah? How would you respond?

In his eyes, you’re a non believer and he can’t comprehend why you just don’t get it.

Bullet wants you to give him the same “evidence” about God that you’d want Omar to give you about Allah.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Good luck with all that!


Well now wait, you present yourself as having answers. You know an unknowable god. Can you at least find out for me? If your prayers are answered can you ask god for me? Can you ask Jesus to contact me?
All you have for me is " good luck with that"?


----------



## ky55 (May 4, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Helpful tip. If Omar Hacksaw witnessed to you about Allah? How would you respond?
> 
> In his eyes, you’re a non believer and he can’t comprehend why you just don’t get it.
> 
> Bullet wants you to give him the same “evidence” about God that you’d want Omar to give you about Allah.



And Omar has his own perfect book.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Helpful tip. If Omar Hacksaw witnessed to you about Allah? How would you respond?
> 
> In his eyes, you’re a non believer and he can’t comprehend why you just don’t get it.
> 
> Bullet wants you to give him the same “evidence” about God that you’d want Omar to give you about Allah.


And in CD's eyes Hacksaw sounds like a nut and is "wrong".

Yep, I am asking for no different than the standards and clout to which a believer in one religion holds believers in other religions to.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats the problem with alot of those standard/stock Christian "responses" like "fitting an infinite God into a finite mind".
> Meanwhile there is Sunday school, Bible camp, Church services, the Bible itself etc etc all doing what?....... teaching about God. In other words....
> attempting to fit an infinite God into a finite mind.


Christianity is a relationship. How can you have a relationship without getting to know the other person better. When you love Christ, you want to spend time with him. Also, the Bible is the blueprint for how to live the life we were intended to live, so why not focus on study and practical implementation.  There are many things I can’t wrap my mind around because there are things that won’t be revealed until I leave this body. I understand that and accept it. That’s a part of what Sunday school, church services, etc are for.   You can try to dumb that down and call it trying to fit an infinite God into my finite mind if you think it helps you make a point, but it doesn’t. You just don’t understand and that’s okay.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> I hope you are truly trying to learn more. If that’s your true motivation, the Holy Spirit is working on you.
> If you’re just here to argue,
> 1 Corinthians 2:14
> But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
> ...


This is YOUR post CarolinaDawg, pay special attention to the claim that You made 2 sentences from the end.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> A couple of questions for you since you seem to "know".
> If Jesus wants me to believe is he capable of contacting me? Would he know just how to do it in a way that I would be sure to recognize and understand?
> If I accept Jesus and when I then die at what stage of my worldly life/body will I frolic in Heaven with? Will I be 18 again with the knowledge and experience at my cognitive peak? Will I be 81 and can't remember my wife's name? Will her and I be there..together for eternity(cause I gotta be honest..we've been together since ages 15 and 16, will be married 32 years shortly, seems like we will be together till Death Do Us Part...but ETERNITY...I mean I love her ,but not THAT much) or will it be the Woodstock era, free love and all?
> An eternity of just sheer joyful bliss in everything I do...IDK about all that.
> ...


Literally everything you just said is incorrect


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Christianity is a relationship. How can you have a relationship without getting to know the other person better. When you love Christ, you want to spend time with him. Also, the Bible is the blueprint for how to live the life we were intended to live, so why not focus on study and practical implementation.  There are many things I can’t wrap my mind around because there are things that won’t be revealed until I leave this body. I understand that and accept it. That’s a part of what Sunday school, church services, etc are for.   You can try to dumb that down and call it trying to fit an infinite God into my finite mind if you think it helps you make a point, but it doesn’t. You just don’t understand and that’s okay.


Myself, Bullet and almost every other A/A in here attended Church services, Saturday/Sunday school etc in one form or another for years.
We are completely aware that we were being taught about God. Fitting an infinite God into a finite mind.
Dont be so sure that we "just dont understand".


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Christianity is a relationship. How can you have a relationship without getting to know the other person better. When you love Christ, you want to spend time with him. Also, the Bible is the blueprint for how to live the life we were intended to live, so why not focus on study and practical implementation.  There are many things I can’t wrap my mind around because there are things that won’t be revealed until I leave this body. I understand that and accept it. That’s a part of what Sunday school, church services, etc are for.   You can try to dumb that down and call it trying to fit an infinite God into my finite mind if you think it helps you make a point, but it doesn’t. You just don’t understand and that’s okay.


A one sided relationship like the grade school kid who always had a girlfriend but nobody ever saw her because she lived 1500 miles away next to his grandparents house in Arizona...but ohh boy is she everything that a 10yr old kid could imagine.

Have you read the Bible and are purposely skipping the parts that tell different stories than you are trying to pass off as a whole?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Literally everything you just said is incorrect


Explain to me how other than your own personal opinion how you know what I said is incorrect..
Are you able to talk to Jesus?
Can you invite him to join this thread?

Are you saying that Jesus is incapable of contacting me like I asked above? That I am incorrect in thinking that Jesus as a god would know how to contact me in a way unique to my understanding?

I am being 100% sincere. Explain this in all the detail you need to use as to how you know this.

And, can you clear up exactly what ages my wife and I got together and how long we will be married since you claim that I have that incorrect?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Literally everything you just said is incorrect


Are you aware of what "literally" means?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Doesnt fighting against the people who insist he's there but cant prove he's there make a whole lot more sense?



No.  Not really.  It's mostly an awful waste of time.  I don't see the point.  At one time I thought it had some value, but I was wrong.   There's a lot more life to enjoy than to spend it worrying too much about what people think, unless it's a direct threat.  People believe in a lot of unreasonable stuff.  Why make it personal and take it upon myself to fix an idea in a person who's thinking is broken.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> "If everyone is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking."
> 
> Self-defeating



Well broad statements like that generally are self-destructive.  If everyone thinks the said statement is true, then someone isn't thinking.  See?  It's that easy.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  Not really.  It's mostly an awful waste of time.  I don't see the point.  At one time I thought it had some value, but I was wrong.   There's a lot more life to enjoy than to spend it worrying too much about what people think, unless it's a direct threat.  People believe in a lot of unreasonable stuff.  Why make it personal and take it upon myself to fix an idea in a person who's thinking is broken.


Isn't spending your time in here doing just what you are accusing others of doing? Or is handing out diagnosis without a degree an exception?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive heard this forum called lots of things but I think the Twilight Zone is a new one
> I vote the A/A/A Forum be renamed to the Twilight Zone!



Second the motion.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well broad statements like that generally are self-destructive.  If everyone thinks the said statement is true, then someone isn't thinking.  See?  It's that easy.


Can we go through Bible and pick out similar broad statements or are they different?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Isn't spending your time in here doing just what you are accusing others of doing?



No.  I'm not into debating, but I do still get the occasional joy out of pointing out the obvious flaws in the various memes and fallacies that circulate the hallways.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Myself, Bullet and almost every other A/A in here attended Church services, Saturday/Sunday school etc in one form or another for years.
> We are completely aware that we were being taught about God. Fitting an infinite God into a finite mind.
> Dont be so sure that we "just dont understand".


You’ve presented your case and you don’t understand.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Can we go through Bible and pick out similar broad statements or are they different?



Sure.  Knock yourself out.


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> .we've been together since ages 15 and 16, will be married 32 years shortly, seems like we will be together till Death Do Us Part...but ETERNITY...I mean I love her ,but not THAT much)


Sorry for jumping in way off topic, but....
Congratulations on your upcoming Anniversary! And, I agree lol. We’ve been together 28, married for 26. I always told her don’t even plan that whole thing about renewing vows. I’m not so sure I’d say yes again lol.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Myself, Bullet and almost every other A/A in here attended Church services, Saturday/Sunday school etc in one form or another for years.
> We are completely aware that we were being taught about God. Fitting an infinite God into a finite mind.
> Dont be so sure that we "just dont understand".



Pretty sure you understand.  I did to, or thought I did until I met him.  Big difference in knowing about someone and knowing someone.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I'm not into debating, but I do still get the occasional joy out of pointing out the obvious flaws in the various memes and fallacies that circulate the hallways.


We all point out those flaws. It is participation none the less.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> You’ve presented your case and you don’t understand.


Explain it to him/us.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> We all point out those flaws. It is participation none the less.



And I didn't say I don't participate.  It's obvious I do.  I just don't debate.  Something along the lines of nothing is more impenetrable than a closed mind.


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well broad statements like that generally are self-destructive.  If everyone thinks the said statement is true, then someone isn't thinking.  See?  It's that easy.


Well you certainly had a lot to point out just to vanish after pointing.....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Well you certainly had a lot to point out just to vanish after pointing.....



Sorry, but this isn't my occupation.  I have things outside of the forum that demand my time.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sure.  Knock yourself out.


I will start a new thread later. I am headed out to take my wife(or maybe she isn't according to CarolonaDawg) to lunch.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  Not really.  It's mostly an awful waste of time.  I don't see the point.  At one time I thought it had some value, but I was wrong.   There's a lot more life to enjoy than to spend it worrying too much about what people think, unless it's a direct threat.  People believe in a lot of unreasonable stuff.  Why make it personal and take it upon myself to fix an idea in a person who's thinking is broken.


I think you are taking that quote out of context. The claim was "we are fighting against God". We arent fighting against God. We are fighting against the stories about God that are presented as fact by MEN.


> Why make it personal and take it upon myself to fix an idea in a person who's thinking is broken.


I dont believe your/Christians thinking is "broken".
I would have to know for a fact that you/Christians were absolutely wrong to question your thinking.
It could be our (nonbeliever) thinking is "broken".
It could be ALL our thinking is "broken"
And I dont want to fix your thinking. You have said being saved/your belief in God has made you a better man. Thats good enough for me.
Debating or disagreeing doesnt mean I want you to go back to being whatever you were before you became a better man.


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry, but this isn't my occupation.  I have things outside of the forum that demand my time.


Understand. Same here. We all do. I’m familiar with drive by’s. Usually just a lot of “it’s me again” noise.


----------



## CarolinaDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> A one sided relationship like the grade school kid who always had a girlfriend but nobody ever saw her because she lived 1500 miles away next to his grandparents house in Arizona...but ohh boy is she everything that a 10yr old kid could imagine.
> 
> Have you read the Bible and are purposely skipping the parts that tell different stories than you are trying to pass off as a whole?


Look friend, I have walked with Christ for many years.  I have never been more sure of anything. This debate isn’t going to change my stance or yours. My job is let my life and my words be a witness for Christ for the benefit of others. I can’t change anyone’s heart.  That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. 
I have accepted Christ as my savior and you have rejected him. One of us is right, we will definitely know which one us of that is when we die, and death is coming.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> You’ve presented your case and you don’t understand.


Any chance its you that doesnt understand?
I never claimed to understand anything.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Look friend, I have walked with Christ for many years.  I have never been more sure of anything. This debate isn’t going to change my stance or yours. My job is let my life and my words be a witness for Christ for the benefit of others. I can’t change anyone’s heart.  That’s the Holy Spirit’s job.
> I have accepted Christ as my savior and you have rejected him, we will definitely know which one us of that is when we die, and death is coming.


There has been lots of gods worshipped throughout man's history.
Odds are pretty good its not going to be "which ONE of you is wrong".


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pretty sure you understand.  I did to, or thought I did until I met him.  Big difference in knowing about someone and knowing someone.


That sounds good and I can agree with your point.
So why does Christianity (the organization) spend so much time teaching us about God? Sounds like Christians are being peddled "factory seconds".


----------



## ky55 (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> That sounds good and I can agree with your point.
> So why does Christianity (the organization) spend so much time teaching us about God? Sounds like Christians are being peddled "factory seconds".



Bigger audience and more money maybe?
Seems like it would be a lot more productive to hit the high spots and pass the plate. 
Just a guess.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> Look friend, I have walked with Christ for many years.  I have never been more sure of anything. This debate isn’t going to change my stance or yours. My job is let my life and my words be a witness for Christ for the benefit of others. I can’t change anyone’s heart.  That’s the Holy Spirit’s job.
> I have accepted Christ as my savior and you have rejected him. One of us is right, we will definitely know which one us of that is when we die, and death is coming.


I have absolutely zero interest in changing or even trying to change your mind or anyone's mind.
I am definitely interested in finding out more on a material/physical level which connects the physical with the supernatural. Which is the something that is missing for me because it seems to be a definite hurdle to overcome for the believers in a Being and religion that is touted as The Ultimate Truth.

Is there someone better for me to ask than the people who make the claims?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And I didn't say I don't participate.  It's obvious I do.  I just don't debate.  Something along the lines of nothing is more impenetrable than a closed mind.


Honest question, 
Who's mind would you say has a greater chance of being penetrated?
A person that says "I don't know but am willing to listen and possibly change my mind"
Or
A person that says "I know and I will never change my mind"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> That sounds good and I can agree with your point.
> So why does Christianity (the organization) spend so much time teaching us about God? Sounds like Christians are being peddled "factory seconds".



You know, I can only speak for myself.  In honesty, I was content knowing 'about' God, because I didn't want what I understood that would come with the commitment on my end.  I just wanted all the blessings without any commitment or work on my end.  Essentially it was my selfishness to maintain my will and not completely submit to His that is the bare bones truth of it.   I can't and don't fault my church or pastor.  There are a lot of both of those who are superficial and commercial that I do condemn, but I can't say mine was ever anything but honest with what is required.  I just didn't want it.

As a whole, Christianity in America has sold out IMHO.  Oh you can still get the gospel if you shop around and are careful to weigh the message coming from the pulpit to the one in the Bible, but in many the message is just a means to whatever their individual end is.  In the end for most, it boils down to fill the pews and fleece the sheep in the name of money, prestige, power, etc........the same motives as anywhere else outside the church.

IMHO even the best churches, the one's that are true to the message with no ulterior motive, sometimes fail in stressing that the Gospel and the entire purpose of God creating man, is to form a relationship with him.  That's His goal, his entire purpose of creating man, and the reason for the necessity of the death and resurrection of Christ.....to re-establish the conditions in which that relationship could exist.  Very, very few churches focus on the reason behind the Gospel, why it was necessary, and what it's purpose was, and those that do tend to not emphasize it's possible to personally know God as a being and not just an abstract notion.

That's my 2 cent.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are taking that quote out of context. The claim was "we are fighting against God". We arent fighting against God. We are fighting against the stories about God that are presented as fact by MEN.
> 
> I dont believe your/Christians thinking is "broken".
> I would have to know for a fact that you/Christians were absolutely wrong to question your thinking.
> ...





> I think you are taking that quote out of context.



You're the author of it.  You know better than me if I read it out of context.  I probably read it a lot broader than it was meant by you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Honest question,
> Who's mind would you say has a greater chance of being penetrated?
> A person that says "I don't know but am willing to listen and possibly change my mind"
> Or
> A person that says "I know and I will never change my mind"



Here's my honest reply to you.

Your say, "I don't know." as a true agnostic, but every action you take on this board speaks to a closed mind that works overtime to deny, not listen.  That's my honest take, and why I don't bother.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's my honest reply to you.
> 
> Your say, "I don't know." as a true agnostic, but every action you take on this board speaks to a closed mind that works overtime to deny, not listen.  That's my honest take, and why I don't bother.


I did not ask about me personally, I did not mention any names. You did not address the question that I asked.

To adress your reply:
I absolutely listen. When I listen I think. When I reply it is in order to test my thoughts against what I have been told.
Listening has nothing to do with blindly accepting what I am hearing.
If or when I hear something that I cannot question or refute or find someone else or information that can question or refute it then I will know it is something to be highly considered and I will look into it more.

I am Skeptically Agnostic.

I would no more hire a sweet talking contractor without checking into what I am being told or Invest into a business or business deal simply based off of listening without fact checking for legitimacy. I can't think of much that I just blindly accept after listening without questioning and I am not about to start doing it with assertive claims regarding the supernatural.
I absolutely know the supernatural occurs. I absolutely listen to what a person or people attribute it to. None of what I hear (from listening) stands up to the scrutiny I put it through.
When something passes the scrutiny put forth by my "devil's advocate" approach then I will know there is something more to it and I admit that my mind has been changed.

When you tell me that "this happened to me, therefore I believe this entity is responsible" I am not unhappy for you. I am intrigued as to how you or anyone assign a specific deity to the event. I want to know more. I try to research to see if similar experiences are unique to just one set of believers in a particular religion etc and if so I research more.
I don't automatically say "nope you are wrong, that didn't happen to you, you are lying," but I will question the circumstances and suggest possible alternative possibilities and give examples to go along with my line of thinking or claims.
If I have a quick response that seems fairly final it is because I have already researched similar and either through memory, books, or bookmarks have the information for rebuttal at the ready.

Can you say that your mind is not closed?


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I did not ask about me personally, I did not mention any names. You did not address the question that I asked.
> 
> To adress your reply:
> I absolutely listen. When I listen I think. When I reply it is in order to test my thoughts against what I have been told.
> ...


I remember a few years ago you quoted one of your own post and said something along the lines of “that post was so good I wish I could like it myself “ lol. This is another one of those post.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I did not ask about me personally, I did not mention any names. You did not address the question that I asked.
> 
> To adress your reply:
> I absolutely listen. When I listen I think. When I reply it is in order to test my thoughts against what I have been told.
> ...



No, but I’m not the one claiming I don’t know but spending every waking moment arguing as if I do.  People don’t know, but wish to, listen.  People who are convinced argue and counter.  You say you don’t know, but argue.  Your words don’t match you actions.  People outside religion call the religious hypocrites for such conduct.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, but I’m not the one claiming I don’t know but spending every waking moment arguing as if I do.  People don’t know, but wish to, listen.  People who are convinced argue and counter.  You say you don’t know, but argue.  Your words don’t match you actions.  People outside religion call the religious hypocrites for such conduct.


Post #383 explains all that.
You are confusing Listening with Believing what I am Listening to.
They are two very different things.

People who don't know ask questions. They keep asking questions until they are satisfied.
My actions are of someone who is testing the claims about what I am hearing.
Are you suggesting that I ask too many questions that cannot be answered and because they cannot be answered that I should just accept what I am being told?
Shouldn't what you tell me or anyone else tells me be capable of withstanding scrutiny if what I am being told or listening to has any truth to it whatsoever?

Somehow I have manged to raise 3 now men, stayed together with my high school sweetheart, run 2 self own and operate 2 self employed businesses which spanned 34 years, hunt, fish, vacation, maintain my properties and 1000s of other tasks in between "spending every waking moment" arguing here.
I don't care who you are THAT is an impressive miracle worthy of Biblical proportions yet all done by one mortal man.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Post #383 explains all that.
> You are confusing Listening with Believing what I am Listening to.
> They are two very different things.
> 
> ...



Well , you are a god in your own eyes.  I’ll give you that.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well , you are a god in your own eyes.  I’ll give you that.


Whoah,  do not put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. But those are the types of things you want others to "listen" to and not question.
You were doing good there for a while before you have to take it to SemperFilDoc levels.
When I want you diagnosis I will ask.
Until then you are just trying to divert away from the things I say which you do not address because you either cannot refute them with facts or acknowledge that they are accurate. 

I can play it however you want it. If you want to always go personal then let that be our relationship in here. Makes no difference to me.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well , you are a god in your own eyes.  I’ll give you that.


It is so gracious of you to "give me" something that you said about me which I never said.
Despite me purposely ending my post with calling myself "one mortal man" you have to falsely imply that I think I am a god in my own eyes.
It has become clear why you "choose" not to debate.


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

?‍ hopefully more Believers will read 1 Peter 3:15.......


----------



## ky55 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It is so gracious of you to "give me" something that you said about me which I never said.
> Despite me purposely ending my post with calling myself "one mortal man" you have to falsely imply that I think I am a god in my own eyes.
> It has become clear why you "choose" not to debate.



Some folks find insults easier than debates.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

ky55 said:


> Some folks find insults easier than debates.


I don't mind a little ribbing.
I'd love to have a password protected nothing off limits section and let it fly there if personal attacks are all they want to do.
But in here it happens when the discussion gets down to time to back up the claims or acknowledge they can't. When out of ammo ya have to sling the mud in desperation.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

ky55 said:


> Bigger audience and more money maybe?
> Seems like it would be a lot more productive to hit the high spots and pass the plate.
> Just a guess.


That same exact thought ran through my mind. Almost typed it out in the post. Only difference was I thought "power" instead of "bigger audience". But they are pretty much the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, I can only speak for myself.  In honesty, I was content knowing 'about' God, because I didn't want what I understood that would come with the commitment on my end.  I just wanted all the blessings without any commitment or work on my end.  Essentially it was my selfishness to maintain my will and not completely submit to His that is the bare bones truth of it.   I can't and don't fault my church or pastor.  There are a lot of both of those who are superficial and commercial that I do condemn, but I can't say mine was ever anything but honest with what is required.  I just didn't want it.
> 
> As a whole, Christianity in America has sold out IMHO.  Oh you can still get the gospel if you shop around and are careful to weigh the message coming from the pulpit to the one in the Bible, but in many the message is just a means to whatever their individual end is.  In the end for most, it boils down to fill the pews and fleece the sheep in the name of money, prestige, power, etc........the same motives as anywhere else outside the church.
> 
> ...


Now thats a darn good post SFD.
No Christian dogma. No stock/standard Christian responses.
Just your own thoughts.
Thank you.


----------



## GT90 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I did not ask about me personally, I did not mention any names. You did not address the question that I asked.
> 
> To adress your reply:
> I absolutely listen. When I listen I think. When I reply it is in order to test my thoughts against what I have been told.
> ...




Bullethead et al,

Having posted in this sub-forum incredibly infrequently but being a lurker for a number of years (and if you care to share) let me know what you think of this analysis.

Outside of a direct communication to you from that deity, you are looking for scientific evidence/proof that a deity exists.  Less than that will not do it for you. Folks on the "deities are real" side have not been able to show you that evidence. Hence you continue your searching/questioning.  

And I bet that is what most of the participating or lurking folks in AAA that are not convinced of a deity or deities need to move to the other side (assuming side is the right term).  

Is there something else that might convince you?  Seriously curios.

I find it hard to believe things in here will change until that proof is shown.  

That said I do enjoy the back and forth in here when it stays on topic and does not get personal or gets to a "I said so, so it is true".


----------



## ky55 (May 4, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> That same exact thought ran through my mind. Almost typed it out in the post. Only difference was I thought "power" instead of "bigger audience". But they are pretty much the same.



$54,374 is the annual salary of a Saddleback Church employee. That was the first one that came to mind so I looked it up. 


https://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-saddleback-church-jobs.html


----------



## Spotlite (May 4, 2021)

ky55 said:


> $54,374 is the annual salary of a Saddleback Church employee. That was the first one that came to mind so I looked it up.
> 
> 
> https://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-saddleback-church-jobs.html


Wow. That’s insane. We (our churches) are basically the volunteer fire departments lol

I’m head of security and head of maintenance for a whopping $0 salary. But it’s what I want to do, I didn’t want to be a hireling.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

GT90 said:


> Bullethead et al,
> 
> Having posted in this sub-forum incredibly infrequently but being a lurker for a number of years (and if you care to share) let me know what you think of this analysis.
> 
> ...


Thank you for participating. 
The bible is full of interactions between the god in it and man. It tells of those interactions happening seemingly quite frequently over thousands of years.
Believers in here tell tales of God/Jesus breaking the spiritual realm and entering into the physical realm to interact with them if not save them.
Yet when I ask for proof of that I am often met with replies that the supernatural and material worlds are different and I am asking for too much. I am told it doesn't work like that. Despite what is said in the very Bible some of them constantly reference they tell me that they cannot continue conversing with me when I mention the material/physical world.

It makes me wonder why their god made bushes burn and talk, a donkey talk,  turn a woman into a pillar of salt,  flood an entire planet, raise the dead, rise from the dead (while words in the bible described darkness, earthquakes and graves bursting open worldwide took place) and ascend skyward into the heavens just to name a few.  They are all instances of God crossing the line into "our" world. Instances that can be observed by the senses, recorded by equipment, analyzed by Billions.
Where Are They now?
Why shouldn't I expect it to happen if it is said it had happened before?

I will take a visit by any deity.
I'm  up for a dropkick to the chest from Jesus as a wiser upper.
A god by very nature of being God should know more than even I know what it will take to convince me.
I am open for that interaction. 

I am open for someone,  anyone that makes a claim about a god being involved in their physical life in a physical world to just show it.


----------



## GT90 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Thank you for participating.
> The bible is full of interactions between the god in it and man. It tells of those interactions happening seemingly quite frequently over thousands of years.
> Believers in here tell tales of God/Jesus breaking the spiritual realm and entering into the physical realm to interact with them if not save them.
> Yet when I ask for proof of that I am often met with replies that the supernatural and material worlds are different and I am asking for too much. I am told it doesn't work like that. Despite what is said in the very Bible some of them constantly reference they tell me that they cannot continue conversing with me when I mention the material/physical world.
> ...




Thanks for the response.  I bet lots of folks are just like you regarding "proof". Some folks need the scientific/individual proof.  Others are OK with proof that does not meet the prior criteria but they believe what they have been told or feel is proof enough.  And I am not trying to make a judgement on either, just an observation.  

Just seems to me the majority of the discussions in this forum eventually end up in "you can't prove it" or "I believe, so it is so".  

Again, the real discussion is good and I like reading other folks views.  Nothing wrong hearing the other side and questioning what you believe.  Works for politics also


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

GT90 said:


> Thanks for the response.  I bet lots of folks are just like you regarding "proof". Some folks need the scientific/individual proof.  Others are OK with proof that does not meet the prior criteria but they believe what they have been told or feel is proof enough.  And I am not trying to make a judgement on either, just an observation.
> 
> Just seems to me the majority of the discussions in this forum eventually end up in "you can't prove it" or "I believe, so it is so".
> 
> Again, the real discussion is good and I like reading other folks views.  Nothing wrong hearing the other side and questioning what you believe.  Works for politics also


Well, yes when dealing in these types of discussions where beliefs mesh with the physical, either one side has to turn the beliefs into something material (reality) or the other must suspend reality in order to let their minds be free to think that anything is possible.
I personally have no problem freeing my mind to do that but then I don't think I should be limited to think that one Deity is possible while being told that the others are not using the same criteria. I am capable of having that conversation but I will be honest to me it is the equivalent of talking about the individual personalities and capabilities of the Marvel Universe,  "Typical" Big Foot behavior, Speedy Gonzales vs Ricochet Rabbit , Do Leprechauns carry pocket change or use a change purse, or What kind of person does it take to be an Imperial Storm Trooper.
Those conversations can be had, they can and are talked about intelligently and with heart felt convictions but at the end of the day if someone wants to take the conversation from that to saying that Speedy Gonzales rescued them from a speeding train bearing down on their broken vehicle, or that  Typical Big Foot behavior consists of Jumping Jacks while wrapped in saran wrap I will absolutely listen but there is no way to believe it unless they have proof.

I cannot include every believer in Jesus in this but I would bet that an overwhelming majority would require physical proof of Bigfoot if I told them that I have a personal relationship with one, have walked with one for years and that a Bigfoot has the powers to grant me wishes. I am sure that if my reply was that they didn't understand my relationship and it is true because I KNOW it is true it would not make them any more confident to believe me.


----------



## GT90 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I personally have no problem freeing my mind to do that but then I don't think I should be limited to think that one Deity is possible while being told that the others are not using the same criteria. I am capable of having that conversation but I will be honest to me it is the equivalent of talking about the individual personalities and capabilities of the Marvel Universe,  "Typical" Big Foot behavior, Speedy Gonzales vs Ricochet Rabbit , Do Leprechauns carry pocket change or use a change purse, or What kind of person does it take to be an Imperial Storm Trooper.



And herein lies what may be the rub on both sides.  How does one truly free their mind if years of belief (albeit through faith or scientific questioning), one way or the other, have been instilled into them?  If you can do it then kudos to you.  I know where I stand and it is really hard for me to be open to the other side because what I believe today has been shaped over a good amount of time (50 or so years).  I expect it would probably take a "miracle one way or the other" to get me to change my mind.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

GT90 said:


> And herein lies what may be the rub on both sides.  How does one truly free their mind if years of belief (albeit through faith or scientific questioning), one way or the other, have been instilled into them?  If you can do it then kudos to you.  I know where I stand and it is really hard for me to be open to the other side because what I believe today has been shaped over a good amount of time (50 or so years).  I expect it would probably take a "miracle one way or the other" to get me to change my mind.


I will be 52 this year.
From as early as I can remember until into my 20s I was taught to pray, I talked to god through prayer every night before bed, I attended Church and Sunday school. I was Baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran Protestant,  served as an acolyte, went through confirmation, I was married in a Catholic church and 2/3 of my sons graduated from a Catholic High School with one of them teaching at a Catholic middle school for a few years. I honored and respected what I was told about God and what I thought I knew and experienced about God.
I read the bible through the 1st time after referencing it untold times. Growing up in church and with family I wondered why certain verses were always used and some were never mentioned.  After my first complete reading of the Bible a lot of it did not make sense to me. I thought OK maybe I missed something. I talked about it to family,  friends, church elders, my Pastor and was most often told to read certain passages that did not really address the concerns that I had. So I read it again. The awful really stood out to me, the contradictions stood out, the untruths stood out, the inaccuracies and historical errors stood out, I felt guilty about having those thoughts. I apologized to God nightly for feeling that way. I talked to my wife's Priest. I prayed and apologized.  Then I got it in my head that something so true has got to have evidence that backs it up so I went on a search for it. That search is ongoing. 25+ years. I've read the Bible a 3rd time. Countless times referenced. To be honest the more I read it the more it's own words had me believe in it less.
If I had a preconceived notions it was Pro Bible, Pro God, Pro Religion. Going away from that was not a fast undertaking. For a few years I walked the line between the two and slowly made the transition to unbeliever in any one particular god or stories about god or gods but I fully admit that I Don't Know if any God or Gods exist. They might, one might, but if they do I absolutely do not know a thing about them or It except what was taught to me from an early age. Back then at times I was positive that God was with me, helped me, answered my prayers, I was certain that I knew him,, I knew what God wanted, I knew his thoughts, what he liked and what he didn't like and lo and behold it was EVERYTHING that liked and disliked, it was every thought I thought, he knew everything that I knew. Did he really take my gram because he needed her there more we needed her here? Did he really help me get the loan, pass a test, shoot a buck? 
I finally admitted that I could not know and I absolutely could not begin to even remotely understand the complex mind of such a Being if one does exist. I have a really decent IQ and I get baffled by talking to some super smart people. I get lost trying to watch the Steven Hawking types when they go into great depths about certain things. I nod my head like an idiot when listening to a panel talk about String Theory and those are mere mortals...how can I relate to an entity that supposedly thought up EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE,  designed each molecule and gave each atom a purpose throughout the entire Universe?? Why pretend that I know what or who did that or could do that?
I am where I am due to an ongoing process. None of it is cut and dry nor happened overnight.


----------



## GT90 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I will be 52 this year.
> From as early as I can remember until into my 20s I was taught to pray, I talked to god through prayer every night before bed, I attended Church and Sunday school. I was Baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran Protestant,  served as an acolyte, went through confirmation, I was married in a Catholic church and 2/3 of my sons graduated from a Catholic High School with one of them teaching at a Catholic middle school for a few years. I honored and respected what I was told about God and what I thought I knew and experienced about God.
> I read the bible through the 1st time after referencing it untold times. Growing up in church and with family I wondered why certain verses were always used and some were never mentioned.  After my first complete reading of the Bible a lot of it did not make sense to me. I thought OK maybe I missed something. I talked about it to family,  friends, church elders, my Pastor and was most often told to read certain passages that did not really address the concerns that I had. So I read it again. The awful really stood out to me, the contradictions stood out, the untruths stood out, the inaccuracies and historical errors stood out, I felt guilty about having those thoughts. I apologized to God nightly for feeling that way. I talked to my wife's Priest. I prayed and apologized.  Then I got it in my head that something so true has got to have evidence that backs it up so I went on a search for it. That search is ongoing. 25+ years. I've read the Bible a 3rd time. Countless times referenced. To be honest the more I read it the more it's own words had me believe in it less.
> If I had a preconceived notions it was Pro Bible, Pro God, Pro Religion. Going away from that was not a fast undertaking. For a few years I walked the line between the two and slowly made the transition to unbeliever in any one particular god or stories about god or gods but I fully admit that I Don't Know if any God or Gods exist. They might, one might, but if they do I absolutely do not know a thing about them or It except what was taught to me from an early age. Back then at times I was positive that God was with me, helped me, answered my prayers, I was certain that I knew him,, I knew what God wanted, I knew his thoughts, what he liked and what he didn't like and lo and behold it was EVERYTHING that liked and disliked, it was every thought I thought, he knew everything that I knew. Did he really take my gram because he needed her there more we needed her here? Did he really help me get the loan, pass a test, shoot a buck?
> ...



Thanks.  For me all I can say is that it would take some incontrovertible evidence to get me to change my mind.  Lesser evidence WILL get me to think though.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

GT90 said:


> Thanks.  For me all I can say is that it would take some incontrovertible evidence to get me to change my mind.  Lesser evidence WILL get me to think though.


The willingness to listen and think is a good thing.


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Right which for religious beliefs,  truth, definitions, actions etc are different than their other portions of life.



(Red highlite mine)


You see inequity? Discrepancy? _Difference? _That's as good a start as any.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> (Red highlite mine)
> 
> 
> You see inequity? Discrepancy? _Difference? _That's as good a start as any.


Definitely Maybe, Doubtfully For Sure, or Not.


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Definitely Maybe, Doubtfully For Sure, or Not.


Because you don't understand something is rarely a good cause to dismiss it.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> Because you don't understand something is rarely a good cause to dismiss it.


Give me examples. Please.

Update: Is it too late to ask for short and to the point examples?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I will be 52 this year.
> From as early as I can remember until into my 20s I was taught to pray, I talked to god through prayer every night before bed, I attended Church and Sunday school. I was Baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran Protestant,  served as an acolyte, went through confirmation, I was married in a Catholic church and 2/3 of my sons graduated from a Catholic High School with one of them teaching at a Catholic middle school for a few years. I honored and respected what I was told about God and what I thought I knew and experienced about God.
> I read the bible through the 1st time after referencing it untold times. Growing up in church and with family I wondered why certain verses were always used and some were never mentioned.  After my first complete reading of the Bible a lot of it did not make sense to me. I thought OK maybe I missed something. I talked about it to family,  friends, church elders, my Pastor and was most often told to read certain passages that did not really address the concerns that I had. So I read it again. The awful really stood out to me, the contradictions stood out, the untruths stood out, the inaccuracies and historical errors stood out, I felt guilty about having those thoughts. I apologized to God nightly for feeling that way. I talked to my wife's Priest. I prayed and apologized.  Then I got it in my head that something so true has got to have evidence that backs it up so I went on a search for it. That search is ongoing. 25+ years. I've read the Bible a 3rd time. Countless times referenced. To be honest the more I read it the more it's own words had me believe in it less.
> If I had a preconceived notions it was Pro Bible, Pro God, Pro Religion. Going away from that was not a fast undertaking. For a few years I walked the line between the two and slowly made the transition to unbeliever in any one particular god or stories about god or gods but I fully admit that I Don't Know if any God or Gods exist. They might, one might, but if they do I absolutely do not know a thing about them or It except what was taught to me from an early age. Back then at times I was positive that God was with me, helped me, answered my prayers, I was certain that I knew him,, I knew what God wanted, I knew his thoughts, what he liked and what he didn't like and lo and behold it was EVERYTHING that liked and disliked, it was every thought I thought, he knew everything that I knew. Did he really take my gram because he needed her there more we needed her here? Did he really help me get the loan, pass a test, shoot a buck?
> ...





> I felt guilty about having those thoughts.


I still do.
Even now, when participating here, a number of times the thought has popped in my head "Dude you are arguing against the existence of God. Thats just wrong".
Religious indoctrination is a VERY powerful thing.


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2021)

Do you claim by assertion: (and I'd be among the last ones to have anything against assertion)



> Right which for religious beliefs, truth, definitions, actions etc are different than their other portions of life.



that in one arena of life a "their"/they demonstrate to one form...but in another area (portions) something is seen as different?

You see an inconsistency? Is that what's being said?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> Do you claim by assertion: (and I'd be among the last ones to have anything against assertion)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see two different sets of standards even within the belief system.


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I see two different sets of standards.


OK...can we go with that? But how so...do you see the "standards" or only infer by words and actions that the standards are mulitple?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2021)

Israel said:


> OK...can we go with that? But how so...do you see the "standards" or only infer by words and actions that the standards are mulitple?


I use what is written by a certain few believers in here, which is who was being referenced in the discussion you took your quote from.


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I use what is written by a certain few believers in here, which is who was being referenced in the discussion you took your quote from.



That's fine...no matter who was being referenced...but, admittedly, for the assertion to not be baseless...you'd either have to have some knowledge of them (and their actions/words) beyond, or besides the arena in which "religious contentions" are made...and into some other portion of their life that is manifestly different or inconsistent. You may have this...or you may not. Or you may just be surmising "I know that few (or none) are living "up to" (consistent) in practice to what they preach".
And not all surmisings are wrong anymore than they are right. (And I'm not asking for any evidence you have, if you have any beyond surmisings...I am not (can't afford really) to seek investigating, or searching out beyond what is apparent here as we carry on with one another. There's more than enough for all of us to "deal with")


But, I'm an easy enough subject for that if it comes to it for matters of seeming discrepancy...even if only few...or even none know me much outside of here, I'll say, I cannot but admit, I often find myself acting/speaking contrary to the grace I see and claim. I'd say "ask my wife"...but she'd never give me up...but regardless, I find myself contending with her quite gracelessly at times...the great grands could probably also attest (less reluctantly) "Boompah sometimes really loses his temper" (shows lack of self control)...all it would take for any of this to be seen is just "time with me". You probably wouldn't need to be a fly on a wall, either, it wouldn't take any time at all for any man, if so choosing to look for discrepancies, to see them.

I think it would be far truer (and to me safer) to say _I cannot but believe _I am shown far more grace than I believe I show.

And God knows (that being said according to my persuasion) what trash I have left on the floors of some of these rooms. I don't have to "look back" far, at all.

But, ain't that funny...that thing a few lines up...that _I know_..."my wife would never give me up"...that so easily let's me testify "she's a far better person than I am"...when the very knowing of that one would think..."hey if he really knows that...doesn't that make him even more "guilty" for sometimes treating her gracelessly?" 

How can he be in such a mix...knowing someone as better...and yet treating them...even worse? I mean...if she were a wretch...maybe she could be justifiably earn some impatience or disdain (I speak as a man)...but to say someone is better...and admit they often suffer the "worse" of you...what's going on?
And let me add that "my meanness" knows so little of boundary at certain times in the very same moments _I no less know_ I dare not wish to be without her...and ergo:  so much for any thoughts or entertaining of them...that I am becoming a "better man". I may be finding out I am a much more different sort of man than I once thought...but "better" is not in the equation at all.
Gordon wrote very well recently with an encouragement to seek to love, rather than to seek to know things...for simple knowing always makes one the more "responsible" and brings an unbearable burden in that responsibility. Love...or seeking to it brings enough knowledge to singe a man to the necessity of seeking water, knowledge without it is like a fire in tinder in a desert.

The experience is that Something is both killing me...and keeping me alive at once, death in a place necessary (the thing that craves knowledge without responsibility to vaunt itself, to settle itself as it were upon a throne)...yet life in a place, to a thing made able to hear relief from that unbearable responsibility "Forgive him Father, he doesn't know what he's doing".

You may think, any man may think I have "arranged my life" according to some Biblical acceptance to know this...according to some tenets of a religion that I have determined of myself to seem true, or make true to myself, and then convinced myself. 

May I laugh? Not at you, nor any who may think this. But at the man who _I know _(and yes I know him through every proof necessary to me by his cohabitation and my constant surveillance of his self evidence) that that man...started all (and would continue if unchecked) _only, only, only..._in some (now shown vain) crazy hope of feeling better about himself, and knowing himself then to be "the better man". Oh, but it is laughable how he always falls in the same trick. "Do this...and you'll be "the best"."

But brother...if you've read this far...perhaps we can (if allowed and you are willing) talk some more tomorrow.

And clearly these matters of failings I mention would seem to more fall under a heading of moral failure as opposed to let's say "intellectual dishonesty" which is also addressable...but which by the word dishonesty, no less refers to a moral compromise.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I will be 52 this year.
> From as early as I can remember until into my 20s I was taught to pray, I talked to god through prayer every night before bed, I attended Church and Sunday school. I was Baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran Protestant,  served as an acolyte, went through confirmation, I was married in a Catholic church and 2/3 of my sons graduated from a Catholic High School with one of them teaching at a Catholic middle school for a few years. I honored and respected what I was told about God and what I thought I knew and experienced about God.
> I read the bible through the 1st time after referencing it untold times. Growing up in church and with family I wondered why certain verses were always used and some were never mentioned.  After my first complete reading of the Bible a lot of it did not make sense to me. I thought OK maybe I missed something. I talked about it to family,  friends, church elders, my Pastor and was most often told to read certain passages that did not really address the concerns that I had. So I read it again. The awful really stood out to me, the contradictions stood out, the untruths stood out, the inaccuracies and historical errors stood out, I felt guilty about having those thoughts. I apologized to God nightly for feeling that way. I talked to my wife's Priest. I prayed and apologized.  Then I got it in my head that something so true has got to have evidence that backs it up so I went on a search for it. That search is ongoing. 25+ years. I've read the Bible a 3rd time. Countless times referenced. To be honest the more I read it the more it's own words had me believe in it less.
> If I had a preconceived notions it was Pro Bible, Pro God, Pro Religion. Going away from that was not a fast undertaking. For a few years I walked the line between the two and slowly made the transition to unbeliever in any one particular god or stories about god or gods but I fully admit that I Don't Know if any God or Gods exist. They might, one might, but if they do I absolutely do not know a thing about them or It except what was taught to me from an early age. Back then at times I was positive that God was with me, helped me, answered my prayers, I was certain that I knew him,, I knew what God wanted, I knew his thoughts, what he liked and what he didn't like and lo and behold it was EVERYTHING that liked and disliked, it was every thought I thought, he knew everything that I knew. Did he really take my gram because he needed her there more we needed her here? Did he really help me get the loan, pass a test, shoot a buck?
> ...



I was thinking today about what I have found God to be like, and it occurred to me that He is nothing like the Church says, and exactly like the Church says.  So, I can very easily understand exactly what you are saying and how one could come to view things the way you do.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2021)

GT90 said:


> And herein lies what may be the rub on both sides.  How does one truly free their mind if years of belief (albeit through faith or scientific questioning), one way or the other, have been instilled into them?  If you can do it then kudos to you.  I know where I stand and it is really hard for me to be open to the other side because what I believe today has been shaped over a good amount of time (50 or so years).  I expect it would probably take a "miracle one way or the other" to get me to change my mind.





> How does one truly free their mind


I question whether a "truly free mind" is even humanly possible.
Seems like your mind would have to be completely empty, no experiences in life, never taught anything, no impact on ones emotions etc etc.
I just dont think we are wired that way.


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I question whether a "truly free mind" is even humanly possible.
> Seems like your mind would have to be completely empty, no experiences in life, never taught anything, no impact on ones emotions etc etc.
> I just dont think we are wired that way.



Wow! Yes, a dependent thing can never be free except in the very most relative sense...and what would one call relative freedom...except "not free"?


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was thinking today about what I have found God to be like, and it occurred to me that He is nothing like the Church says, and exactly like the Church says.  So, I can very easily understand exactly what you are saying and how one could come to view things the way you do.


It seems to me that the Church lays the foundation for the basics of God(so I can see why you say God is exactly like the Church says he is)and then we as individuals seem to have the ability to take the basic teachings from the Church,  mixed in with the Biblical stories and most popular verses that are used and posted for reference behind the pulpit every Sunday and we form those into our own versions of what we hope and need which often lead to experiences that do not line up with what we learned in Church(so I can see why you say that God is nothing like what the Church says). Also from what I experienced Sunday School, Church, confirmation classes rarely if ever focus on or address the magnitude of the parts of the Bible that deal with the darker sides of God, the "adult" passages, the portions that show a different side of God. If mentioned it was only mentioned quickly and onto the next verse, never expounded upon or tried to be explained.
Maybe your reasons for saying what you did above differ than mine, but that is what I have found.


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It seems to me that the Church lays the foundation for the basics of God(so I can see why you say God is exactly like the Church says he is)and then we as individuals seem to have the ability to take the basic teachings from the Church,  mixed in with the Biblical stories and most popular verses that are used and posted for reference behind the pulpit every Sunday and we form those into our own versions of what we hope and need which often lead to experiences that do not line up with what we learned in Church(so I can see why you say that God is nothing like what the Church says). Also from what I experienced Sunday School, Church, confirmation classes rarely if ever focus on or address the magnitude of the parts of the Bible that deal with the darker sides of God, the "adult" passages, the portions that show a different side of God. If mentioned it was gone mentioned quickly and onto the next verse, never expounded upon or tried to be explained.
> Maybe your reasons for saying what you did above differ than mine, but that is what I have found.


 It is not without reason Jesus said "Ye search the scriptures believing in them you have eternal life...but..."


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2021)

It seems a paradox till one is in the experiment, how that the thing that absolutely refuses to acknowledge its (even most basic and self evident) dependence can never be free, but a thing made able to see its total and irrefutable dependence, can BE.

Some men yet think such "cannot be", but I testify He is.

Being.

All praise and glory to God who has created the witness chair. It's big...and unendingly full of wonder...not even a hint of it ever becoming boring.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Well, it was nice while it lasted.


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2021)

Don't stop...have at it bro! Into the breach!


----------



## hummerpoo (May 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I question whether a "truly free mind" is even humanly possible.
> Seems like your mind would have to be completely empty, no experiences in life, never taught anything, no impact on ones emotions etc etc.
> I just dont think we are wired that way.


I agree totally.  But that isn't really "tabula rasa" is it.  There are still at least two origins to be discovered: the tablet and the writing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2021)

Israel said:


> It seems a paradox till one is in the experiment, how that the thing that absolutely refuses to acknowledge its (even most basic and self evident) dependence can never be free, but a thing made able to see its total and irrefutable dependence, can BE.
> 
> Some men yet think such "cannot be", but I testify He is.



XXXXZACKLY.  It’s completely counter-intuitive: victory through complete surrender, freedom through submission.  It’s completely crazy , nonsensical and absurd ........until you experience it, but you can’t get wet until you get in the water and that starts with a decision to throw out what everyone says about it and try it for yourself.  No pretense.  No expectations.  Just complete honesty between you and Him with desire for the truth as He will express Himself to you.


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> XXXXZACKLY.  It’s completely counter-intuitive: victory through complete surrender, freedom through submission.  It’s completely crazy , nonsensical and absurd ........until you experience it, but you can’t get wet until you get in the water and that starts with a decision to throw out what everyone says about it and try it for yourself.  No pretense.  No expectations.  Just complete honesty between you and Him with desire for the truth as He will express Himself to you.


The problem, though, is for some there is no “him” to surrender to. It’s impossible to completely surrender to anything unless you have some form of a connection with it. How can One that doesn’t feel a drawing from God surrender to him?

Even myself and you, we surrendered but not until we felt......


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The problem, though, is for some there is no “him” to surrender to. It’s impossible to completely surrender to anything unless you have some form of a connection with it. How can One that doesn’t feel a drawing from God surrender to him?
> 
> Even myself and you, we surrendered but not until we felt......



I think, again off my experience only, is that all it takes is an sincere desire and an open mind. He’s pretty good at filling in the rest of the blanks.  I had to toss out a LOT of what I “thought” I knew which in hindsight was just a bunch of religiosity crap.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Guys just take this as an example of what I am talking about and nothing personal.
https://www.quora.com/I-love-Shiva-...-Vishnu-I-am-not-against-Vishnu-I-respect-him


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/gajendras_prayers_of_surrender_to_vishnu.htm


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The problem, though, is for some there is no “him” to surrender to. It’s impossible to completely surrender to anything unless you have some form of a connection with it. How can One that doesn’t feel a drawing from God surrender to him?
> 
> Even myself and you, we surrendered but not until we felt......


Do you think that the Hindus feel Vishnu? Have a connection with Vishnu and connect to and feel the other Hindu gods the same way Christians do once they surrender to Jesus?
Are their experiences any different?


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2021)

I believe I came to my sincerest of mind when it was forced upon me to know I had no sincerity to even offer. I had a totally insincere mind...thinking. Yikes Talk about a loaded scatter gun...so much to be learned of ricochets.


Danger Will Robinson, danger.

If someone couldn't offer me sincerity (do we need to rehash the already plowed up ground..."ultimately no man can be trusted...in things ultimate"?) all is lost. And I was pressed to include myself there, as no man to be trusted.

(Lord, but I am not like other men! I am the one who really, really, really, wants to be trusted)

OK...we have an app for that...(how to make a man know...for his own good...he is common man) the showing of cost to be found "faithful". (Oh how common for men to think themselves trustworthy, honest...and exempt themselves for any need of salvation)

Jesus tells us how the sausage is made, yet more; He demonstrates through His own body of flesh. He's not shy, yet not rude...He's not ignorant...but will not pretend to "not know" to soften entrance...quite plain that not only is His being not one of a many "questionable" matters, or maker for interesting conversation only...He is the question above all questions, the supreme and only worthy question for answer.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

He tells us who He is...and we cannot help, cannot avoid our learning of any and all shelter we once hoped lie in being dodgy, clever, smart, intelligent...for all these things fold here...going so far beyond "Gee, I wonder what answer would be best to give Him, what answer does He want...?" "Can I do a little calculating...?" Each man inescapably answers...

That old saw about a how a good lawyer never asks a question of which he does not already have the answer...we can play "law" court with Him as much as we care to...or better...are allowed...dragging in witnesses to "other gods", other ways, other things...but...He's not budging as to who and what He is. And it's not our testimony that establishes Him...it is an honor given us to testify of _His testifying to_ "and the glory thou hast given me I have given them"...and only a man glorying in himself cannot see it...no matter his words.

Believest thou this?  Lord...you know all things...


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Do you think that the Hindus feel Vishnu? Have a connection with Vishnu and connect to and feel the other Hindu gods the same way Christians do once they surrender to Jesus?
> Are their experiences any different?


I absolutely think they feel and connect.

But it comes with a caveat - for the Christian, anything that’s not of God is of the devil.

So to deny their experience would be wrong, they’re really experiencing it, but the Christian says it’s not the source they think it is.

When the devil tempted Jesus it’s also symbolic to say that everything you see that is of God, I can offer it to you, too - deception.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I absolutely think they feel and connect.
> 
> But it comes with a caveat - for the Christian, anything that’s not of God is of the devil.
> 
> ...


Do you know how insane that sounds to a non Christian? Not even so much that you can dismiss theirs as being false but that you can blame another specific source that has god like powers over them.
It opens an entire new can of worms regarding God loving his creation vs allowing Satan to "do" as he pleases...but...


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Do you know how insane that sounds to a non Christian? Not even so much that you can dismiss theirs as being false but that you can blame another specific source that has god like powers over them.
> It opens an entire new can of worms regarding God loving his creation vs allowing Satan to "do" as he pleases...but...


Yes, I do. And, 2 Corinthians 4:3 & 4. I don’t believe we are robots. I don’t believe Satan can do as he pleases - Story of Job. But I believe our choices can determine how much “freedom” satan has.

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes, I do. And, 2 Corinthians 4:3 & 4. I don’t believe we are robots. I don’t believe Satan can do as he pleases - Story of Job. But I believe our choices can determine how much “freedom” satan has.
> 
> But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
> 
> In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


You guys are losing me with the scripture regurgitation. 
Like surrendering...it isn't unique. 
The holy verses from many religions include similar instructions about how theirs is the only true one and how the others are blinded.

We know all that already and expect the program to praise the home team.


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You guys are losing me with the scripture regurgitation.
> Like surrendering...it isn't unique.
> The holy verses from many religions include similar instructions about how theirs is the only true one and how the others are blinded.
> 
> We know all that already and expect the program to praise the home team.


What else do you think a Christian will use? The Muslim isn’t going to use the Christian Bible. You get a scripture and an explanation because you’re looking for the “why” I believe what I do. 

But for any believer in any religion - do you realize how insane it is for non believers to ignore scriptures? (And that includes the Christian ignoring the Muslin)

I’m not and wasn’t claiming a home team, I was only giving a Christian view to your question.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> What else do you think a Christian will use? The Muslim isn’t going to use the Christian Bible.


Hence my Home Team Program reference 



Spotlite said:


> But for any believer in any religion - do you realize how insane it is for non believers to ignore scriptures? (And that includes the Christian ignoring the Muslin)


Yes I do, and why I always say none are unique, none stand out as being any more truthful as the next and why it is so easy to whip each other into killing frenzies over arguing Who's Dad is tougher.



Spotlite said:


> I’m not and wasn’t claiming a home team, I was only giving a Christian view to your question.


We all are familiar with the Christians views.  I am in search of someone who can take those views and explain why they are more truthful or different than the next guys.


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Hence my Home Team Program reference
> 
> 
> Yes I do, and why I always say none are unique, none stand out as being any more truthful as the next and why it is so easy to whip each other into killing frenzies over arguing Who's Dad is tougher.
> ...


Yes, but I wasn’t saying, or at least didn’t want to appear as saying I got it right and they got it wrong. I was simply addressing your question “Do you think that the Hindus feel Vishnu?”  And gave an explanation of why I don’t dismiss their “experience”.

Any Christian that attempts to explain what you are now asking is automatically guilty of the “Home Team Program” and I don’t know what they’ll use to explain why “I’m more truthful” without using scriptures.

I will pass on this one because it’s an impossible task with the set parameters.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes, but I wasn’t saying, or at least didn’t want to appear as saying I got it right and they got it wrong. I was simply addressing your question “Do you think that the Hindus feel Vishnu?”  And gave an explanation of why I don’t dismiss their “experience”.
> 
> Any Christian that attempts to explain what you are now asking is automatically guilty of the “Home Team Program” and I don’t know what they’ll use to explain why “I’m more truthful” without using scriptures.
> 
> I will pass on this one because it’s an impossible task with the set parameters.


Do you ever wonder why the TRUTH would an impossible task to include into an explanation regardless of parameters?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think, again off my experience only, is that all it takes is an sincere desire and an open mind. He’s pretty good at filling in the rest of the blanks.  I had to toss out a LOT of what I “thought” I knew which in hindsight was just a bunch of religiosity crap.


Maybe thats the difference between you and former Christians turned A/As such as myself.
You tossed out the religiosity crap but remained convinced God was still there, he just wasnt as you were told.
When we (I) tossed out the religiosity crap we (I) also suspended the belief in Gods existence. Why? Because it was "religiosity" that said he existed. Never having had a "come to Jesus" experience, thats all there was.
Thats why now we (I) cant/wont just take man's word for it.
Its gotta come from the Head Honcho himself.
As Bullet has said many times - He knows where we are at and could easily convince us.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I absolutely think they feel and connect.
> 
> But it comes with a caveat - for the Christian, anything that’s not of God is of the devil.
> 
> ...





> So to deny their experience would be wrong, they’re really experiencing it, but the Christian says it’s not the source they think it is.


Hey now, that sure sounds alot like when we A/As dont deny you guys have had an "experience" but we question if its the source you think it is


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2021)

M


Spotlite said:


> The problem, though, is for some there is no “him” to surrender to.



Well the first person everyone has to surrender to is their ‘self’ and everyone has one of those.  That gets ‘self’ out of the way, but that is THE major problem for most.  It was for me and every other believer I think I have ever met.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe thats the difference between you and former Christians turned A/As such as myself.
> You tossed out the religiosity crap but remained convinced God was still there, he just wasnt as you were told.
> When we (I) tossed out the religiosity crap we (I) also suspended the belief in Gods existence. Why? Because it was "religiosity" that said he existed. Never having had a "come to Jesus" experience, thats all there was.
> Thats why now we (I) cant/wont just take man's word for it.
> ...



Makes sense, just bear in mind whose place it is to do the looking.  If I read you correctly, you possibly threw the baby out with the bath water.  If that’s a possibility and there’s no baby.....


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2021)

Is anyone guaranteed to find Jesus if they give it an honest attempt, even over years?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Is anyone guaranteed to find Jesus if they give it an honest attempt, even over years?



I think so. That’s based off my personal experience. There are some (very few) radicals out there that hold that some are predestined for Hades no matter what, but that view goes against the entire narrative of scripture as I read it.  It’s another useless debate I won’t venture into and is a debate that exists between believers so would be inappropriate down here


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Makes sense, just bear in mind whose place it is to do the looking.  If I read you correctly, you possibly threw the baby out with the bath water.  If that’s a possibility and there’s no baby.....


I wont deny thats certainly a possibility.


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey now, that sure sounds alot like when we A/As dont deny you guys have had an "experience" but we question if its the source you think it is


Yes Sir! Very true!


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey now, that sure sounds alot like when we A/As dont deny you guys have had an "experience" but we question if its the source you think it is


Fortunately, having an Atheist cousin I get to hear it all.

But Christians are just as skeptical to all those others as Atheists are to Christianity. 

Most Christians don’t realize that the early Christians were considered Atheists because they didn’t believe in the Roman gods. 

My cousin calls me a backslid Atheist some days. Other days he says he’s a little more atheister than I am because he took it one God further lol.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Fortunately, having an Atheist cousin I get to hear it all.
> 
> But Christians are just as skeptical to all those others as Atheists are to Christianity.
> 
> ...





> Most Christians don’t realize that the early Christians were considered Atheists because they didn’t believe in the Roman gods.


A couple years ago I seriously offended a good Christian friend of mine for sharing that ^ with him. Fortunately he did a little research on it and found the same info and forgave me for saying such an insulting thing . We are still good friends.


----------



## Spotlite (May 5, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> A couple years ago I seriously offended a good Christian friend of mine for sharing that ^ with him. Fortunately he did a little research on it and found the same info and forgave me for saying such an insulting thing . We are still good friends.


Yea life is too short to hold grudges. Glad it worked out for y’all. Good friends are hard to come by.


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> A couple years ago I seriously offended a good Christian friend of mine for sharing that ^ with him. Fortunately he did a little research on it and found the same info and forgave me for saying such an insulting thing . We are still good friends.


K-k-k-k-k-kinda strange how it all works. Offense in our sense of "rightness" and all.

It's easy for me to imagine that brother had some issue with being identified with his earlier brothers as being labeled atheists. This matter of a christian being able to identify with, or labeled as an atheist, is pretty strong stuff, or could be. I mean if someone's christianity also holds for them the promise..."at least I am not like those guys" (finding atheists odious)...to have that ground shaken shakes all the way to the top.

Wherever we are invested to a thing, or however we are invested to that thing upon which we build...once it gets shook the: "I am this and not like that"...we get...shook. The impetus for a man to "be" a thing may come as much from desire to not appear as another thing...(fleeing it)...as it may from attraction to a thing.

People run from fire as surely as they run...when running...for an Olympic medal. The motions are the same...though the goals seem outwardly different and may even be offered as different. But even the guy running for Olympic gold (as though toward a thing) may be running...and_ only _running _from _his notion of failure if he doesn't get it.

I dun lotsa dat runnin'. Still do to whatever extent. Thinking I am running towards...when just running away _from. _Repentance shines...as gift (though a seeming religious term) but most men understand how important and what things are then shown important, in being made able to have one's mind changed. Course corrections abound. How often learning is no more than being disabused of previously held axioms as it is gaining _new info_. The taking away of lies/errors is no less valuable than seeing "new" truths added.

Ask a mechanic who'd never deny "righty tighty lefty loosey" but who also has learned when dealing with a rusted bolt the efficacy of a first little nudge to the right (as though tightening, in all counter intuitiveness) may be more help than 10 cans of PB Blaster. It doesn't dis-annul right tighty...but only that in certain circumstances of moment...and for very precise reasons...it really works.

And I understand (to some extent) how we are all (to whatever extent in depending upon how we see ourselves and devoted to that maintenance) always on the alert for the "slipping in" of matters that are, to us, contrary. Watch for the worm in the apple! Or as Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris were once in contentions...the waiting and watching for the "one side" to seek to slip Jesus (Jesus smuggling) into the arguments.

How much of all our "running" is to be made clear to us...am I running from appearing like a smug and hypocritical christian...who can't prove to me satisfactorily (so I say) this thing he says he is running toward? And (LOL...God forbid) I look like him!

Am I running from appearing like a smug and hypocritical atheist, who says I won't believe anything that can't be proven materially...from a consciousness he claims he has, and in him, but were he asked to show...to prove he "has it"...would be no less at some loss? Is it "I think therefore I am"? Only? What about rocks then...do they "exist less?" Or will one show "rock thinking" to establish it also has being?

Running lawfully ain't so small a matter as we might *think*. (Even though this might appear instantly recognized as some form of Jesus smuggling cause some fellow phrased it such "in the Bible") But, leave that out, you can't cut across the field to win in the Olympics either, and be recognized as a "true" competitor. Or seek to bump one off the track using tactics one may decry as illegitimate...when the one decrying no less uses them.

And of course this all breaks down immediately when we see we aren't competing against one another...but only in ourselves....to find consistency to peace. There's no "heaven" awaiting a man who triumphs over his brother, (thinking this what all running is for) nor a **** awaiting a man who learns submission to his brother...as though that is conceding to all unrighteousness. (B-b-b-b-but Lord, I am not like him! and don't want to be...!)

Jesus says some stuff that, if the christian is to run "fairly"/legitimately...he might ignore...due to an ignorance of, but would be foolish to deny.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the _world_ to come.

Things that a christian may find offensive to an extreme...even the most base deriding of Jesus Christ...shall be forgiven. The other matter no man need concern him self with (and surely not the one claiming Christ)...that door is beyond his care for either opening or closing. Yes, that's a very strong assertion by Jesus Christ. Without apology for it. Without explanation of it. And God forbid any man dare another to "go there".

But...one may learn there's a spirit that furiously lusts after that. To bring man to irremediable dam*ation. He absolutely hates Jesus as fount of salvation made through His unswerving righteousness...for it is all that speaks against him, this father of lies...the righteousness of God. The rightness of God of which he has none.
And the christian is rightly taught to a reminder..."we wrestle not with flesh and blood..."

Of course this may engender far more many why's than any seeming answer. But whatever God does, in and with the creation to show Himself...is all and only His business. It's kinda funny how every man just presumes "I should be" (for being is all he has ever known)...but is ready to accuse the same God that causes his being...for doing whatever he cares to in any regard. It's really a bit more than funny...absurd...to, on the grounds of "being", find place to accuse the one who gives being. Shall the clay say to the potter...?

But...it's really not enough for a man to "_really not want_" to appear absurd, ignorant, hypocritical, foolish, false, or a liar...even unloving or uncaring. _Man's want _to flee these (yes even dam*ation)...must and can only be received...given as gift...for until revealed...no man knows. No man can believe he is in judgment, nor that there is an eternal one to be fled...unless one reveal to him. God shows through Christ the nature of the things man only perceives as very derived sort of matters he might not want part with. Yep, only God shows what true absurdity is. The true nature of ignorance, hypocrisy, lying...to even the true nature of death. All the things we merely touch in metaphor...until.

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him...

Note Jesus did not say "agree with my adversary..." but thine. If their be any false equating of my experience of adversary as "any man who opposes me must also be in opposition to the Lord"...well...only God through Christ can show the true nature of falsehood. But just as likewise...if it's not really "me" being opposed...but you Lord...you're also the only one knowing that...and you know how to handle yourself.
Either way...it's quite out of a man's hands.

To take offense does not prove offense is there...just that there's a thing willing to "take it". And to be willing to accept or forgive offense...does not mean it is inconsequential. Quite the contrary "for the christian"...for he is learning the power necessary of being borne long with...and learning to "consider the patience of God as salvation" no less than the mercy extended toward a thing that does not know "what it does".

I'm pretty sure most of us have very decent IQ's...so decent we are capable of being shown they mean absolutely nothing in these matters. Likewise our piety, our devotions, our own measures of ourselves that we might rely on to "tell us anything".

That rock of offense upsets me no less than any other. Thanks be to God. I must be "up" set.








How can one smuggle what so obviously upsets...and is purposed to...everyone?

Disturbed much?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2021)

Israel said:


> K-k-k-k-k-kinda strange how it all works. Offense in our sense of "rightness" and all.
> 
> It's easy for me to imagine that brother had some issue with being identified with his earlier brothers as being labeled atheists. This matter of a christian being able to identify with, or labeled as an atheist, is pretty strong stuff, or could be. I mean if someone's christianity also holds for them the promise..."at least I am not like those guys" (finding atheists odious)...to have that ground shaken shakes all the way to the top.
> 
> ...





> It's easy for me to imagine that brother had some issue with being identified with his earlier brothers as being labeled atheists.


Yes. Interestingly, he was suprised at his own reaction (being offended) as he knew there was really no reason to be. So I think he learned a little something about himself. For my part, I could have easily been offended by his offence. Fortunately I understood why he was "triggered" by it.
In the end, our respect for each other and the value we each placed on our friendship won the day.


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2021)

Just a question.

Is intellectual dishonesty different than any other form of dishonesty=not honest=liar?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 6, 2021)

Israel said:


> Just a question.
> 
> Is intellectual dishonesty different than any other form of dishonesty=not honest=liar?


As I understand  the definition of intellectual dishonesty, it does not technically = telling a lie.


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2021)

Israel said:


> I'm pretty sure most of us have very decent IQ's...so decent we are capable of being shown they mean absolutely nothing in these matters.





Israel said:


> Just a question.
> Is intellectual dishonesty different than any other form of dishonesty=not honest=liar?


Well.....


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Well.....



Well...what?


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> As I understand  the definition of intellectual dishonesty, it does not technically = telling a lie.


Then would it be contingent upon speaking from a dishonest intellect?


----------



## Spotlite (May 6, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Well.....





Israel said:


> Well...what?



Shortest replies ever to one another


----------



## Israel (May 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Shortest replies ever to one another




I'd have to ask if that stands...because I see inclusion of two quotes. It might still be short...but shortest, I am not yet convinced.

(But I appreciate your being engaged)


----------



## Spotlite (May 7, 2021)

Israel said:


> I'd have to ask if that stands...because I see inclusion of two quotes. It might still be short...but shortest, I am not yet convinced.
> 
> (But I appreciate your being engaged)


You’re most likely correct. 

On a serious note, I always get something out of reading your post - that one was just hard to pass up without throwing a little sarcasm in


----------



## Israel (May 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You’re most likely correct.
> 
> On a serious note, I always get something out of reading your post - that one was just hard to pass up without throwing a little sarcasm in


No, you may be entirely correct!

And I didn't find it sarcastic...maybe at best only facetious...but the more important matter to me is that you are observant. Following. Engaged.

It seems I am now always pressed to seek out a consciousness that in its own true consistency...can then unbiased-ly recognizes difference. Where distinction is not at all confusing in it.

My always present caveat now, even when I most want to refuse to acknowledge or am tempted to denial "Do I only see difference because I want to?" Whose corollary is no less "Do I only seek to find same or "like"ness...only _where I want to?"_

Do you see how this manifestly calls for a referee's intervention?

(But that is another question altogether)

Edited with note of being edited post Spotlite's acknowledgment.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> You’re most likely correct.
> 
> On a serious note, I always get something out of reading your post - that one was just hard to pass up without throwing a little sarcasm in


I'll be honest, 90% of Israel's posts go straight over my head. It generally takes me days to decipher them. But the 10% I can figure out always has some really good stuff that makes the effort worthwhile.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 7, 2021)

Scripture relates in many narratives The Error of the need to know ( making good sense of what is to know ie: wisdom or seeking wisdom) as prerequisite  to the need to live as if  knowledge must beget "real" living. Therefore seeking in scripture as if it was a source to give  knowledge, above all else, is not correct according to scripture. What scripture teaches above all else is that life and the common need of living must be the motivations to making sense or getting wholesome meaning of what scripture teaches.

If wisely God does not make sense as we read scripture --than perhaps our motivation (  our optic)  is incorrectly calibrated and making sense of God or making things clear are impossible or at least cause for nervous insecurity or anxiety.
'
'The appeal of scripture is not a call to the all in all or as one in wisdom, but it is a call to the all in all in a life synonymous with love. Is spirituality's appeal that man be wise or that it love or at least be compassionate? The motivation to best understand the purpose of scripture must be in seeking life and not so much wisdom. Wisdom is full of rabbit holes,  human life naturally fights for its day in the sun.
'
'If God is impossible because scripture makes him impossible than our motivation in reading scripture or knowing God might be questionable.


" Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Ask yourself why should one man get rocks when he asks and another gets grapes? I suggest that a possible answer is that one man's motivation was to acquire knowledge, to understand and another's was to live most fully.



-------------------

Many remarkable philosophers are not believers. It seems that rigorous thinking has its zenith that God might appear a man made creation or a fabrication made within man's nature. Add this to the ways of reading scripture that seem in error to me as I have indicated and a man can sink in unbelief or misunderstanding.

On the other hand there is a witness in the Jesus narrative that God can both be within and without man or that possibly God and man are not poles apart but our motivation-optics might make this seem so-- even to the point of denying the pole said God. Wisdom as man can know it just might dismiss God out of life-- but life as man can know it might just re-invite Him in.

' Perhaps too simply: When we seek wisdom we seek to understand ourselves, when we seek life we include an creator  or spirit outside and part of ourselves.


----------



## Spotlite (May 7, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I'll be honest, 90% of Israel's posts go straight over my head. It generally takes me days to decipher them. But the 10% I can figure out always has some really good stuff that makes the effort worthwhile.


I’m going home and trying to decipher this tax headache lol.

I just gave someone’s stimulus check back to the IRS. 

I’m not about to go start buying stuff to pay taxes on to have enough deductions lol.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


>


I wasn't asking a question.
It was more of a muttered expression along the lines of a head tilt towards the two seemingly contradictory quotes depending upon whether or not Izzy was asking Walt's opinion with the question or if Izzy did not know the answer to the question.


----------



## Spotlite (May 7, 2021)

CarolinaDawg said:


> My friend, have you ever hit the pause button long enough to ponder why you are spending so much of your time fighting against someone who you believe isn’t there?
> If you are completely convinced Jesus Christ isn’t who He said he was/is and the Bible isn’t the living word of God, what’s the point of anything at all?


You have to consider more than just that ^^^^
Christianity has a great impact on everything that we are (history / future) as a society regardless if you’re a believer or a non believer. 

If the shoe was turned, you and I would be asking / searching / questioning the Muslims about Allah.


----------



## Israel (May 8, 2021)

Confuse'us say:

"If a man is not content if found to be speaking only to himself, he surely has no right to speak to anyone else.

First reconcile with that which knows and can disclose if one is...only speaking to one's self."

I had no hope nor expectation of answer in the question about intellectual honesty/dishonesty...nor was it particularly addressed to Walt as I didn't post anything of reply with quote of former conversation. It was "just a question".  But I am glad he was willing to field it...and found a lot of help (toward clarity) in his answer.

Confuse'us also say perhaps nothing less than this name has been so rightly earned and applied.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 8, 2021)

Just my take.

I think "intellectual dishonesty" is lying to yourself.

If one knows that what he are saying will not hold up under close scrutiny, which we often see of in politics, and elsewhere, when something is advocated knowing that only an infinitesimal portion of the hearers, to whom it is targeted, will investigate, or will even care if it is true if it sounds good to them; that is a lie.

If one is aware that he has not sufficiently informed himself to advocate for the position taken, or has utilized information that he has not identified as insufficiently investigated; that is "intellectual dishonesty".

It is my opinion that a large portion of what we read and hear, and a large portion of what we write and say, in this life, qualifies for one of these categories.  Just look at my opening sentence, it disqualifies all that I have said from being reliable.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2021)

Israel said:


> Just a question.
> 
> Is intellectual dishonesty different than any other form of dishonesty=not honest=liar?


Confuse'us state it is a question, then Confuse'us ask question.


> I had no hope nor expectation of answer in the question about intellectual honesty/dishonesty


Confuse'us now state that he no expect answer.

Confuse'us Confuse Us


----------



## Israel (May 8, 2021)

To ask a question without the presumption it is a worthy question...and therefore need be answered by anyone else just because it is posited...just my take...is something I am only beginning to learn. Who has any right of expectation of any other (no more nor less)_ free agent_...that because he asks a question it must be answered...he _must be_...answered? If answer is given...it is a given thing, but it's only a fool who thinks the compelling to respond is made his own. If I am free to ask...what bond can I cast to force answer? My freedom is _all contingent upon_ it being real, _and that_ for any. It is not "made true" by my believing it, the truth "of it" is what causes me to believe...liberty _is there. _He is. Jesus is Lord.

To be set free to be ignored is a great freedom indeed. Especially a man as me...who has so long operated from "_my being _deserves answer." And all the churning and striving that has accompanied such to manifest testimony...that being was/is not enough. There was always something sought to modify...to prop up as it were...not seeing how "propped up" my being already is/was.

If a "being" is not content to be without its own addition of qualifier "successful being", "smart/intelligent being", "pious or devout being", even "being able to provoke or compel to answer" of whatever form to itself finds appealing...by seeking so it is only seeking to nullify itself by trying to prove itself, to itself...as such. Men who oppose themselves...and in all unable to either see or say with any conviction "I am what I am by the grace of God".

I used to think that was reserved for the far advanced, the adept, the inner of the inner circle...who have by such efforts have ascended to such, when it is merely the man who somewhere along the descent off his mountain of pride...simply finds it. God knows it might be found in taking the only true..step, half step, quarter step...or mere seeing with intent (as a given thing) to step down off the dun* heap upon which he stands in himself. God knows. And it may well be the only thing first given that even initiates any following "true motions". No step...required. Just seeing a thing given. That cannot be mistaken for a thing produced by the man from demand.

Having seen something of the Lord's patience toward a thing (such as myself) in ignoring questions so long overlooked, yet given to be as gift when found in my own process of picking and choosing upon what I might focus to assure my standing (God being gentle toward _my own_ processes...but not without an unyielding firmness to intent of salvation) like a thing come across when rummaging for things of utility...a more useful thing is found than could have been previously considered.

A question:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

What a question!

Lord, you know.

Why?

Teach me if you will to. And may I have stillness please...to hear?

He is easily entreated.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2021)

Israel said:


> To ask a question without the presumption it is a worthy question...and therefore need be answered by anyone else just because it is posited...just my take...is something I am only beginning to learn. Who has any right of expectation of any other (no more nor less)_ free agent_...that because he asks a question it must be answered...he _must be_...answered? If answer is given...it is a given thing, but it's only a fool who thinks the compelling to respond is made his own. If I am free to ask...what bond can I cast to force answer? My freedom is _all contingent upon_ it being real, _and that_ for any. It is not "made true" by my believing it, the truth "of it" is what causes me to believe...liberty _is there. _He is. Jesus is Lord.
> 
> To be set free to be ignored is a great freedom indeed. Especially a man as me...who has so long operated from "_my being _deserves answer." And all the churning and striving that has accompanied such to manifest testimony...that being was/is not enough. There was always something sought to modify...to prop up as it were...not seeing how "propped up" my being already is/was.
> 
> ...


Makes sense if you are alone, or in a place not geared towards asking and answering questions as part of the subject being discussed. You may be right if a person was asking questions at the DMV about cake recipes etc.
But when you are in a place designed for discussion the asking and answering of questions is part of the dialog. It is encouraged and expected.
If you are in school you would expect questions to be asked and answered regardless of presumption.
A dumb question is one that is not asked.
But none of this has anything to do with why I replied "well....". 
I replied "well..." because it was an opening to insert a funny reply after linking two of your quotes which to me were contradictory together.

In the words of Sgt Hulka, Lighten up Francis.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Makes sense if you are alone, or in a place not geared towards asking and answering questions as part of the subject being discussed. You may be right if a person was asking questions at the DMV about cake recipes etc.
> But when you are in a place designed for discussion the asking and answering of questions is part of the dialog. It is encouraged and expected.
> If you are in school you would expect questions to be asked and answered regardless of presumption.
> A dumb question is one that is not asked.
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2021)

I have not gone through every post, yet. The bigger question I see is why do peopl


bullethead said:


> From:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-04/christians-heaven-****-soul
> (Replace the **** with the double hockey stix in the link)
> 
> "Billions of Christians around the world believe that on Easter, Jesus was raised from the dead and taken up to heaven to live with God. They also believe that when they die, their own souls will go to heaven. The great irony is that this is not at all what Jesus himself believed.


It's been awhile since I read Erhman's books, however, what comes to mind, first and foremost, of all that I have forgotten about his books is that bart is misrepresented on most levels. Mostly by one liners distributed by those who have not read his work. Being a believing apologist that I am, I have to know the arguments rather than simply say that he is incorrect.

 In 90% of cases, given the context, Erhman is correct in the context of which he states something. Bart never states what he believes. Ever. He simply as a historian, as historians do, he states what he derives is going on, based on the limited but broad sources of info, from the time period he is referring to, and he gives us that information, as history, that we may never have known, had it not been for someone, whom is paid by someone, an organization, etc, giving him the means to devote his time, to dig deep enough, to actually get all the pertinent info. 

One of Erhman books, he actually , as a historian, built the case, that Jesus did exist, and was not a mystical figure. We have to remember that although Bart has made his living from these books and the opposite attraction to them, he is in no way trying to recruit disbelief.


----------



## Israel (May 9, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Just my take.
> 
> I think "intellectual dishonesty" is lying to yourself.
> 
> ...



Of the many scriptures that come to mind...and the myriad that do not as readily...(but are surely there, as you, or one might say _for the investigating_  if one "even care") your thoughts provoke me to consideration of at least these.

"Let God be true and every man a liar" (In its exquisite context)

The heart _is_ deceitful above all _things_, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

These _things_ hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether _such an one_ as thyself: _but_ I will reprove thee, and set _them_ in order before thine eyes.

And Jesus' testimony of Satan's seeking Him (Jesus) out to provocation:

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.


Under duress a man will say most anything to save his skin, as men "under the influence"... drunk with whatever power they have presumed is theirs to exert to extraction from others strive toward bringing another into their own condemnation. The prince of this world could not cause Jesus to fear, to be ashamed, duplicitous, nor abandon the word of truth for which he was being tried and tested; for the mercy and grace in the gospel.

If mercy has anything in it made subject to demand or demand-able by anything of earned nature, we know it then cannot be mercy. And if the grace of God has not appeared in manifestation to all men

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Then Paul's claim of being an:

apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior...

is not true. Bringing all and everything else he had said into question, and rightly, of being mere fabrication...product of intellectual dishonesty. Claiming an intelligence in knowledge of things put forth as to his having, that are not. As there _is true intelligence...for a time _there is false, one eternal, one not and caught and trapped by time:

Therefore rejoice, _ye_ heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.




And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

It is in all how the evil one seeks to bring into question "Hath God said...?" which for his purpose is not the establishing of reminder...but doubt. More dishonesty under some guise of legitimacy in speaking. Yet, how this all has worked, and works perfectly to God's eternal purpose however, for the revelation of Jesus Christ...( a question) 

Are we all not to be assured?

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...is as completed in moment in that same moment as "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" manifested in these last days for us. A something as there from the beginning which for God's purpose another thing was given to see only (the first man of earth) for such time and till such time, ...that the glories of the second man of heaven (of whom is testified)

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared _him_. 

Be revealed. 

A difference.

And it is only because I know what I see in a man claiming "no reliability _of himself_"




> it disqualifies all that _I have said_ from being reliable.


 italics mine

regardless of words said, I have faith to speak with you. For I hear in the testimony against oneself as the _true speaker..._the knowledge of the One who is. 

Even if I only be found...speaking _of myself...and _even to only myself. The faith found in the love of Christ...covers much. Faith is all and only...legitimacy for speech _among men._ To the even covering of lawlessness when discovered so.




> You see inequity? Discrepancy? _Difference? _That's as good a start as any.



We who see the difference between the man of heaven and the man of earth...have found that as good a start as any, knowing such sight of difference is a gift.

I see you brother, no less as I see Paul. Not due to any even miraculous claim of conversion (though I do not find him false in that at all of his road to Damascus)...but because in following his words I see a _different working. _A working that compels agreement by not denying experience.

Flattery which God knows I _have loved to no immunity _requires the most skilled physician. I see Him in visit to your house also and you as as one who unashamedly opens the door.

Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten. It is a terrible thing to fear rebuke and chastening in excess of longing for the manifestation of His love.

Christ knows all the difference between "I must know you as you say you are"...and "I demand you prove yourself."


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2021)

Perfect Example


----------



## WaltL1 (May 9, 2021)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have not gone through every post, yet. The bigger question I see is why do peopl
> It's been awhile since I read Erhman's books, however, what comes to mind, first and foremost, of all that I have forgotten about his books is that bart is misrepresented on most levels. Mostly by one liners distributed by those who have not read his work. Being a believing apologist that I am, I have to know the arguments rather than simply say that he is incorrect.
> 
> In 90% of cases, given the context, Erhman is correct in the context of which he states something. Bart never states what he believes. Ever. He simply as a historian, as historians do, he states what he derives is going on, based on the limited but broad sources of info, from the time period he is referring to, and he gives us that information, as history, that we may never have known, had it not been for someone, whom is paid by someone, an organization, etc, giving him the means to devote his time, to dig deep enough, to actually get all the pertinent info.
> ...


Howdy blder, good to see you jump in again!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2021)

="WaltL1, post: 12824593, member: 27957"]Howdy blder, good to see you jump in again![/QUOTE]I refrain as much as I can. LOL, had a long streak going there


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2021)

Does anyone know who said/wrote this:

For this assignment I have been asked to argue the following thesis: The New Testament Gospels are not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, they provide no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

This thesis sounds terribly negative, but I want to start on a very positive note. Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2021)

Israel said:


> Does anyone know who said/wrote this:
> 
> For this assignment I have been asked to argue the following thesis: The New Testament Gospels are not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, they provide no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
> 
> This thesis sounds terribly negative, but I want to start on a very positive note. Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.






Full disclosure - I didt know until about 5 minutes ago. Provides a good perspective though.


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2021)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2021)

> Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life,


I like that ^ statement. No dependency on whether its fact or fiction. No "to believe this you must believe that". No "if you believe this is right you must believe that is wrong" etc.
Wish it was "all" left that simple.


----------



## Spotlite (May 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I like that ^ statement. No dependency on whether its fact or fiction. No "to believe this you must believe that". No "if you believe this is right you must believe that is wrong" etc.
> Wish it was "all" left that simple.


I once stated on here that an Atheist (my cousin) stated that the Bible has some good and decent ethics in it to live by and how to treat your fellow man. I was quickly told that the Atheist is wrong, the Bible is immoral, and reminded that in that Bible was slavery, murder and drinking blood and you have to take it all and not just the portion that the Christian likes. If I chose to believe in the good portion of the Gospels, I must also condone the bad or I’m a hypocrite.

Interesting how much the views differ with each debate. And, that Poster wasn’t you nor bullet.


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I once stated on here that an Atheist (my cousin) stated that the Bible has some good and decent ethics in it to live by and how to treat your fellow man. I was quickly told that the Atheist is wrong, the Bible is immoral, and reminded that in that Bible was slavery, murder and drinking blood and you have to take it all and not just the portion that the Christian likes. If I chose to believe in the good portion of the Gospels, I must also condone the bad or I’m a hypocrite.
> 
> Interesting how much the views differ with each debate. And, that Poster wasn’t you nor bullet.



To limit it to the particular matter of which Ehrman speaks beyond this:



> Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life,



to include in total:



> but I want to start on a very positive note. Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life,



The center of "my moral life"...OK.

_Not_ Christ as life.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I once stated on here that an Atheist (my cousin) stated that the Bible has some good and decent ethics in it to live by and how to treat your fellow man. I was quickly told that the Atheist is wrong, the Bible is immoral, and reminded that in that Bible was slavery, murder and drinking blood and you have to take it all and not just the portion that the Christian likes. If I chose to believe in the good portion of the Gospels, I must also condone the bad or I’m a hypocrite.
> 
> Interesting how much the views differ with each debate. And, that Poster wasn’t you nor bullet.


It's all based off of the perspective of the viewer/reader based off the content inside. 
Some say Die Hard is an Action movie, I say it is a Xmas movie ?. Both can be true.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I once stated on here that an Atheist (my cousin) stated that the Bible has some good and decent ethics in it to live by and how to treat your fellow man. I was quickly told that the Atheist is wrong, the Bible is immoral, and reminded that in that Bible was slavery, murder and drinking blood and you have to take it all and not just the portion that the Christian likes. If I chose to believe in the good portion of the Gospels, I must also condone the bad or I’m a hypocrite.
> 
> Interesting how much the views differ with each debate. And, that Poster wasn’t you nor bullet.





> Bible has some good and decent ethics in it to live by and how to treat your fellow man.


My opinion is it does have some. My opinion is it also has some things that are not.


> I must also condone the bad or I’m a hypocrite.


You used the word "condone".
I think as a Christian all you have to do is believe the Bible is true. You can believe the Bible is true without condoning everything in it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe thats the difference between you and former Christians turned A/As such as myself.
> You tossed out the religiosity crap but remained convinced God was still there, he just wasnt as you were told.
> When we (I) tossed out the religiosity crap we (I) also suspended the belief in Gods existence. Why? Because it was "religiosity" that said he existed. Never having had a "come to Jesus" experience, thats all there was.
> Thats why now we (I) cant/wont just take man's word for it.
> ...



I was doing a little more thinking about this over the weekend, and it occurred to me that of all the people I have met in my life that held the most militant views against the Church or God, 99.999% of them came out of the Catholic Church.  A lot of Protestants are seen as hypocrites by the people who were brought up in those churches and then left, but in my experience most of those still hold on to a belief in God even though they harbor a disdain or deeply rooted suspicion of any organized religion.  

I can't speak to the why of this in any great detail, as I wasn't raised in a RC church.  I only go off what I have been told by those who left.  Each and every one of them had a story that left me aghast, and I could only shake my head.  I'm not saying this to bash the RC, or any church for that matter, only to note that in my experience, and MY EXPERIENCE ONLY, there seems to be something about the RC church that creates a special revulsion among those that break with it, that goes deeper than your run-of-the-mill protestant falling out.

I didn't write this thread to turn this into a RC bashing event.  It was just a penning of my observation.  I know some very, very good people in the RC church that are as devout and God-loving as any one else out there.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was doing a little more thinking about this over the weekend, and it occurred to me that of all the people I have met in my life that held the most militant views against the Church or God, 99.999% of them came out of the Catholic Church.  A lot of Protestants are seen as hypocrites by the people who were brought up in those churches and then left, but in my experience most of those still hold on to a belief in God even though they harbor a disdain or deeply rooted suspicion of any organized religion.
> 
> I can't speak to the why of this in any great detail, as I wasn't raised in a RC church.  I only go off what I have been told by those who left.  Each and every one of them had a story that left me aghast, and I could only shake my head.  I'm not saying this to bash the RC, or any church for that matter, only to note that in my experience, and MY EXPERIENCE ONLY, there seems to be something about the RC church that creates a special revulsion among those that break with it, that goes deeper than your run-of-the-mill protestant falling out.
> 
> I didn't write this thread to turn this into a RC bashing event.  It was just a penning of my observation.  I know some very, very good people in the RC church that are as devout and God-loving as any one else out there.


Hmmmm..... this was a tough one SFD. I started typing and stopped typing about 5 times to re-examine my thoughts.
1st - I got you thinking and you got me thinking and bottom line, I think thats what this forum should be (and is) all about.
So now some random thoughts from THIS ex-RC turned A/A. I make NO claim as to its accuracy, only how I, me personally, see it.


> of all the people I have met in my life that held the most militant views against the Church or God, 99.999% of them came out of the Catholic Church.


RCs see Catholicism as the "original" organized" religion -


> the Catholic Church does not consider itself a denomination, but rather considers itself *pre-denominational*, the original Church of Christ.


So if organized religion now leaves a bad taste in your mouth (like me) its very easy to blame them/hold them responsible for starting this whole organized religion mess. So thats who you would be most against. That then grows to one being against ALL or any organized religion.
Your observation here -


> there seems to be something about the RC church that creates a special revulsion among those that break with it


probably falls right in line with that.
Then you can add other questionable rules/things -
Cant get married in a Catholic church unless both the to be husband and wife are Catholic. I wanted to get married in front of GOD yet remain faithful to Catholicism.. But nope couldnt (she was Baptist).
The Vatican is worth billions. What would Jesus have done with billions?
And we wont even mention the horrors of being cooped up in a little closet spilling your guts to another MAN (Priest) about every little thing you may have done wrong. Isnt that supposed to be between you and God?
Lots of other "rules" that seemed to be geared towards the Church, not geared towards God.
So yeah, it would be easy to become VERY against the Church and not trust a dang thing "it" told you.


> I know some very, very good people in the RC church that are as devout and God-loving as any one else out there.


Me too.
I'm not sure if any of this addresses your observations but hey I gave it a shot 
And this is a discussion that could go on around a campfire for hours, I just picked a few things here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 10, 2021)

"Billions of Christians around the world believe that on Easter, Jesus was raised from the dead and taken up to heaven to live with God. They also believe that when they die, their own souls will go to heaven. The great irony is that this is not at all what Jesus himself believed."

Jesus went to Heaven after his resurrection, not after his death. Maybe Jesus believes we must go through that same process that he went through.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 10, 2021)

I wouldn't say "militant views against the Church" but I wonder if the more "organized" a Church is if it drives folks away? Also just because one leaves an organized denomination it doesn't mean they have quit believing in God.

I know some LDS, Jehovah Witnesses, and Evangelicals that have left those denominations but still believe in God.

Now take an easy going denomination that preaches more about grace than rules, etc. Maybe people aren't as prone to abandon or leave.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wouldn't say "militant views against the Church" but I wonder if the more "organized" a Church is if it drives folks away? Also just because one leaves an organized denomination it doesn't mean they have quit believing in God.
> 
> I know some LDS, Jehovah Witnesses, and Evangelicals that have left those denominations but still believe in God.
> 
> Now take an easy going denomination that preaches more about grace than rules, etc. Maybe people aren't as prone to abandon or leave.


Hey Art good to see you. Been a while.


> I know some LDS, Jehovah Witnesses, and Evangelicals that have left those denominations but still believe in God.


I think the stats show that this ^ is happening across the board (here in the US anyway).


> I wonder if the more "organized" a Church is if it drives folks away?


I think yes. When man gets to organizing things they tend to organize geared towards what they think and maybe lose sight of what its supposed to be all about.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 10, 2021)

I remember why I left here for so long. All I did was spend 15 minutes typing, then delete it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wouldn't say "militant views against the Church" but I wonder if the more "organized" a Church is if it drives folks away?



I catch your drift but I don't think 'organized' is the best term.  Maybe 'less personal' is a better descriptor.  Ideally the Church, any church, should mirror a personal relationship with God. The more bureaucratic any institution becomes the less personal it also becomes and the greater chance it loses its focus for its very existence.  When that happens abuses are not expected; they are guaranteed.  Again, that's with any bureaucracy and any church, but there is no church on the face of the earth that even comes close to the RC church with respect to bureaucracy.  I don't even think there's a close second.  

IMHO the Church is just like me, capable of and often guilty of being my own worst enemy.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 11, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I catch your drift but I don't think 'organized' is the best term.  Maybe 'less personal' is a better descriptor.  Ideally the Church, any church, should mirror a personal relationship with God. The more bureaucratic any institution becomes the less personal it also becomes and the greater chance it loses its focus for its very existence.  When that happens abuses are not expected; they are guaranteed.  Again, that's with any bureaucracy and any church, but there is no church on the face of the earth that even comes close to the RC church with respect to bureaucracy.  I don't even think there's a close second.
> 
> IMHO the Church is just like me, capable of and often guilty of being my own worst enemy.





> but there is no church on the face of the earth that even comes close to the RC church with respect to bureaucracy.


Might be a result of its size and the size of its bank account.


----------



## Israel (May 12, 2021)

One can't help but wonder when a statement like this is made



> "Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life,"



by any man, including myself as need be, just where the following fall in his considerations:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Ye are of _your_ father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


If any _man_ come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay _them_ before me.

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

And ye shall be hated of all _men_ for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again.

If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
But _this cometh to pass_, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.




There are many many others, of course. But if a man is going to take a stand upon some recognition of moral excellence to be found in Jesus Christ, particularly his "words and deeds", believing such will lead him somewhere in his "moral life" as center...of how much centrality then_ is in all _that Jesus says?

My words are spirit and they are life.



I am no less under severest of warning:

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

It is not a bad place to start...seeing an excellence in Jesus Christ by difference or distinction...even if starting with any of His word or deed. But to follow faithfully? It takes more than interest or fascination...no less than all of Christ Himself. It requires no less than His investment in His Father's will.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or _whether_ I speak of myself.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, _then_ are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Then said some "the offerings are off since we have let these long haired unkempt looking ones pass the plates, what shall we do?"
We are in a strait, for if we remove them for some more favorably looking they might say "But look upon the One you preach" and show us hypocrites. What shall we do? We shall be moved by what we love more, and say "For without our coffers being full, we can do no other good for any."
This appears as good a reason as any. "For we only want to do good" they told themselves, this thing _they loved more._

And the young men were sent away sad.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2021)

Religious Tourettes or Shock Gobble Proselytizing?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Might be a result of its size and the size of its bank account.



I don't think the 'Church', any church, was ever meant to be corporate in nature.  You look at every church and the bigger they get, the quicker they fall to corruption.  It's almost a daily occurrence, and that's just the ones that make the news cycle.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 12, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think the 'Church', any church, was ever meant to be corporate in nature.  You look at every church and the bigger they get, the quicker they fall to corruption.  It's almost a daily occurrence, and that's just the ones that make the news cycle.


I can agree with you.
I just wonder if not becoming corporate in nature, at least to some degree, is even possible in todays environment. Gott pay the rent, the power, the insurance, abide by todays laws concerning gathering places, people want AC/heat/stained glass windows/day care rooms etc etc..... it gets complicated. Probably shouldnt but it does.
Not sure if people would do this anymore -


----------



## Israel (May 12, 2021)

To incorporate is to form a body...

But this would be contrary to both sober thought and righteous action if by faith one believes they have been placed in a body...they make another step to "make it more so". Such is only manifestly contrary to the faith claimed.

No less for "name"...to denominate...to seek to make a special name, or assign one for distinction...when all the distinction there is...is already present in only one name.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I can agree with you.
> I just wonder if not becoming corporate in nature, at least to some degree, is even possible in todays environment. Gott pay the rent, the power, the insurance, abide by todays laws concerning gathering places, people want AC/heat/stained glass windows/day care rooms etc etc..... it gets complicated. Probably shouldnt but it does.
> Not sure if people would do this anymore -



I think it's possible.  My little country church got up to over 400 attendees every Sunday pre-covid.  No deacons, no admin.  Just the Preacher and one guy who pays the electric bills, etc.   Preacher doesn't even make enough to cover his gas and wear and tear on his old vehicle as he goes from Hospital to Hospital visiting, BUT, here's the biggie,  every penny that comes in goes out.  Our goal is to have $0 dollars in the bank at all times.  Money and power corrupt, and those in the church are just as vulnerable as those outside IF they don't continually keep their spiritual walk alive, and that's a very, very easy thing to forego.  Been there.  Done that.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 12, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it's possible.  My little country church got up to over 400 attendees every Sunday pre-covid.  No deacons, no admin.  Just the Preacher and one guy who pays the electric bills, etc.   Preacher doesn't even make enough to cover his gas and wear and tear on his old vehicle as he goes from Hospital to Hospital visiting, BUT, here's the biggie,  every penny that comes in goes out.  Our goal is to have $0 dollars in the bank at all times.  Money and power corrupt, and those in the church are just as vulnerable as those outside IF they don't continually keep their spiritual walk alive, and that's a very, very easy thing to forego.  Been there.  Done that.


It strikes me that the way your little country church does it is the way it should be done.
Maybe a few dollars in the bank to help those members with a financial crisis.


----------



## Spotlite (May 12, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it's possible.  My little country church got up to over 400 attendees every Sunday pre-covid.  No deacons, no admin.  Just the Preacher and one guy who pays the electric bills, etc.   Preacher doesn't even make enough to cover his gas and wear and tear on his old vehicle as he goes from Hospital to Hospital visiting, BUT, here's the biggie,  every penny that comes in goes out.  Our goal is to have $0 dollars in the bank at all times.  Money and power corrupt, and those in the church are just as vulnerable as those outside IF they don't continually keep their spiritual walk alive, and that's a very, very easy thing to forego.  Been there.  Done that.






I’m not questioning what y’all do financially, but where does it go?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not questioning what y’all do financially, but where does it go?



Every single penny goes to missions of some sort, community/local, state, national and international.  It's not just money being thrown at something though.  In almost every case it's members of the church doing the actual work and going on the missions.  There are several international missions that we do support, but even on those our members frequent them personally and pitch in as much as possible.  Money doesn't help a cotton picking soul sitting in a bank account, and there is NO support for such an action by a Church, any Church scripturally.  If a church really relies on God, there is no need for a fat bank account.  He will provide.


----------



## Spotlite (May 13, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Every single penny goes to missions of some sort, community/local, state, national and international.  It's not just money being thrown at something though.  In almost every case it's members of the church doing the actual work and going on the missions.  There are several international missions that we do support, but even on those our members frequent them personally and pitch in as much as possible.  Money doesn't help a cotton picking soul sitting in a bank account, and there is NO support for such an action by a Church, any Church scripturally.  If a church really relies on God, there is no need for a fat bank account.  He will provide.


All good causes!! I was just curious what y’all supported because I know most churches support many needed things.

We don’t have a big bank roll, either.


----------



## Israel (May 14, 2021)

Sent to Bart via contact provision on his website




> Some of Bart's/your content has come up on a forum in which I and several others participate.
> 
> https://forum.gon.com/threads/bart-ehrman-article.991870/
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2021)

Israel said:


> Sent to Bart via contact provision on his website


It would be interesting to see Bart make an appearance here but I am guessing he has his own conversational portion of his blog for such interactions. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2021)




----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2021)

Israel said:


>


Definition of rarely. 1 :* not often : seldom.* 2 : with rare skill : excellently. 3 : in an extreme or exceptional manner.


----------

