# Did Jesus claim to be the messiah?



## atlashunter (Oct 30, 2019)

I seem to remember passages where he hints at it but I don’t recall him coming right out and claiming it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2019)

I'd like to know where he commanded or even asked anyone to worship him and start a new religion that was not Judaism.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 30, 2019)

Some scripture for thought
Matthew 26:63-64
63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Matthew 16:15-17 
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

John 8:58 
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 30, 2019)

Woman at the well.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 30, 2019)

Regarding the woman at the well, Notice that he says, God is spirit. Not that I am God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Some scripture for thought
> Matthew 26:63-64
> 63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
> 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
> ...



It was the Father(Spirit) that revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Son. Jesus(flesh & blood) didn't reveal to Peter that Jesus was the Son.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 30, 2019)

Jesus over and over assumed the implication that he was the messiah without denying it so or claiming it. "When the messiah comes, will he do greater miracles than this?" In other words, the scriptures pointed to a prophet likened to Moses. " "This is how they will know I sent you".


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 30, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Jesus over and over assumed the implication that he was the messiah without denying it so or claiming it. "When the messiah comes, will he do greater miracles than this?" In other words, the scriptures pointed to a prophet likened to Moses. " "This is how they will know I sent you".



I see the hints at it in the gospels (assuming they are credible for the sake of argument). In a time when the Jews were expecting a messiah, someone who would be in a position of great power, it’s to be expected that people would lay claim to being that guy. They are doing it to this day. It’s not clear to me that he was that bold as to come right out and lay claim to it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 30, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I see the hints at it in the gospels (assuming they are credible for the sake of argument). In a time when the Jews were expecting a messiah, someone who would be in a position of great power, it’s to be expected that people would lay claim to being that guy. They are doing it to this day. It’s not clear to me that he was that bold as to come right out and lay claim to it.


There is a reason for not making big claims. Anybody could claim it, but Jesus said believe based on the works/miracles I do. Lots of verses on this.  Pointing again to Moses


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 30, 2019)

I guess what I’m wondering is if he wasn’t claiming to be the messiah then what was it about him that threatened the Jewish ruling class to the point of wanting him dead? And if he was claiming to be the messiah more openly why do the scriptures have him beating around the bush about it? I think it’s fair to say that whether he was or wasn’t, to most Jews he didn’t fit their expectation based on their understanding of the prophecies, especially once he was executed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I guess what I’m wondering is if he wasn’t claiming to be the messiah then what was it about him that threatened the Jewish ruling class to the point of wanting him dead? And if he was claiming to be the messiah more openly why do the scriptures have him beating around the bush about it? I think it’s fair to say that whether he was or wasn’t, to most Jews he didn’t fit their expectation based on their understanding of the prophecies, especially once he was executed.


Maybe the Jews were set up. They were blinded, not to see. Then salvation could go to those who were the real Jews.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 30, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I guess what I’m wondering is if he wasn’t claiming to be the messiah then what was it about him that threatened the Jewish ruling class to the point of wanting him dead? And if he was claiming to be the messiah more openly why do the scriptures have him beating around the bush about it? I think it’s fair to say that whether he was or wasn’t, to most Jews he didn’t fit their expectation based on their understanding of the prophecies, especially once he was executed.


He offended the self righteous. The Jews of that day had lived their lives trying to please God. Now someone offends them by implying that they were not pleasing God. This is an understatement. He was highly offensive.  Even worse to those who took pride in their accomplishments and notoriety of being a religious hero or  the face of righteous. Ever wondered why people "went to the dessert to see John the Baptist". Not that John came to them, but rather they went to him?. Because common people after doing an assessment of their lives, said to themselves, I can't live up to the standards the religious elite display, thus what will I do?. They had heard about one in the dessert preaching forgiveness of sins, and flocked to him. My brother n law, once told me, I can't live up to that, implying he was not able to give up what he assumed was holding him back. Perfect candidate. Yet Paul, one of those religious elite, also a perfect candidate. Why, because in view of Jesus, rather than his fellow elite, he became aware... that he could not live up to the standard. Thus, all his works, figuratively, stone [building blocks like brick], one by one making a building for god to live in, he tore down, becoming rubble, that he could say, by the grace of God, i am what I am, [not by my self discipline]. As Stephen said, God does not live in houses made by man. And as Jesus said, not one stone will be left standing


----------



## Israel (Nov 1, 2019)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am _he_.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? _there is_ none good but one, _that is_, God.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 1, 2019)

Israel said:


> The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
> 
> Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am _he_.



That’s what I was looking for.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 1, 2019)

I wonder if Scripture ever revealed the Messiah would be the Son of God? So even if Jesus told the Jews he was the Son of God, did that necessarily mean he was the Messiah? 

Many verses after Jesus has revealed he was the Son and many verses before revealed a Messiah was coming.  I'm not sure anyone was aware that the Messiah would be the Son.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if Scripture ever revealed the Messiah would be the Son of God? So even if Jesus told the Jews he was the Son of God, did that necessarily mean he was the Messiah?
> 
> Many verses after Jesus has revealed he was the Son and many verses before revealed a Messiah was coming.  I'm not sure anyone was aware that the Messiah would be the Son.


http://www.jewfaq.org/m/mashiach.htm


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 1, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if Scripture ever revealed the Messiah would be the Son of God? So even if Jesus told the Jews he was the Son of God, did that necessarily mean he was the Messiah?
> 
> Many verses after Jesus has revealed he was the Son and many verses before revealed a Messiah was coming.  I'm not sure anyone was aware that the Messiah would be the Son.



Think they were looking more at the Davidic line of paternity.


----------



## spurrs and racks (Nov 1, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I seem to remember passages where he hints at it but I don’t recall him coming right out and claiming it.



without question


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.jewfaq.org/m/mashiach.htm



If that's the mark of the messiah then Jesus missed the mark which would explain why we have the predictions of him coming back and finishing the job of fulfilling those prophecies. The problem is "just wait and see" could be said of any dead claimant and after 2,000 years of no return the prophecy has grown a bit stale. It's already twice as long as the 1,000 year peace he was supposed to establish.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If that's the mark of the messiah then Jesus missed the mark which would explain why we have the predictions of him coming back and finishing the job of fulfilling those prophecies. The problem is "just wait and see" could be said of any dead claimant and after 2,000 years of no return the prophecy has grown a bit stale. It's already twice as long as the 1,000 year peace he was supposed to establish.


Yes, and the "wait and see" excuse does not fit within the Jewish timeline at all.
Jesus was a Jew. He was not lobbying for a new religion around him.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

Israel can you explain what the verses mean that I posted and you liked?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yes, and the "wait and see" excuse does not fit within the Jewish timeline at all.
> Jesus was a Jew. He was not lobbying for a new religion around him.



CS Lewis argued that Jesus was either the lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Bart Ehrman has posited the additional possibility of legend meaning the stories about who he was and what he said are fabrications. Richard Carrier has argued that he probably didn't exist at all. If I had a time machine my first stop would probably be Judea in the time of Jesus to know the true story of what was going on at the time and who this person really was. No matter which of those possibilities is true it would be mind blowing.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2019)

I honestly am convinced a very charismatic teacher and apocalyptic preacher was around in Judea at that time. I also am 100% convinced that there were many like him and many others more mild and more wild. They all had followers.
In Jesus's case I do believe that he talked of the Father and of the Son but that was what the majority of Jews did. They were all "sons of the Father".
I think Jesus challenged the current ways the religion was headed and warned of the consequences.  At times he made the religious leaders look like fools because Jesus was more versed in the old school Judiasm than they were. Remember Judaism then was no different than any of today's current religions are now with many splinter groups, branches and denominations. There was ALWAYS someone building the better religious mouse trap. Jesus stuck to and taught and preached the old school stuff because, well, he was a Jew that was raised and taught that way.
I absolutely in no way am convinced that he was a God in the flesh. The Torah following Jews thought there was no way their God would lower himself into human form. And the Son(s) of God was them. He was the Father of them all. Still do today.
Jesus did not want, ask for or command anyone to start an entirely new religion that centered around him. He mentioned many times that he was only able to do what he did because of God not in place of God or because he was God. 
Others used him after his death to take his followers into a different direction than the Torah. No different than what more modern religions do today and have done since the beginning of worship.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I honestly am convinced a very charismatic teacher and apocalyptic preacher was around in Judea at that time. I also am 100% convinced that there were many like him and many others more mild and more wild. They all had followers.
> In Jesus's case I do believe that he talked of the Father and of the Son but that was what the majority of Jews did. They were all "sons of the Father".
> I think Jesus challenged the current ways the religion was headed and warned of the consequences.  At times he made the religious leaders look like fools because Jesus was more versed in the old school Judiasm than they were. Remember Judaism then was no different than any of today's current religions are now with many splinter groups, branches and denominations. There was ALWAYS someone building the better religious mouse trap. Jesus stuck to and taught and preached the old school stuff because, well, he was a Jew that was raised and taught that way.
> I absolutely in no way am convinced that he was a God in the flesh. The Torah following Jews thought there was no way their God would lower himself into human form. And the Son(s) of God was them. He was the Father of them all. Still do today.
> ...


Moses was not able to enter into the promised land because he failed to give God the credit, esteeming him as holy, but rather had adopted an attitude of my power, when he said "must WE bring water from this rock". Contrary to what he should have said and often did prior to, something like, stand fast and behold what God will do before you. But Jesus, was careful not to claim any power from within himself or by himself.


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Israel can you explain what the verses mean that I posted and you liked?


I "liked" very much that you posted them. That there you saw something in them noteworthy, and even if to your mind contradictory of certain matters seemingly embraced by "christianity" at large.



In one sense (to me) it seems you find a counterpoint (at least in some of the posts). I find this..."likeable".  And if you would be willing to take the smallest trip in consideration of what and how "like" works in a man toward another in his expression, more might be discovered than batting around a few verses. (Which I do not consider fruitless, but simply not the deeper matter)

So it is the matter of both posting what is posted, but more the thing that is not unwilling to appear (in some way) contradictory.

A few days ago I showed my second grade great granddaughter how to use a multiplication table in a book she asked me about. She's just learning her math, and is OK at it, but still prone to making the most novice of mistakes. Not paying attention to subtraction vs addition signs on many of her tests. It becomes apparent in many cases she is answering "by rote", prompted by appearances of certain numbers with which she is in part familiar...but not stopping to see the "sign" that describes their relationship in this particular situation. Seeing a  4 and a 3 causes her to sometimes answer 7, but when the sign is pointed out to be a "-" and that she has been wrong, and h just answering according to her previous (and first) introduction to "operations" through addition, she finds now each and every "problem" requires greater attention.

First addition is taught...but not only addition can be done. Not only addition...is done. And I easily sympathize as I do remember getting all of my own answers wrong many years ago on a subtraction test. I didn't get at all how 3 and 4 related...4 was "itself" and 3 was not 4, therefore taking 3 away from 4 left 4 as it was...untouched. Obviously the deeper concept of math speaking to and for relative amounts (symbolized by "numbers") was completely lost on me.

So, maybe I was all wrong in showing her "how to use" a multiplication table, for unless she "gets" the concept how numbers affect one another when multiplied, she could just, by rote, find an intersection on a table for answer. (But...unless she "gets" the concept, she will always be limited to answering only to the limit of the size of the table available to her)

The table is not wrong...but the table is very limited. But if the concept is grasped, then any number(s) can be dealt with. Time will tell how far she goes in math.

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but God"


"I am the good shepherd"

Contradictory? Or perfect in the assigned relationship?

One _says _he wants salvation but is quite confident in himself of having kept "from his youth" the commandments. He is a_ knower_ of what good is, and feels free to assign it. And is rebuffed, or at least "put to the question".

To what is completely lost, astray, buffeted in its isolation and despair of either knowing or being able to accomplish anything "good"...a shepherd appears. And he is good, for his appearing to what is lost in such isolation and despair, seeing one looking for him (whom, to his own appraisal of his "moral" estate is all that would not merit being sought at all)...he does not have to be told by anyone the one who finds him, in his _specifically looking for him_, is good.

That anything at all would want to be "with him" as _he is_, speaks of an exceeding goodness he may not necessarily understand in fullness, but he is _beginning to grasp _a concept.

Jesus knows precisely how to speak to what yet may be tricked by presumption of its own goodness...and even among what calls itself "christian" "_I have_ the right God...therefore I am a right kind of person!" and do itself further harm; and how to speak to what knows it _needs comfort_ and knows it only merits condemnation.

To one he will not appear as good, for he will come in rebuke of their rote repetitions to themselves of their own goodness.

"One thing thou lackest" He said to the man who had previously declared him "good master". And the man did not like hearing it to the point that he went away ...sad. Now how "good" to his appearance...was the good master? But...such a word that may even provoke strongest opposition (to walking away) and sadness...if left to its work of deepest despair of oneself...can work. To the then showing of a "good shepherd" appearing to what knows it can do "nothing of itself"...to save.

Yes, I like very much this post of yours:




> Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
> 
> Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered



And am glad for whatever you may see in it that caused you to remember, and find it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 2, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I honestly am convinced a very charismatic teacher and apocalyptic preacher was around in Judea at that time. I also am 100% convinced that there were many like him and many others more mild and more wild. They all had followers.
> .


Imagine the extent of the embellishments that would be told about the Messiah after the fact. it would grow to almost unbelievable. i use that word Messiah, not assuming it is applied to Jesus, but rather to anyone whom made the claim, but also did miracles to prove he was the one. This in itself has hindered the gospel


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2019)

Israel said:


> I "liked" very much that you posted them. That there you saw something in them noteworthy, and even if to your mind contradictory of certain matters seemingly embraced by "christianity" at large.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Israel can you EXPLAIN WHAT THE VERSES MEAN that I posted and you liked?"


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 2, 2019)

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> "Israel can you EXPLAIN WHAT THE VERSES MEAN that I posted and you liked?"



No.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> No.


Thanks.
Can anyone else?


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.


In his lifetime, yes, His message came primarily for the Jews. But because of the cross and resurrection it became a message for all mankind.


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? _there is_ none good but one, _that is_, God.


Simply put, our goodness apart from his indwelling is nothing but rags. They "look good" to all and get the praise of men, but God alone has the corner on goodness.
But don't park there. 
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, GOODNESS etc., are what the bible calls the fruit of the Spirit, as in the sometimes witnessed but always available byproduct of faith.
Sidebar: Note the word sometimes. A believer is not God, and grows in their faith to realize who they belong to, and by the union that "good" stuff sometimes comes. It's a life of faith and dependence.


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
> 
> Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered


The crying of Christ reminds me of his tears before raising up Lazarus, his humanity shown in the empathy he had to the grieving family around him.
All the rest point to his earthly mission (cross) mixed with his divinity (resurrection) and that his good life was well pleasing to the Father, even unto death for those needing his life (from sin and death).  The obedience part shows his humanity further, even when he took his cry of the pain of the cross to his Father.  There's many that do not believe that Christ was fully human while fully Lord/Messiah, perhaps these verses were put to shed some truth to that.  
I know I am personally affected by this "man of sorrows", and who suffered every temptation and endured the cross, because of the joy of bringing us to him was the big pic after all.

Just my reflections on these.  Q&A enjoyed and appreciated.  One of the better discussions here, thanks ya'll


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

StriperAddict said:


> In his lifetime, yes, His message came primarily for the Jews. But because of the cross and resurrection it became a message for all mankind.


Jesus said We worship.
Was he worshipping himself?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

StriperAddict said:


> Simply put, our goodness apart from his indwelling is nothing but rags. They "look good" to all and get the praise of men, but God alone has the corner on goodness.
> But don't park there.
> Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, GOODNESS etc., are what the bible calls the fruit of the Spirit, as in the sometimes witnessed but always available byproduct of faith.
> Sidebar: Note the word sometimes. A believer is not God, and grows in their faith to realize who they belong to, and by the union that "good" stuff sometimes comes. It's a life of faith and dependence.


A believer is not God,  nor is Jesus by his own admittance that only God is good and that he (jesus) is not good.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

StriperAddict said:


> The crying of Christ reminds me of his tears before raising up Lazarus, his humanity shown in the empathy he had to the grieving family around him.
> All the rest point to his earthly mission (cross) mixed with his divinity (resurrection) and that his good life was well pleasing to the Father, even unto death for those needing his life (from sin and death).  The obedience part shows his humanity further, even when he took his cry of the pain of the cross to his Father.  There's many that do not believe that Christ was fully human while fully Lord/Messiah, perhaps these verses were put to shed some truth to that.
> I know I am personally affected by this "man of sorrows", and who suffered every temptation and endured the cross, because of the joy of bringing us to him was the big pic after all.
> 
> Just my reflections on these.  Q&A enjoyed and appreciated.  One of the better discussions here, thanks ya'll


Who was Jesus praying to? Himself?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

The way the verses are worded leads me to believe that Jesus knew he was and always would be a Man


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The way the verses are worded leads me to believe that Jesus knew he was and always would be a Man


Yes, being the God - man, he knew.  
There are parts of the answers that are a mystery, for instance Jesus and Father are One yet He mentions and clearly shows His adoration of Father (worship).  
Definitely the triune God is a tough subject for anyone's mind but the expressions of Father Son and Spirit each having a reality in creation and the saving of souls - that's  well worth understanding for relationship.  
Perhaps our 3 parts, body, soul and spirit are a good correlation to this. Or water, always the same in chemistry but different in liquid, gas or ice. We're not given all the answers because, as you said, we are not God or can claim knowing all things in scripture.    

I doubt I'm helping, sorry, but what I see is a message not marred by our failures to know fully, but one that says the door is open to be fully known, enjoyed and loved by that same God man.  The earlier verses you quoted bring out in the open His relational life.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 3, 2019)

Bullet, is it not interesting that the God of the bible has said over and over that "the Lord your God is one". As if he knew this day was coming that One would be three in one. All this that you see... is in the bible. Interesting.... and the modern day Jesus has claimed to be god, just as the antichrist is said to do. Interesting


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Bullet, is it not interesting that the God of the bible has said over and over that "the Lord your God is one". As if he knew this day was coming that One would be three in one. All this that you see... is in the bible. Interesting.... and the modern day Jesus has claimed to be god, just as the antichrist is said to do. Interesting



It’s hard to get from polytheism to monotheism without a good bit of affirmation.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> No.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 3, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It’s hard to get from polytheism to monotheism without a good bit of affirmation.


You speak of polytheism often here in regards to this. so that i understand your point... can you clarify briefly? I assume your referring to jewish early days before the  God of Israel revealed himself as the one true God. In other words, there were many so called gods believed in up to a point. But the real, one true God decided to make himself known, choosing a people to reveal himself to. The change about the time Moses starting leading them, they changed from many Gods  to one true God, to "is god with us or not'. Is this what you are referring to, or something else?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> You speak of polytheism often here in regards to this. so that i understand your point... can you clarify briefly? I assume your referring to jewish early days before the  God of Israel revealed himself as the one true God. In other words, there were many so called gods believed in up to a point. But the real, one true God decided to make himself known, choosing a people to reveal himself to. The change about the time Moses starting leading them, they changed from many Gods  to one true God, to "is god with us or not'. Is this what you are referring to, or something else?


I have left out much here, mostly the 4 patriarch God, the God of abraham, issac, jacob... who am i forgetting? often God was referred to as the god of those 4 patriarchs. Implying that god was either hard to know how to explain him from other god beliefs or... that there were other beliefs of other gods?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> You speak of polytheism often here in regards to this. so that i understand your point... can you clarify briefly? I assume your referring to jewish early days before the  God of Israel revealed himself as the one true God. In other words, there were many so called gods believed in up to a point. But the real, one true God decided to make himself known, choosing a people to reveal himself to. The change about the time Moses starting leading them, they changed from many Gods  to one true God, to "is god with us or not'. Is this what you are referring to, or something else?



That and more. The god you are calling the one true god originated as one of a number of Canaanite gods. Every group that has adopted an Abrahamic faith were originally polytheists. That’s Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The Christians didn’t quite make a clean break from it. At least not the ones who won out in the end.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 3, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That and more. The god you are calling the one true god originated as one of a number of Canaanite gods. Every group that has adopted an Abrahamic faith were originally polytheists. That’s Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The Christians didn’t quite make a clean break from it. At least not the ones who won out in the end.


They will say that it makes perfect sense, that three is one, that the triune God is one God. so simple that Paul never needed to clarify to a extremely monotheistic audience. not once did he need to clarify this. instead, they needed clarification about food sacrificed to idols and such


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

StriperAddict said:


> Yes, being the God - man, he knew.
> There are parts of the answers that are a mystery, for instance Jesus and Father are One yet He mentions and clearly shows His adoration of Father (worship).
> Definitely the triune God is a tough subject for anyone's mind but the expressions of Father Son and Spirit each having a reality in creation and the saving of souls - that's  well worth understanding for relationship.
> Perhaps our 3 parts, body, soul and spirit are a good correlation to this. Or water, always the same in chemistry but different in liquid, gas or ice. We're not given all the answers because, as you said, we are not God or can claim knowing all things in scripture.
> ...


Trinity, all is one, one is all.
Until it isn't in order to make excuses to things which are clearly contrasting and contradictory information within the verses.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> You speak of polytheism often here in regards to this. so that i understand your point... can you clarify briefly? I assume your referring to jewish early days before the  God of Israel revealed himself as the one true God. In other words, there were many so called gods believed in up to a point. But the real, one true God decided to make himself known, choosing a people to reveal himself to. The change about the time Moses starting leading them, they changed from many Gods  to one true God, to "is god with us or not'. Is this what you are referring to, or something else?


If I am not mistaken the Jews believed that Yahweh was THEIR one true God because out of all the other God's, Yaweh CHOSE them and Made them to be His People.
Basically,  Yaweh created the Jews to be HIS people. Adam and Eve, not the first people but the first Jewish people specifically made by the God that CHOSE to create a particular race to worship Him.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2019)

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, *that they also may be one in us:* that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And this is just as much if not more,* plainly* bold:

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, *that they may be one, as we are. *

Though I cannot explain it, I believe it...both that Jesus asked such and that the answer is in fullness of all He asked.

*"*that they may be one*, as *we _are_*."*

Rather than try to explain what I do see, it would seem better to make clear what I do not see. Since the unity of the believers, the union of the believers is to be as that which is in the Father and Son: 

"as *we* are"

I have never yet found the Spirit's prompting that I should assume or presume the identity of any other believer. I could be very wrong, and am sure at least in this that I am; I do not grasp the fullness of how such unity is understood. 

I come back to what Paul had said in being crucified with Christ, nevertheless there remained  in that life imparted his recognition of himself "nevertheless I live" but _*not without*_ "yet not I". 

Paul (at least to me) is *not saying* "I am now Jesus Christ"...but that life he now lives has caused a very severe (radical/rudimentary) _change_ in the recognition of himself...if pressed I would say "it's still me, but not me" (at least as I previously understood what "me" meant...to me!) 

Having been immersed (baptized) into the life of Jesus Christ, and now seeing it as _his life_ his experience was all _not his own, _and as this _is true_, neither is his identity to himself any longer exclusively his own. In the surrender of his _self (or the conquering if one prefer) _to, and in, the truth of Christ, he does not find self recognition annihilated...but miraculously expanded. And of such magnitude he relates quite plainly in several places:

Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 

In speaking of contending against _the liar:_

Whom resist stedfast in the faith,* knowing* that *the same afflictions are accomplished *in your brethren that are in the world.

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 

This recognition of his life, which is life indeed (and no longer_ his own,_ as such is until the Lord be revealed) now is touched (in his experience) by every other member. But this is not, and not to be "Paul's" alone. It is made his (Paul's) by revelation of truth of the unity of life that is in Jesus Christ, made gift to us in the name of the Father, through Him. Abiding in the Father's name to the very death of his own self (as He walked daily in the days of His flesh, and manifest to us in such plainness at Calvary) this same unity is now "ours".

And in such faithful obedience to abide there, and _only there_ (in the Father's name, speaking and doing only according to that which was revealed to Him in that)  He now is able to say to his own (which He received of, and as in, the Father)

"As the Father sent me so now send I you" (to abide in the name now given us, Jesus Christ)

This does not make me _think (_Israel who is presently assigned in the flesh in Guyton Georgia) "I am now Glenn in Tenn, or Gordon in Canada, or Welder, or Walt, or Roger, or Art,...or...Jesus Christ" (and forgive my lack of naming all others whom I see here contending for the faith of Christ)  though I am as one with them *as* Jesus Christ is *one with* the Father.

The implications of this are far deeper than I yet understand and know. I would say, in fact...it is precisely of those implications, (you may call it *the truth* of such) and in those implications that I labor in understanding, often failing to recognize their fullness. For they also extend far beyond (in inclusion) those to which I may be presently inclined to dismiss as "outside"...but nevertheless have, from eternity...belonged to Jesus Christ...not yet expressing themselves in my perspective/understanding, (or worse *to my satisfaction*!) as such. Some "resistors" shall be shown as subject to the Word of God...as I may _imagine myself_ to be, and even to a great exceeding. (One can easily think of Paul himself here...and Ananais' words)


Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem: And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on your name. 

*But the Lord said to him,* Go your way: *for he is a chosen vessel *to me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 

This call of:

Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations:* spare not*, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; 

has been from eternity. We no longer live in the small (infinitely small) tent of self, we have been summoned to the "living large" that is life indeed in Christ, made now plainly manifest in and through Christ, to the tearing open of his own tent...*to include. *To _the gathering._

"The way you know" He said/says to His disciples.

This:


Sing, O barren, thou _that_ didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou _that_ didst not travail with child: for more _are_ the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. 

I speak to those who have had, or are now in the experience of being a widow or orphan...abandoned it seems by all once close or precious...in the experience of seeming...alone, or so completely not understood as to feel so. You are not...alone.

*knowing* that *the same afflictions are accomplished *in your brethren that are in the world.

You are tasting something that needs be tasted to help those who are yet fuming at their own finitude. Flailing against their hope in bitterness and seeming isolation. They are not alone, either.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2019)

Israel said:


> Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, *that they also may be one in us:* that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
> 
> And this is just as much if not more,* plainly* bold:
> 
> ...


You are to Paul as Paul was to Jesus and Jesus was to God.
You use "Us and We" to connect with them just as they used those words to connect themselves with what they thought was the next higher power.

Truth is, except for an inner desire to want to make such connections, no real attachment or inclusion exists.
In all cases "We" is actually a party of just one.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You are to Paul as Paul was to Jesus and Jesus was to God.
> You use "Us and We" to connect with them just as they used those words to connect themselves with what they thought was the next higher power.
> 
> Truth is, except for an inner desire to want to make such connections, no real attachment or inclusion exists.
> In all cases "We" is actually a party of just one.



Truth is, you must be born again to see it.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 4, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> They will say that it makes perfect sense, that three is one, that the triune God is one God. so simple that Paul never needed to clarify to a extremely monotheistic audience. not once did he need to clarify this. instead, they needed clarification about food sacrificed to idols and such



They say a lot of things make perfect sense until you start getting into the details. If God and Jesus are one and the same I would like to know how God is omniscient but Jesus isn't.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You are to Paul as Paul was to Jesus and Jesus was to God.
> You use "Us and We" to connect with them just as they used those words to connect themselves with what they thought was the next higher power.
> 
> Truth is, except for an inner desire to want to make such connections, no real attachment or inclusion exists.
> In all cases "We" is actually a party of just one.



Not exactly.

Any and every believer is to Jesus and the Father as Paul is to Jesus and the Father. And in the same way every believer is related (in that unity) to Paul (and all his brothers/sisters) as Jesus and the Father are one.



> Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, *that they may be one, as we are.*


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Truth is, you must be born again to see it.


When individuals are born again, do they see the Trinity, Oneness, or whatever version of God that they were indoctrinated to see?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Truth is, you must be born again to see it.


Right. We know. I have to be a team member in order to buy into it.
I know how it works....and that is why team members make excuses.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2019)

Israel said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> Any and every believer is to Jesus and the Father as Paul is to Jesus and the Father. And in the same way every believer is related (in that unity) to Paul (and all his brothers/sisters) as Jesus and the Father are one.


There is no need for God to give Himself anything


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> There is no need for God to give Himself anything


Yes, He has all, and the all is His.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2019)

Israel said:


> Yes, He has all, and the all is His.


I will agree with that within the verses of the Bible.
If Jesus is God, why would he pray to himself, worship himself,and have to give himself anything?
He wouldn't.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2019)

The unity that is God does not preclude identity of person.

Jesus prayed:

That they all may *be one*; as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Even my closest recognition of any brother (as carried in my heart) does not cause me to identify myself as himself. I may identify _with him, _even to the end of love, and still not presume myself to be him. (or herself)

"The Father is greater than I" Jesus said without contradiction...and without contradicting the knowing of His being the Son of His love. Giving honor, even _all honor _is what makes clear His separation from the world.

Listen...Jesus was in all ways obedient, even to the death of the cross.
When Pilate made demand and said:

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

Jesus did not deny whatever authority Pilate had but said instead:

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power _at all_ against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

That "therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the _greater sin_." Is worth considering. There was sin in Pilate's presumption of power as (I believe) issuing from himself. Yet, the greater sin is found in those who declaring themselves to be the "knowing better" (of the true author of all authority) were willing and in practice handing one over to such a one when their resort (as self proclaimed, being Jews) was to be owed to God. It's always convenient to find "someone else" to do ones dirty work, yet the one who does the work...is actually held less blameworthy than the one _who maneuvers to it._ Seeking to keep one's hands...clean. Deceit is always worse than murder...because in part, it inevitably leads to it.

Oh how they hated to hear:

Did not Moses give you the law, and _yet_ none of you keepeth the law? *Why go ye about to kill me? *

(Someone was seeing the hearts!)

The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
(Liars...as would be shown)

How great a contrast as would be shown later by Gamaliel:

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.  Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men.  Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.  After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.  Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.  But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

In the next chapter we meet Stephen as prelude to meeting Saul in the next. (and following)

Now, there was a guy who went tooth and claw in opposition to the wisdom that was Gamaliel's...and it didn't matter at all how deeply he threw himself into his efforts of eradication.



> There is no need for God to give Himself anything



Amen. What is His is not dependent upon their even knowing it. And yet there's a joy in seeing that as true. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2019)

Israel said:


> The unity that is God does not preclude identity of person.
> 
> Jesus prayed:
> 
> ...


Jesus was a God worshipping and Torah following Jew. No closer or farther to God than you are.
You worship a man who worshipped the god of the Hebrews.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Jesus was a God worshipping and Torah following Jew. No closer or farther to God than you are.
> You worship a man who worshipped the god of the Hebrews.


Modern day Christianity does not believe that Jesus had faith.So much is lost here.  Faith that God would save him from decay, and more


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Modern day Christianity does not believe that Jesus had faith.So much is lost here.  Faith that God would save him from decay, and more


Jesus asked why god had forsaken him, It sounds like he had faith up until reality set in.
Which looking back into the Jewish requirements for the Messiah, since Jesus was a Torah following Jew if he thought he was the Messiah then he also thought he would not die. The reality that he was not the messiah set in very quickly once the crucifixion started.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Modern day Christianity does not believe that Jesus had faith.So much is lost here.  Faith that God would save him from decay, and more



You lost me.


----------



## Israel (Nov 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No closer or farther to God than you are.



I'd be a fool to contend against that, or deny it. Those in Him through faith in him



> Modern day Christianity does not believe that Jesus had faith.



(or better, the faith found in Him given to His own) brings those as near to God as He is.

The same relationship.

but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto* my* Father, and *your* Father; and _to_ *my *God, and *your *God.

I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have* loved them *as *You have loved Me*.

Again, I appreciate the reminder.


.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 5, 2019)

It’s interesting to read about the different conceptions of messiah. Even amongst Jews there are differing ideas.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You lost me.


Modern day Christianity believes Jesus being God, raised himself, knew everything... which requires no faith. I believe Jesus was a man whom saw in the scriptures that the Messiah would not see decay, thinking it meant he would be saved from death, but later we see that it meant not from death but rather from decaying in a grave, that he was raised to life again.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Modern day Christianity believes Jesus being God, raised himself, knew everything... which requires no faith. I believe Jesus was a man whom saw in the scriptures that the Messiah would not see decay, thinking it meant he would be saved from death, but later we see that it meant not from death but rather from decaying in a grave, that he was raised to life again.


And even if that far fetched raised from dead story is true, Jesus would still be disqualified as being the Messiah.
He did not fulfill the qualifications that even he believed in. I think that he felt that he was on the right track until the Romans broke out the Hammers. Then the second guessing started.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And even if that far fetched raised from dead story is true, Jesus would still be disqualified as being the Messiah.
> He did not fulfill the qualifications that even he believed in. I think that he felt that he was on the right track until the Romans broke out the Hammers. Then the second guessing started.



According to the gospels he predicted his death and it was all part of the plan.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> According to the gospels he predicted his death and it was all part of the plan.


I can forsee and predict the "future" too when I write the stories to suit after or decades after it "happened".

Book AAA, Chapter, Did Jesus Claim to be The Messiah,  Verse #72:
For Atlas came to the conversation armed with the Gospel information full well knowing bullethead would have a great retort.

You just predicted my reply.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I can forsee and predict the "future" too when I write the stories to suit after or decades after it "happened".
> 
> Book AAA, Chapter, Did Jesus Claim to be The Messiah,  Verse #72:
> For Atlas came to the conversation armed with the Gospel information full well knowing bullethead would have a great retort.
> ...


In regards to Jesus, why???

Without weeding back through this thread or others; if I remember correctly, you accept the fact that Jesus  was a real person that was preaching and others made a new religion out of him??

If that’s the case, what did Jesus have to gain from claiming to be the Messiah, or even predicting his crucifixion as a Messiah, Saviour, etc? Or, are you saying he was a preacher, didn’t predict / claim anything, and it was others that wrote  the stories saying he did?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Or, are you saying he was a preacher, didn’t predict / claim anything, and it was others that wrote  the stories saying he did?


That right there.
Much was embellished


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And even if that far fetched raised from dead story is true, Jesus would still be disqualified as being the Messiah.
> He did not fulfill the qualifications that even he believed in. I think that he felt that he was on the right track until the Romans broke out the Hammers. Then the second guessing started.


I can understand your thoughts of "far fetched". Short version... what items come to mind that Jesus did not fulfill the Messiah check list.  Or... i'll google it


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That right there.
> Much was embellished


If... we had not gotten the books recorded that now are the NT, the embellishments would have only gotten worse. I credit them for stopping the evolving. Yet, they are extremely embellished. But that's what happens with any such old heroic stories. Have you ever thought about Sampson, the story of how he killed so many pushing on the pillars of the temple? Supposedly he killed about the same or more than what was killed in the trade centers coming down. No way that this happened. Best it would have been would have been a few stories high. Or all those foxes he caught. Mercy, they were overrun, LOL. I once considered that someone, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul... may have written their known version of things with the mindset that I had better record this before it goes any farther. Un inspired men presuming they know what was said between Pilot and Jesus, or what he said while hanging on the cross, or what he prayed in private..... It would have only gotten worse if it were not for the bible. Mercy, what a way of looking at things. Slippery slope indeed. Yet, God never asked me not to use my brain


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can understand your thoughts of "far fetched". Short version... what items come to mind that Jesus did not fulfill the Messiah check list.  Or... i'll google it


I posted this earlier near the beginning of the thread, but this is what the Jews go by.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/mashiach.htm


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I posted this earlier near the beginning of the thread, but this is what the Jews go by.
> http://www.jewfaq.org/m/mashiach.htm


 I read the entire link carefully. It's clear to me that jewish thinking has evolved. First... they have completely by not having participated in the sacrifices, lost the concept. Early Jewish people would understand that the sacrifices were temporary, a constant reminder that it would one day be fulfilled.  No mention of this. Second, the idea that the messiah would restore them to glory, putting people beneath them, ruling the world, crushing their opponents, does not surprise me. However this sounds so temporary. A narrow mindset that only sees a few generations at best. It's no surprise to me that a God of the universe would have bigger plans than this. Honestly, I saw very little in the link with much worth. Basically he did not come as a military leader. It reminded me of current day politics. Not much proof, just minor differences of interpretations, very minor. Seemingly  a resistance.  I was expecting a long list, but it was very little. Everyone is entitled to his belief, his interpretation, etc, but this is posed as substance with their break downs and line items .... that offer only one point that I could see?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

I should clarify... Jewish thought would never have the Messiah as God. Never. My belief has no conflict here. Modern day Christianity does however.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

I suppose there are lots of reasons not listed in the link. Like not being Josephs son thus not of the line of David, yet there again, no conflict here for me because I do believe Jesus was Josephs literal son. So, I guess I am not looking at this from the same viewpoint


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I read the entire link carefully. It's clear to me that jewish thinking has evolved. First... they have completely by not having participated in the sacrifices, lost the concept. Early Jewish people would understand that the sacrifices were temporary, a constant reminder that it would one day be fulfilled.  No mention of this. Second, the idea that the messiah would restore them to glory, putting people beneath them, ruling the world, crushing their opponents, does not surprise me. However this sounds so temporary. A narrow mindset that only sees a few generations at best. It's no surprise to me that a God of the universe would have bigger plans than this. Honestly, I saw very little in the link with much worth. Basically he did not come as a military leader. It reminded me of current day politics. Not much proof, just minor differences of interpretations, very minor. Seemingly  a resistance.  I was expecting a long list, but it was very little. Everyone is entitled to his belief, his interpretation, etc, but this is posed as substance with their break downs and line items .... that offer only one point that I could see?


I know that I posted a link in another thread which addressed the points you brought up more in depth, but Ill be darned if I can find it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 5, 2019)

Most of what I am seeing in my search has to do with the godman Jesus not fitting, which I agree. I can't find any info in regards to my belief


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

https://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/2637/Q1/


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html



That pretty well covers it. There is a reason the vast majority of Jews rejected the claim that he was the messiah and that the New Testament claims he will return to fulfill the messianic prophecies.


----------



## Israel (Nov 6, 2019)

"This is why the Jews don't/didn't believe Jesus is the Messiah."

The 12 were Jews. Joseph or Arimathea was a Jew. As far as any other followers who may have held any confession to Jesus being Messiah/Christ (the woman at the well being Samaritan) we don't know of many before the crucifixion that were plainly not Jews. The Centurion commended for his faith had some sort of recognition of Jesus' power and authority, but we do not know that he became a "follower"...despite that notable confession. The testimony is that many saw the power, and yet many called for His death.

If he were the same Centurion _at the_ crucifixion "Truly this man was the Son of God" could be so...but it is not stated. The first being found speaking in Capernaum; but we do not know if he was posted also at Jerusalem. Regardless of whether one seeks to weed through the accounts for "non Jews", it's more plain that of those who followed, primarily Jews comprised that group. (And it was these of whom we have the later testimony of having _spread the word_)

And we also have the very plain matter...that even of those who confessed or are mentioned in the scriptures as His followers, not one was was not shocked/surprised at His resurrection. "In disbelief for joy" is how one translation describes their condition at His appearance among them. Absent is any testimony (whether one believes any of the record is recorded by eye witnesses)..."Yes, Jesus, I knew you'd come through death, just like you said...at least_ I always knew it_".

So one has every witness of record without any testimony to their being persuaded (before) of the resurrection "I lay down my life and I take it up again" despite Jesus having said so. The followers themselves were surprised to say the least, according to the record.

So, if, or when, one talks of "Judaism" refuting Jesus as Messiah, one is only speaking of a set of codified religious beliefs making no allowance for such. (Which the world is _able to receive...Judaism_) It does not "speak for every individual Jew" anymore than I (and many of my brothers) accept "christianity" (which the world is able to receive.._.as christianity_) as speaking for anything pertaining to the Christ of God in regards to our confession. Some are no more concerned about being expelled from the "churches" of christianity than those to whom Jesus spoke of having no fear of being cast out of the synagogue, as indeed many would be.

For even today there are Jews who believe Yehoshua is Mashiach. "Jews for Jesus" being no insignificant nor unheard of group (though _Judaism_ by form might exclude them by saying "they are therefore not real Jews"...though they themselves might disagree). Who then...is a Jew?

Is/was Peter a Jew? Shaul of Tarsus? Yohanan (John?) Yacov/Jacob (James?)



Who speaks "for the Jew"? The _gentile_ believer knows, as does the _Jewish_ believer.

And He, the world can neither see nor receive. And each of His own are being changed by_ His _speaking for them, no less. To what the world can neither make sense of, nor receive.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2019)

“And He, the world can neither see nor receive. And each of His own are being changed by_ His _speaking for them, no less. To what the world can neither make sense of, nor receive.”

^That stands in stark contrast to the prophecied characteristics of the Jewish messiah. Yes not all Jews rejected him but the vast majority did.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Israel said:


> "This is why the Jews don't/didn't believe Jesus is the Messiah."
> 
> The 12 were Jews. Joseph or Arimathea was a Jew. As far as any other followers who may have held any confession to Jesus being Messiah/Christ (the woman at the well being Samaritan) we don't know of many before the crucifixion that were plainly not Jews. The Centurion commended for his faith had some sort of recognition of Jesus' power and authority, but we do not know that he became a "follower"...despite that notable confession. The testimony is that many saw the power, and yet many called for His death.
> 
> ...


There always was/is and always will be splinter sects in every religion that are searching for something different, something new, something along their own personal beliefs and are willing to follow someone else who they think wilk get them there.

40,000 Different Denominations in Christianity is the perfect example for you to look at. Those 12 Jews, Joseph of Arimithea, Jews for Jesus etc etc etc are no different than the followers of Mormonism,  David Koresh or any one of the 39,998 other denominations that all claim to be the Christians and the "right" version of Christianity.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Israel said:


> "This is why the Jews don't/didn't believe Jesus is the Messiah."
> 
> The 12 were Jews. Joseph or Arimathea was a Jew. As far as any other followers who may have held any confession to Jesus being Messiah/Christ (the woman at the well being Samaritan) we don't know of many before the crucifixion that were plainly not Jews. The Centurion commended for his faith had some sort of recognition of Jesus' power and authority, but we do not know that he became a "follower"...despite that notable confession. The testimony is that many saw the power, and yet many called for His death.
> 
> ...


If you know your bible,  lots of people were resurrected.  Coming back from the dead was way more common a couple thousand years ago than it is today.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Jesus asked why god had forsaken him, It sounds like he had faith up until reality set in.


You can finish the quote Jesus was making by reading the 22nd Psalm, a prophesy of Christ's passion.  If you read it all you will see that Jesus did not believe he was being forsaken but was showing great confidence in the Father in the midst of his suffering.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> You can finish the quote Jesus was making by reading the 22nd Psalm, a prophesy of Christ's passion.  If you read it all you will see that Jesus did not believe he was being forsaken but was showing great confidence in the Father in the midst of his suffering.


2 people. 2 different interpretations


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

This man makes a nice explanation within the premise that what is written in the bible is true.
http://churchofchristarticles.com/blog/administrator/jesus-forsaken/

I argue from the point that much of what is in the bible is embellished.
2 out of 4 gospels do not even mention Jesus saying it but saying something else entirely.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> 2 people. 2 different interpretations


I am relying on the interpretation of the 2000+ year old church.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> This man makes a nice explanation within the premise that what is written in the bible is true.
> http://churchofchristarticles.com/blog/administrator/jesus-forsaken/
> 
> I argue from the point that much of what is in the bible is embellished.
> 2 out of 4 gospels do not even mention Jesus saying it but saying something else entirely.


From the article; "My personal conviction and one which I believe is consistent with the Biblical teaching regarding the phrase is that the Father did turn His back on Jesus but for a moment. "  

I trust the 1st century church more than a single voice from the 21st century.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

If one reads the Church Fathers it is evident that they, those closest to the life of Christ, several who probably sat at his disciples feet, believed him to be God.

Polycarp
Justin the Martyr
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus 
Clement of Alexandria
Turtullian- Not a father but an apologist
Hippo of Rome
Origen


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> From the article; "My personal conviction and one which I believe is consistent with the Biblical teaching regarding the phrase is that the Father did turn His back on Jesus but for a moment. "
> 
> I trust the 1st century church more than a single voice from the 21st century.


But the authors of the 4 gospels heard things differently or not at all.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> If one reads the Church Fathers it is evident that they, those closest to the life of Christ, several who probably sat at his disciples feet, believed him to be God.
> 
> Polycarp
> Justin the Martyr
> ...


You can find the names of others who believed just as strongly that the person they followed was divine.
Search for list of people who died in Waco with David Koresh


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You can find the names of others who believed just as strongly that the person they followed was divine.
> Search for list of people who died in Waco with David Koresh


I would like you to present those peoples thesis on those beliefs.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> But the authors of the 4 gospels heard things differently or not at all.


or presented them differently for different readers.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> From the article; "My personal conviction and one which I believe is consistent with the Biblical teaching regarding the phrase is that the Father did turn His back on Jesus but for a moment. "
> 
> I trust the 1st century church more than a single voice from the 21st century.



Those church fathers you list had as much first hand knowledge of christ as someone living in the 21st century which is to say none whatsoever. Most of the contemporaries of Jesus didn't buy what he was selling. That's not what was predicted of the jewish messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> I would like you to present those peoples thesis on those beliefs.


They stuck around with him until they were crispy.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> or presented them differently for different readers.


Why?
When someone says something that is quotable there is no need to present it as anything other than as exactly what was said.
If 2 gospel writers were there and heard something else then it would seem 2 may be right and 2 may be wrong. More likely,  none of them were there and wrote to embellish the story they wanted told.


----------



## Madman (Nov 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Why?
> When someone says something that is quotable there is no need to present it as anything other than as exactly what was said.
> If 2 gospel writers were there and heard something else then it would seem 2 may be right and 2 may be wrong. More likely,  none of them were there and wrote to embellish the story they wanted told.



Different groups need different parts of the event emphasized.


----------



## Madman (Nov 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Those church fathers you list had as much first hand knowledge of christ as someone living in the 21st century which is to say none whatsoever. Most of the contemporaries of Jesus didn't buy what he was selling. That's not what was predicted of the jewish messiah.


That is interesting.  So in your opinion someone living in the age of an event, some may have been at the event, and others learned from people who were at the event, all who understand the customs and language of the time, have no more insite than someone 21 hundred years removed.

That is problematic.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> Different groups need different parts of the event emphasized.


For example....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> That is interesting.  So in your opinion someone living in the age of an event, some may have been at the event, and others learned from people who were at the event, all who understand the customs and language of the time, have no more insite than someone 21 hundred years removed.
> 
> That is problematic.


So why would JUST church leaders witness or hear and record  a monumental event such as the Literal Son of God in the Flesh saying, doing, dying and rising....yet NOBODY who lived it, not the educated, the wealthy, the Historians, the teachers the Roman authorities,  the Jews, the Gentiles,  the Pagans, The Moors ...NOBODY thought enough of what supposedly took place to Record it!?!?!?
No records of the Skys turning black, no mention of the Earth splitting open, not a word about graves opening and the Spirits flying about.
Follower or not, friend or foe, if you witness any or all such things you are going to make sure it is remembered and recorded.
History is Silent


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> That is interesting.  So in your opinion someone living in the age of an event, some may have been at the event, and others learned from people who were at the event, all who understand the customs and language of the time, have no more insite than someone 21 hundred years removed.
> 
> That is problematic.



When you say in the age do you mean within a few centuries? If that’s the case then you live in the age of the signing of the constitution. Does that give you first hand knowledge? Are you able to speak directly with people who were eye witnesses to the event? Tertullian just to cite one example on your list was born in 155 AD. That’s 122 years after the crucifixion. And he lived in Carthage which is modern day Tunisia. Quite a distance from Judea especially in those times. His access to information would have been limited to the hearsay he got from other people and manuscripts he happened to get access to. Someone living in the 21st century has access not only to a broader body of work but the benefit of the distillation of knowledge on the subject gained by scholars who have studied all of the available materials and built upon previous scholarship. Tertullian was not an eye witness to the events described. He didn’t speak to anyone who was an eye witness because they would have been dead by the time he was born. Even the gospels themselves don’t claim to be eye witness accounts. Imagine living in a time where your knowledge of an event claimed to happen 120 years before your birth in a foreign land far from your birth and your source of learning about this event is oral tradition and hand copied manuscripts of accounts by anonymous authors written years after the events. That doesn’t exactly make your knowledge of what happened credible.

Nor is credibility assured by being a contemporary of the time. Many miracle stories circulated in those times and have continued to the present day. Many of which you probably reject.

Then of course there is the problem of disagreements between those early Christians on fundamental matters of theology. If their claims are so reliable why did they have such disagreements?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

When the word of god is disputable then it is time to question if it is really the word of god.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman, What did George Washington say to his men before they crossed the Delaware?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2019)

It’s interesting that these early church fathers who were gentiles born after the life and death of Jesus are to be considered contemporaries that would know better than we if Jesus was god in the flesh while at the same time ignoring the vast majority of jews from Jesus time who rejected that very claim.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> That is interesting.  So in your opinion someone living in the age of an event, some may have been at the event, and others learned from people who were at the event, all who understand the customs and language of the time, have no more insite than someone 21 hundred years removed.
> 
> That is problematic.


Take your above ^ "qualifications" and apply them to modern day.
A "witness" testifies to Congress.
Literally 30 seconds, not 1 year, not 100 years, but 30 seconds later....  an R walks out and a D walks out and gives polar opposite opinions of what they just heard.
How da ya figure that can be?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> If one reads the Church Fathers it is evident that they, those closest to the life of Christ, several who probably sat at his disciples feet, believed him to be God.
> 
> Polycarp
> Justin the Martyr
> ...


 Hmmm, Long time since I studied this.... But I'm quite confident that nothing exist from Polycarp to imply that he thought Jesus was God. If I recall, someone else claimed Polycarp cried out something at his death, indicating this, yet it is words put in his mouth.... and it was in an arena of 1000 screaming people. So I don't believe anyone actually heard what Polycarp said, if he said anything. It leads us more to what the claimer believed rather than what Polycarp believed. Interesting time period. About the point that Jesus as God was evolving.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

Jesus as God evolved not from oral passing but rather from our interpretations of the NT writings. In other words, they, the writers did not  believe Jesus was God, yet later.... men discover a triune god within their writings. As if, it were inspired to be there. Jesus as God evolving is hard to prove that it was not, yet evolved. However, the Holy Spirit as a 3rd co equal person of the God head, was without doubt, without question, without dispute, not a church belief until after 325.  The proof is easily seen for anyone whom is brave enough to look into it. And the triune godhead requires it to be so, otherwise, there is no trinity. Clearly not the "gospel first entrusted to the saints".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 7, 2019)

I think it would be easier to show the Father became the Son than a triune God. 
Paul’s salutations in his letters usually mention both the Father and the Son but never mention the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 7, 2019)

I've come to the conclusion that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God. Beyond that, that's all I need to know. He was doing the will and works of His God and His Father through a type of Oneness or Unity. 

Yet he was definitely a separate human man having his own body and soul.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God. Beyond that, that's all I need to know. He was doing the will and works of His God and His Father through a type of Oneness or Unity.
> 
> Yet he was definitely a separate human man having his own body and soul.


Yet even that way the Jews say that God making a human woman conceive his son is an abomination.


----------



## Madman (Nov 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For example....


The jews needed a certain address and the gentiles needed a different approach.

Paul said " I am a Jew to the Jew and a gentile to the gentile.


----------



## Madman (Nov 7, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmm, Long time since I studied this.... But I'm quite confident that nothing exist from Polycarp to imply that he thought Jesus was God. If I recall, someone else claimed Polycarp cried out something at his death, indicating this, yet it is words put in his mouth.... and it was in an arena of 1000 screaming people. So I don't believe anyone actually heard what Polycarp said, if he said anything. It leads us more to what the claimer believed rather than what Polycarp believed. Interesting time period. About the point that Jesus as God was evolving.


"Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and *the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ*, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven *who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ *and in his Father who raised him from the dead."  Polycarp Phillipians 12:2


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> The jews needed a certain address and the gentiles needed a different approach.
> 
> Paul said " I am a Jew to the Jew and a gentile to the gentile.


That does not explain why or why not the authors of the 4 gospels wrote Jesus said different things on the cross.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and *the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ*, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven *who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ *and in his Father who raised him from the dead."  Polycarp Phillipians 12:2


Just a terrible  biased translation. One only needs to read chapter 1 to see what Polycarp believes. Try this one; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm


----------



## Madman (Nov 7, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Jesus as God evolved not from oral passing but rather from our interpretations of the NT writings. In other words, they, the writers did not  believe Jesus was God, yet later.... men discover a triune god within their writings. As if, it were inspired to be there. Jesus as God evolving is hard to prove that it was not, yet evolved. However, the Holy Spirit as a 3rd co equal person of the God head, was without doubt, without question, without dispute, not a church belief until after 325.  The proof is easily seen for anyone whom is brave enough to look into it. And the triune godhead requires it to be so, otherwise, there is no trinity. Clearly not the "gospel first entrusted to the saints".





bullethead said:


> That does not explain why or why not the authors of the 4 gospels wrote Jesus said different things on the cross.


No he didn't


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Just a terrible  biased translation. One only needs to read chapter 1 to see what Polycarp believes. Tr





Madman said:


> "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and *the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ*, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven *who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ *and in his Father who raised him from the dead."  Polycarp Phillipians 12:2


Notice how ridiculous this translation is. Easy to see. It starts with "the God and Father of our Lord". Jesus has a God. Can we all agree that there is a push to insist through interpretation that Jesus is God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Notice how ridiculous this translation is. Easy to see. It starts with "the God and Father of our Lord". Jesus has a God. Can we all agree that there is a push to insist through interpretation that Jesus is God.


Once we realize that 95% of these so called Jesus is God texts are mistranslations forced into scripture, we realize, it's not a mistake. It's corruption


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

Chapter 12 12:1 Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum. Modo, ut his scripturis dictum est, irascimini et nolite peccare, et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram. Beatus, qui meminerit; quod ego credo esse in vobis. ¹ For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hidden from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,” and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” Happy is he who remembers this, which I believe to be the case with you. 12:2 Deus autem et pater domini nostri Iesu Christi, et ipse sempiternus pontifex, dei filius Iesus Christus, aedificet vos in fide et veritate et in omni mansuetudine et sine iracundia et in patientia et in longanimitate et tolerantia et castitate; et det vobis sortem et partem inter sanctos suos et nobis vobiscum et omnibus, qui sunt sub caelo, qui credituri sunt in dominum nostrum et deum Iesum Christum et in ipsius patrem, qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis. ² But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, longsuffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all who are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead. 12:3 Pro omnibus sanctis orate. Orate etiam pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus atque pro persequentibus et odientibus vos et pro inimicis crucis, ut fructus vester manifestus sit in omnibus, ut sitis in illo perfecti. ³ Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings, and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

Everything I am finding does not include the corruption, but I assume it's out there. So we have 2 versions. With and without. Thus we have to look at supporting context before and after..... and it clearly, 100% never eludes to Polycarp ever claiming Jesus as God. Yet those whom try to force Jesus as God into antiquity, as if to validate their belief, are not doing so out of ignorance. They are corrupt


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Everything I am finding does not include the corruption, but I assume it's out there. So we have 2 versions. With and without. Thus we have to look at supporting context before and after..... and it clearly, 100% never eludes to Polycarp ever claiming Jesus as God. Yet those whom try to force Jesus as God into antiquity, as if to validate their belief, are not doing so out of ignorance. They are corrupt


Chap. xii.—_Exhortation to various graces._
For I trust that ye are well versed in the sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.[66] It is declared then in these Scriptures, "Be ye angry, and sin not,"[67] and, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath."[68] Happy is he who remembers[69] this, which I believe to be the case with you. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who "raised Him from the dead."[70] Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings,[71] and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you,[72] and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him.


Here is another without;


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2019)

Polycarp did not believe Jesus was God, however, he may have been the last. We just can't tell with corruption going on as to how much our writings have been corrupted. However, since Polycarp was only corrupted in this instance only, I ask why not more, thus leaning toward those church fathers after him, having much more instances, may be that they did belive jesus as God. Statements as "the blood of God" are context... not mistranslations. Was context added? Probably not. They did not add context to Polycarp, so likely not elsewhere


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2019)

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.Matthew 27:46-50

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:46

It is finished.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. John 19:30


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 8, 2019)

bullethead said:


> My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
> 
> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.Matthew 27:46-50
> 
> ...


What we have are 7 so called last words. All varying. All,  actually reflective of what the writer wants to convey, what he assumes Jesus said... or what oral tradition was passed on to him and he wrote it. But none of it is correct.... I do believe Jesus has a God, and the writer of your verse, "My God, my God, why have thou forsaken me", would be the assumption I would have of his thoughts, however, Jesus never cried out "in a loud voice". Crucifixion victims died of lack of oxygen. There would be no lungs power to even speak....  not even whisper. Google death by crucifixion because my memory can't recall how to explain it. It was suffocation. Jesus died at the ninth hour, the guards not having broken his legs in order that he suffocate quicker, yet his death was faster because of his prior exhaustion of having been beaten and such leading up to the cross. Crucifixion victims could try to push/ pull up to grab a breath of air which was counter productive that it magnified the pain being that they were nailed, not standing on or grabbing a nail by hand. A breath... not enough air to form a sentence


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 8, 2019)

Madman said:


> No he didn't


2019 Apologetic award goes to....


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 8, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Once we realize that 95% of these so called Jesus is God texts are mistranslations forced into scripture, we realize, it's not a mistake. It's corruption


Atheist or Agnostic??? Not much difference in the two but most usually claim one. Or Apologetic of another religion? Definitely not Apologetic for  Christianity.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 8, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That does not explain why or why not the authors of the 4 gospels wrote Jesus said different things on the cross.


 below does. Perception of individuals. Not uncommon. It doesn’t mean the cross didn’t happen. 


WaltL1 said:


> Take your above ^ "qualifications" and apply them to modern day.
> A "witness" testifies to Congress.
> Literally 30 seconds, not 1 year, not 100 years, but 30 seconds later....  an R walks out and a D walks out and gives polar opposite opinions of what they just heard.
> How da ya figure that can be?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> below does. Perception of individuals. Not uncommon. It doesn’t mean the cross didn’t happen.



True but it does mean the Bible is not 100% historically accurate.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> below does. Perception of individuals. Not uncommon. It doesn’t mean the cross didn’t happen.


I agree with your point.
But you have to go deeper.
Many times perception is guided by what we WANT to hear. What we WANT to be true. The story that we WANT to be told. The story that supports our side/agenda.
Different perceptions can be a "honest" difference.
Different perceptions can also be "dishonest" differences in that facts and evidence get shoved to the side and ones agenda becomes the controlling factor.
The only way to avoid/minimize the "perception" issue is to rely on evidence, facts and proof.


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2019)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV

and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety -- God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory! YLT


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 8, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> 2019 Apologetic award goes to....


Dang, I just spit coffee on my keyboard


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2019)

> Literally 30 seconds, not 1 year, not 100 years, but 30 seconds later.... an R walks out and a D walks out and gives polar opposite opinions of what they just heard.
> How da ya figure that can be?





WaltL1 said:


> I agree with your point.
> But you have to go deeper.
> Many times perception is guided by what we WANT to hear. What we WANT to be true. The story that we WANT to be told. The story that supports our side/agenda.
> Different perceptions can be a "honest" difference.
> ...



Might it not be the very "D" and "R" by the name, attributed to and/or accepted by the hearer that might have the greater influence?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 8, 2019)

Israel said:


> Might it not be the very "D" and "R" by the name, attributed to and/or accepted by the hearer that might have the greater influence?


Absolutely. 
The teller AND the hearer both have a responsibility.
Only facts and proof, as boring or cold or unspiritual as that might be, can minimize all these human traits/agendas.
And even facts and proof can be muddy waters as facts and proof dont necessarily remain facts or proof forever.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 8, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> True but it does mean the Bible is not 100% historically accurate.


Depends I guess. Maybe the stories really happened, MN subs one is completely accurate, the other 3 differ in ways because of what they remember. I don’t believe any of this in any way makes the stories false. I realize it doesn’t make them accurate either. Just acknowledging that difference in story lines happens when different writers write.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 8, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with your point.
> But you have to go deeper.
> Many times perception is guided by what we WANT to hear. What we WANT to be true. The story that we WANT to be told. The story that supports our side/agenda.
> Different perceptions can be a "honest" difference.
> ...


Even with facts / proof / evidence a jury / judge still has to determine if it’s convincing to them or not. We don’t always agree with their verdict, especially if it’s not how we thought / wanted it to be.  That didn’t make the crime false or inaccurate.


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Absolutely.
> The teller AND the hearer both have a responsibility.
> Only facts and proof, as boring or cold or unspiritual as that might be, can minimize all these human traits/agendas.
> And even facts and proof can be muddy waters as facts and proof dont necessarily remain facts or proof forever.



I agree. It would behoove a man, if once made aware of any matter of static/interference with either his speaking or his hearing to take measures to their identification and silencing in at least as profound a degree as he desires truth.

I'd almost say it's kind of axiomatic...not even that one "should"...but that one could not even avoid it. If one has an interest in clear speaking and clear hearing, he can't help but be moved by matters (when made known to him) that would interfere. (We might even call this a matter of "clear" relating...a transparency?)

Of course we get back to this matter that doggedly pursues this at every turn

"If I say I am a man interested only in the truth of things...am I...really?"

and, no less

"If I hear a man say his only interest is in the truth of things...is he?"


I am convinced apart from each man recognizing that primarily (firstly) the matter of his own static, the matter of his own bent toward self deception, the internal "stuff" is all he can really attend to for clarity. He might find this also goes a long way in what appears the outside.

Once he is convinced it is he, no less than any other, but to _better known of himself as such_ in "All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes"...

well, it is, what it is.

He might even learn he can stop saying "All I am interested in is the truth"...finding even that statement can carry its own static of self exaltation.


Could a man find out that truth is inescapable...regardless of where or how he self measures his relationship to it?

After all, when was the last time either of us heard anyone say "I just love being lied to and then go about spreading those same lies?" Our capacity to cast ourselves in the "best light"...well...it is what it is.


"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for *my* closeup."


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Even with facts / proof / evidence a jury / judge still has to determine if it’s convincing to them or not. We don’t always agree with their verdict, especially if it’s not how we thought / wanted it to be.  That didn’t make the crime false or inaccurate.


That's true.
Its certainly an imperfect process. It all stills boils down to what we are willing to believe or not believe. But facts/proof/evidence is the least imperfect process we as humans have come up with so far.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Depends I guess. Maybe the stories really happened, MN subs one is completely accurate, the other 3 differ in ways because of what they remember. I don’t believe any of this in any way makes the stories false. I realize it doesn’t make them accurate either. Just acknowledging that difference in story lines happens when different writers write.



It's not as if they are all saying he said the same thing and they just worded it differently based on their understanding. Best case scenario if one of them is right about his last words the others are wrong. You also seem to be making the assumption that the writers of these stories are basing it off of their own memory as witnesses to event. There is no reason to make that assumption and good reason to think these are not first hand accounts.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Even with facts / proof / evidence a jury / judge still has to determine if it’s convincing to them or not. We don’t always agree with their verdict, especially if it’s not how we thought / wanted it to be.  That didn’t make the crime false or inaccurate.



If you tell me the general theme of the stories remain, that is he died and was resurrected, I think that is true of the stories. If you tell me these are inerrant accounts of what actually happened with no contradictions then we've got a problem.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 8, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If you tell me the general theme of the stories remain, that is he died and was resurrected, I think that is true of the stories. If you tell me these are inerrant accounts of what actually happened with no contradictions then we've got a problem.


I think I agree. They were all written over a span of time afterwards, so I wouldn’t expect a complete copy cat of any unless it was the same Writer. Where we disagree is the contradictions. Based on the theme if the last several posts, it’s expected, accepted and highly possible that two people will not give identical accounts of anything. Not being identical doesn’t necessarily mean contradictory in the sense of “conflicted” or one must be wrong, it’s simply another Writers  perception.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 8, 2019)

Israel said:


> And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV
> 
> and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety -- God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory! YLT


Sorry boys.... but another perfect example of forcing Jesus to be God, found in the scriptures. The greek reads, great is the mystery of Godliness, WHO was .....The translators inserted the word God in place of "Who". It is referring to Jesus but the word God is not justified unless your corrupting it on purpose. Again, when you see this over and over, you start to have only a small handful of ambigious verses left, then you realize ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 8, 2019)

This word "who" ... no indication of God in any of it's uses. Translated as who 158 times and whom 218 times. Never as God. This is blatant corruption.

Part of Speech: Relative Pronoun
Transliteration: hos, hé, ho
Phonetic Spelling: (hos)
Definition: usually rel. who, which, that, also demonstrative this, that
Usage: who, which, what, that.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. pronoun
Definition
usually rel. who, which, that, also demonstrative this, that
NASB Translation
another* (8), any (1), because* (7), deeds* (1), just (1), just* (1), once* (1), one (11), one* (6), other (2), others* (2), same (2), since* (3), so (1), some (7), some* (8), someone (1), such (1), there (1), these (6), these things (3), thing (1), things (4), third (1), this (22), this is what (1), those whom (1), until* (1), what (101), what* (2), whatever (5), whatever* (28), when (9), when* (3), where (1), where* (2), which (404), while* (3), who (158), whoever (4), whoever* (51), whom (218), whomever* (6), whose (38), why* (3).


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 8, 2019)

Bible hub, for those who don't know greek;
It does not look like it does here. It has a column for strongs, the greek word, english, etc. And you can click on any to see all other bible uses of a greek word. First you type in the verse fowolled by biblehub. Then when it comes up, click on greek in the upper choices

​
◄ 1 Timothy 3:16 ►
Text Analysis
Go to Parallel Greek
Strong'sGreekEnglishMorphology
2532 [e]Καὶ
kaiAndConj
3672 [e]ὁμολογουμένως
homologoumenōsconfessedly,Adv
3173 [e]μέγα
megagreatAdj-NNS
1510 [e]ἐστὶν
estinisV-PIA-3S
3588 [e]τὸ
totheArt-NNS
3588 [e]τῆς
tēs-Art-GFS
2150 [e]εὐσεβείας
eusebeiasof godlinessN-GFS
3466 [e]μυστήριον·
mystērionmystery:N-NNS
3739 [e]Ὃς
HosWhoRelPro-NMS
5319 [e]ἐφανερώθη
ephanerōthēwas revealedV-AIP-3S
1722 [e]ἐν
eninPrep
4561 [e]σαρκί,
sarki[the] flesh,N-DFS
1344 [e]ἐδικαιώθη
edikaiōthēwas justifiedV-AIP-3S​


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think I agree. They were all written over a span of time afterwards, so I wouldn’t expect a complete copy cat of any unless it was the same Writer. Where we disagree is the contradictions. Based on the theme if the last several posts, it’s expected, accepted and highly possible that two people will not give identical accounts of anything. Not being identical doesn’t necessarily mean contradictory in the sense of “conflicted” or one must be wrong, it’s simply another Writers  perception.




Do you think Matthew and Luke were written by the author of Mark? They both contain word for word copies of stories found in Mark.

Not being identical does not necessarily mean contradictory but in this case the accounts are contradictory. Based on your reading of the gospels tell us what Jesus last words were before he died? You can't answer that question in a way that doesn't contradict at least one of the gospel accounts.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think I agree. They were all written over a span of time afterwards, so I wouldn’t expect a complete copy cat of any unless it was the same Writer. Where we disagree is the contradictions. Based on the theme if the last several posts, it’s expected, accepted and highly possible that two people will not give identical accounts of anything. Not being identical doesn’t necessarily mean contradictory in the sense of “conflicted” or one must be wrong, it’s simply another Writers  perception.


I wish that were the case. I wish it was without major context contradictions.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> What we have are 7 so called last words. All varying. All,  actually reflective of what the writer wants to convey, what he assumes Jesus said... or what oral tradition was passed on to him and he wrote it. But none of it is correct.... I do believe Jesus has a God, and the writer of your verse, "My God, my God, why have thou forsaken me", would be the assumption I would have of his thoughts, however, Jesus never cried out "in a loud voice". Crucifixion victims died of lack of oxygen. There would be no lungs power to even speak....  not even whisper. Google death by crucifixion because my memory can't recall how to explain it. It was suffocation. Jesus died at the ninth hour, the guards not having broken his legs in order that he suffocate quicker, yet his death was faster because of his prior exhaustion of having been beaten and such leading up to the cross. Crucifixion victims could try to push/ pull up to grab a breath of air which was counter productive that it magnified the pain being that they were nailed, not standing on or grabbing a nail by hand. A breath... not enough air to form a sentence


You are preaching to the Choir brother Gr8.
The authors of the gospels are unfamiliar with crucifixion,  Roman Army procedure and protocol, customs, timelines, Law and on and on and on.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> below does. Perception of individuals. Not uncommon. It doesn’t mean the cross didn’t happen.


Spotlite, are you saying that the people chosen to record the Word of God were not up to the task? Was your God unable to find the right people? 
C'mon man, how do you expect us to embrace the claims of the Miraculous and Powers and then accept excuses on why all that involves a God is so un-god-like???


----------



## Israel (Nov 9, 2019)

To accept only what comports with one's interpretation of reality leaves only the eventual manifest reduction to the self as sole arbiter.

It is the form of all presumption.

It is both the starting point of the _old man_ and his end.


----------



## Israel (Nov 9, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's true.
> Its certainly an imperfect process. It all stills boils down to what we are willing to believe or not believe. But facts/proof/evidence is the least imperfect process we as humans have come up with so far.



That's a good point to consider. 

Have you ever had your will overridden in regards to what you are _willing to believe_?
Is it possible? Is it not all that is possible?

"willing to believe"...some phrase, right? At least to me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> To accept only what comports with one's interpretation of reality leaves only the eventual manifest reduction to the self as sole arbiter.
> 
> It is the form of all presumption.
> 
> It is both the starting point of the _old man_ and his end.


In this thread Translation trumps Presumption


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> To accept only what comports with one's interpretation of reality leaves only the eventual manifest reduction to the self as sole arbiter.
> 
> It is the form of all presumption.
> 
> It is both the starting point of the _old man_ and his end.



An apt description of most Christians.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> That's a good point to consider.
> 
> Have you ever had your will overridden in regards to what you are _willing to believe_?
> Is it possible? Is it not all that is possible?
> ...


Hmmm..... complicated question. The use of the word "willing" is what complicates it.
Ive had my will overidden concerning what I wanted/not wanted to believe.
There are things, mostly about individual people, that I never would have believed that I now believe.
I translate "willing to believe" to "are there things I refuse to believe".
Ive been on the earth too long and traveled too many roads to refuse to believe anything.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 9, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, are you saying that the people chosen to record the Word of God were not up to the task? Was your God unable to find the right people?
> C'mon man, how do you expect us to embrace the claims of the Miraculous and Powers and then accept excuses on why all that involves a God is so un-god-like???


No, I didn’t say that at all.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, I didn’t say that at all.


What you said sounded like an excuse as to why the writers words do not match. It seemed that when needed, you equate things which are supposedly of and by a greater power than what is available in this world with worldly things.
If something is Of God, shouldn't it be God-like also? And Constantly, not conveniently.
What is written in the bible is claimed to be THE word of god. Meaning that what is written in that book is exactly the way God absolutely intended it to be. And god chose people to do the job.
In my opinion,  any believer that makes an excuse as to why something is incorrect or may be one way or the other because of human error or human ways or human capabilities, is not confident of their beliefs and then I have to question if any of it is indeed god-like and why a god would want or allow it's word to be anything other than EXACTLY as intended.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What you said sounded like an excuse as to why the writers words do not match. It seemed that when needed, you equate things which are supposedly of and by a greater power than what is available in this world with worldly things.
> If something is Of God, shouldn't it be God-like also? And Constantly, not conveniently.
> What is written in the bible is claimed to be THE word of god. Meaning that what is written in that book is exactly the way God absolutely intended it to be. And god chose people to do the job.
> In my opinion,  any believer that makes an excuse as to why something is incorrect or may be one way or the other because of human error or human ways or human capabilities, is not confident of their beliefs and then I have to question if any of it is indeed god-like and why a god would want or allow it's word to be anything other than EXACTLY as intended.


No, you just formed your own opinion of my comment - which is exactly what my statement in regard to individual perception meant.

To be more detailed in where you’re wanting go with that opinion, “moved on by the spirit” or felt led of the Lord mean the sane thing. That’s why two different preachers can take a verse and preach two different messages from it and each message give insight or direction to those in need. Neither were wrong. 

An eyewitness account by two different people can and does in many cases differ in detail.,


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, you just formed your own opinion of my comment - which is exactly what my statement in regard to individual perception meant.
> 
> To be more detailed in where you’re wanting go with that opinion, “moved on by the spirit” or felt led of the Lord mean the sane thing. That’s why two different preachers can take a verse and preach two different messages from it and each message give insight or direction to those in need. Neither were wrong.
> 
> An eyewitness account by two different people can and does in many cases differ in detail.,


I agree that eyewitness accounts differ.
And
Differentiating eyewitness accounts is an EXTREMELY human trait.

Police will use statements from witnesses in order to put together a description of a suspect. Descriptions that vary in details do not help. Accurate details do. 
In a court of law corroborating eyewitness accounts in testimony is what makes a solid case.
Each example often has problems due to the human factor.

If you are content that a god chose people who would see the same thing yet record it differently to be the official works that represent that god then so be it.
I am not that gullible or willing to overlook and make excuses for a Being and book that is supposed to be Inerrant and Infallible.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> An apt description of most Christians.



Am I going out on a limb to see that comment as finding presumptuousness not commendable?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Am I going out on a limb to see that comment as finding presumptuousness not commendable?



Certainly not when it refuses to give way to evidence.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I agree that eyewitness accounts differ.
> And
> Differentiating eyewitness accounts is an EXTREMELY human trait.


Why are you surprised about the Bible?? It’s handwritten by men, “breathed” (inspired) by God.,

You do realize that these scriptures you’re referring to were not stated or pushed to be as exact “quotes” documented at the exact time as the events unfolded??????

When you have a spiritual understanding of scripture rather than a carnal, you realize that to “say unto this mountain be moved” is not telling anyone to go to the Rockys and pick out a mountain and tell it to move????? That’s a very simple example but you get the idea. Maybe it’s not the contradiction, most likely human perception by a reader of what they think is a contradiction.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I agree that eyewitness accounts differ.
> And
> Differentiating eyewitness accounts is an EXTREMELY human trait.
> 
> ...



Key word in all of that is corroborating. The gospels in places are verbatim copies and in other places contradict each other. Not what you’re looking for with truthful accounts of a historical event.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why are you surprised about the Bible?? It’s handwritten by men, “breathed” (inspired) by God.,
> 
> You do realize that these scriptures you’re referring to were not stated or pushed to be as exact “quotes” documented at the exact time as the events unfolded??????
> 
> When you have a spiritual understanding of scripture rather than a carnal, you realize that to “say unto this mountain be moved” is not telling anyone to go to the Rockys and pick out a mountain and tell it to move????? That’s a very simple example but you get the idea.



What’s the “spiritual understanding” of Jesus last words before he died? He either said something or he didn’t. There is no spiritual understanding. Everything you understand is by way of that grey matter between your ears the same as anyone else. We either understand what the author meant to convey or we don’t. Maybe the author of the scripture about moving mountains with faith was speaking metaphorically. That can be understood without resorting to claims of special powers of “spiritual understanding”. I can accept that may have been the authors meaning but is it necessarily so? Could Jesus not literally move mountains by faith if he chose to?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What’s the “spiritual understanding” of Jesus last words before he died? He either said something or he didn’t. There is no spiritual understanding. Everything you understand is by way of that grey matter between your ears the same as anyone else. We either understand what the author meant to convey or we don’t. Maybe the author of the scripture about moving mountains with faith was speaking metaphorically. That can be understood without resorting to claims of special powers of “spiritual understanding”. I can accept that may have been the authors meaning but is it necessarily so? Could Jesus not literally move mountains by faith if he chose to?


You’ve brought that up on this thread already, I didn’t address it the first time because its a question without detailed reference.

Compare Jesus’s last words and let’s see what you got. Show us if they’re quotes, eyewitnesses account, etc.

Yes he could move a literal mountain but what good is that? A spiritual mountain could be your carnal thinking??? What more can be accomplished by removing that.

There’s definitely spiritual understanding of the Word. It doesn’t take or have anything to do with special powers lol.

No offense meant to any non believers but I’m still humored by the descriptions they apply (special powers).

Nothing wrong with being skeptical, just know that skepticism doesn’t mean you’re correct.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Certainly not when it refuses to give way to evidence.



That sounds to my ear that presumptuousness is not unwarranted in the presence of some (or abundance) of evidence?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why are you surprised about the Bible?? It’s handwritten by men, “breathed” (inspired) by God.,
> 
> You do realize that these scriptures you’re referring to were not stated or pushed to be as exact “quotes” documented at the exact time as the events unfolded??????
> 
> When you have a spiritual understanding of scripture rather than a carnal, you realize that to “say unto this mountain be moved” is not telling anyone to go to the Rockys and pick out a mountain and tell it to move????? That’s a very simple example but you get the idea. Maybe it’s not the contradiction, most likely human perception by a reader of what they think is a contradiction.


I understand the bible and take it for exactly what it is. Not an ounce more.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’ve brought that up on this thread already, I didn’t address it the first time because its a question without detailed reference.
> 
> Compare Jesus’s last words and let’s see what you got. Show us if they’re quotes, eyewitnesses account, etc.
> 
> ...


So, who's word is "The Word"?
Man's or Gods?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why are you surprised about the Bible?? It’s handwritten by men, “breathed” (inspired) by God.,


Absolutely in no way am I surprised by the bible.



Spotlite said:


> You do realize that these scriptures you’re referring to were not stated or pushed to be as exact “quotes” documented at the exact time as the events unfolded??????


Then why do people take them seriously? Why do you obey the words?



Spotlite said:


> When you have a spiritual understanding of scripture rather than a carnal, you realize that to “say unto this mountain be moved” is not telling anyone to go to the Rockys and pick out a mountain and tell it to move????? That’s a very simple example but you get the idea. Maybe it’s not the contradiction, most likely human perception by a reader of what they think is a contradiction.


I can perceive a contradiction when there are 4 different accounts of very specific events that are to be considered as The Word of what is supposed to be the greatest Deity.
Maybe to you the accuracy of who was at the grave, or in the tomb or number of guards or what Jesus said is not important.
You are making a great case that spiritual understanding and religious blinders are one in the same.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely in no way am I surprised by the bible.
> 
> 
> Then why do people take them seriously? Why do you obey the words?
> ...


Because you’re missing one important factor - the spiritual aspect.
Again, go into detail of the specific events, use the one Atlas is referring to and then explain how you know that Jesus didn’t say all, most or none of the things considered his last words. He could have said them all???? Did any Writer say they quoted the entire conversation of Jesus verbatim???
How do you know he didn’t say all of it?? A lot of things such as that, you only assume, yet you’re convinced they’re contradictory??


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So, who's word is "The Word"?
> Man's or Gods?


IF you did look at this in your own carnal way of thinking, you’d understand that understanding the Bible has more to do with just knowing what a sentence says.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Because you’re missing one important factor - the spiritual aspect.
> Again, go into detail of the specific events, use the one Atlas is referring to and then explain how you know that Jesus didn’t say all, most or none of the things considered his last words. He could have said them all???? Did any Writer say they quoted the entire conversation of Jesus verbatim???
> A lot of things such as that, you only assume, yet you’re convinced they’re contradictory??


They say "and with his last breath, final words, etc" and then they mention his supposed words. How else can last words be interpreted?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> IF you did look at this in your own carnal way of thinking, you’d understand that understanding the Bible has more to do with just knowing what a sentence says.


Yeah if I bought the bull snort I'd think differently....well no duh!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> IF you did look at this in your own carnal way of thinking, you’d understand that understanding the Bible has more to do with just knowing what a sentence says.


Actually I don't agree with what you are saying at all. You should get that same understanding from all spiritual books if you truly had any sort of special understanding.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’ve brought that up on this thread already, I didn’t address it the first time because its a question without detailed reference.
> 
> Compare Jesus’s last words and let’s see what you got. Show us if they’re quotes, eyewitnesses account, etc.
> 
> ...



What detailed reference does the question require? It’s a very simple question. You’re avoiding it because the answer depends on which gospel you read.

What’s the point of the literal moving of a mountain? Well it would be a pretty powerful demonstration of faith for starters. What was the point of making a fig tree whither and die for not bearing figs out of season? The claims of miracles that defy laws of nature are numerous so why should anyone conclude that moving a literal mountain would be outside of what should be expected of faith? And if Jesus could do it why can’t his followers?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> That sounds to my ear that presumptuousness is not unwarranted in the presence of some (or abundance) of evidence?



When’s the last time you offered this lecture to your young earth creationist brethren?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> IF you did look at this in your own carnal way of thinking, you’d understand that understanding the Bible has more to do with just knowing what a sentence says.



So answer the question.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So answer the question.


You’ve made a claim about discrepancies in the last words of Jesus. Show your discrepancies at question.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Actually I don't agree with what you are saying at all. You should get that same understanding from all spiritual books if you truly had any sort of special understanding.


I’m ok with not agreeing, that isn’t a qualifier in determining right / wrong.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> When’s the last time you offered this lecture to your young earth creationist brethren?



What lecture is in the question regarding justification for presumptuousness? I said it sounded as though you were saying...with sufficient evidence (of whatever) presumptuousness would be warranted.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> What lecture is in the question regarding justification for presumptuousness? I said it sounded as though you were saying...with sufficient evidence (of whatever) presumptuousness would be warranted.



The lecture was your original post that I replied to. You’ve got people who think the earth is 6,000 years old and men coexisted with the dinosaurs because of Genesis but you are here telling people who were once believers about being stuck on presumptions.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2019)

In regards to presumptuousness:




> atlashunter said:





> An apt description of most Christians.






> Israel said:





> Am I going out on a limb to see that comment as finding presumptuousness not commendable?






> atlashunter said:





> Certainly not when it refuses to give way to evidence.



Thinking "certainly not" meant I was not going out on a limb...when there is a refusal to give way to evidence...to me implying that if there is sufficient evidence...one is then justified in being presumptuous. Which I expressed as:



> That sounds to my ear that presumptuousness is not unwarranted in the presence of some (or abundance) of evidence?



Which somehow then became a matter of questioning when I had last lectured "my brethren" in regards to what they might hold as young earth stance.

So then...if I can make any inference to what you may be asking, it would seem that a young earth stance implicitly implies one is being presumptuous?

Do you understand why I end that with a question mark?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’ve made a claim about discrepancies in the last words of Jesus. Show your discrepancies at question.



It’s already been shown and your continued avoidance of the question is noted.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2019)

And I do not disagree that a believer may act in as much presumption as anyone else...which was why I did not shy away from "liking" your response. To you it fit what you see as apt in your appraisal of "most" christians.
But, would I be presumptuous to say you haven't really ever met..."most" christians?


(But I can allow that you may be far more busy than I imagine)


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> And I do not disagree that a believer may act in as much presumption as anyone else...which was why I did not shy away from "liking" your response. To you it fit what you see as apt in your appraisal of "most" christians.
> But, would I be presumptuous to say you haven't really ever met..."most" christians?



Haven’t met most in person nor do I need to.

I’ve been exposed to enough of them to be pretty confident in my assessment and spotlite here is only reinforcing it. I’m not surprised. It would take a lot to move me off of that assessment but i would consider any evidence presented to the contrary. What would it take to convince Ken Hamm or Ray Comfort they were wrong about evolution? What would it take to convince a lot of Christians the Bible isn’t inerrant or 100% historically accurate? For many the answer is nothing could move them from their preconceptions. Most of the people you are talking to on this forum once shared those preconceptions and we questioned them and decided we were wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m ok with but agreeing, that isn’t a qualifier in determining right / wrong.


It does when good reasons as to why or why not are offered along with it.
I have offered many


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yeah if I bought the bull snort I'd think differently....well no duh!


Lol you might have bought it


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html


Just getting around to these. This was a good read that seems to cover all the basis that the earlier link did not address. It's seems as though those who have never participated in Temple worship, are eager to go back to that, as if it's a icon of their belief, not realizing that it was a burden. It's interesting to me to view their reason Jesus is not the Messiah, and see how the NT addresses that issue. Interesting enough and expected, is that this link states they don't need a saviour or anyone to tell them how to be saved. They say they have the Torah for that. And that's the gospel in a nut shell, if they could keep it. They still think they can.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> https://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/2637/Q1/


This last link, 90% of it is pointed towards a trinitarian Jesus. Not addressing much more.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This last link, 90% of it is pointed towards a trinitarian Jesus. Not addressing much more.


Yes, I included that link because we had talked about God, Son of God , God and Son being seperate and them being one in the same.
I wanted to show the Jewish perspectives.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Not being identical does not necessarily mean contradictory but in this case the accounts are contradictory. Based on your reading of the gospels tell us what Jesus last words were before he died? You can't answer that question in a way that doesn't contradict at least one of the gospel accounts.





bullethead said:


> They say "and with his last breath, final words, etc" and then they mention his supposed words.



Just picking up where you asked me (not weeding through the entire thread) - since neither of you were able to explain your "contradictions"...………

They say:
Matthew 27: 5o Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15: 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost.

Luke 23: 46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and having said thus he gave up the ghost.

John 19: 30 When Jesus therefore had finished the vinegar he said it is finished and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.




Spotlite said:


> explain how you know that Jesus didn’t say all, most or none of the things considered his last words. He could have said them all???? Did any Writer say they quoted the entire conversation of Jesus verbatim???


I answered ^^^^^^^^^^^

We know that Atlas can agree on a general theme - _(Atlas: If you tell me the general theme of the stories remain, that is he died and was resurrected, I think that is true of the stories.) _

General theme according to the Writers - Jesus cried out with a loud voice, he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, he also said It is finished, he bowed his head and he gave up the ghost.

So, after the vinegar, show us where any Writer claimed to have a quote of every word and action of Jesus in complete detail until he gave up the ghost.

Now, to prove which story is contradictory - show us the complete text that you are using to prove what was said so you prove who left out, or added to their story.

I am sure you two are aware of the scenario that Walt pointed out on this thread??


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just picking up where you asked me (not weeding through the entire thread) - since neither of you were able to explain your "contradictions"...………
> 
> They say:
> Matthew 27: 5o Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the ghost.
> ...


During Crucifixion, he would not have died a hollywood death where he spoke his last words just before passing. Suffocation kills a person, near the end there is no air breathe in or expel in words. Jesus died pretty quickly compared to most.  He may have said many or all of those things at some points along the way, but until it to the writers through oral stories, they had different endings. Because none of them were there to witness it.
The contradictions increase as the Gospels tell who was at/in the tomb. How the Roman guard was assigned and on and on and on.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> During Crucifixion, he would not have died a hollywood death where he spoke his last words just before passing. Suffocation kills a person, near the end there is no air breathe in or expel in words. Jesus died pretty quickly compared to most.  He may have said many or all of those things at some points along the way, but until it to the writers through oral stories, they had different endings. Because none of them were there to witness it.
> The contradictions increase as the Gospels tell who was at/in the tomb. How the Roman guard was assigned and on and on and on.


Please tell us how instant his death was and you know he remains quiet or went out verbally. Was it a 1 second death, 39 second, 2 minute, or so instant he didn’t have time to say “ouch”??? How many words can be spoken in 1 minute? How much was said before he bowed his head and couldn’t speak, how long was it after he bowed his head and gave up the ghost? Please enlighten us to what you know and how you know more than the Writers that were several thousand years closer to the event than you are. You gotta have more than “I’m sure” to prove a contradiction.

I sent you an example of how a spiritual connection works, you didn’t  have an answer to it which is perfectly fine. If you don’t have an answer for something today, it’s literally impossible for you to know anything different about what the Writers say they received in spirit then. No answer is perfectly honest, and acceptable, everything else is just an opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Oh please tell us how instant his death was and you know he tensioned quiet. Was it a 1 second death, 39 second, 2 minute, or so instant he didn’t have time to say “ouch”??? How many words can be spoken in 1 minute? How much was said before he bowed his head and couldn’t speak, how long was it after he bowed his head and gave up the ghost? Please enlighten us to what you know and how you know more than the Writers that were several thousand years closer to the event than you are. You gotta have more than “I’m sure” to prove a contradiction. Your opinion is noted though.


Those writers "knew" then about what was said at the crucifixion, about the same as we know now about what was said at Valley Forge.
Read up on crucifixion, you can decide what is more likely than not then.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Those writers "knew" then about what was said at the crucifixion, about the same as we know now about what was said at Valley Forge.
> Read up on crucifixion, you can decide what is more likely than not then.


Ok so you got nothing to prove your “contradiction”. Thanks for admitting that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

From a pro Christian source
http://www.crivoice.org/crucifixiontime.html


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok so you got nothing to prove your “contradiction”. Thanks for admitting that.


Don't pat yourself too hard just yet, I am at work, I'll get to it later today


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Getting there..
https://www.learnreligions.com/contradictions-in-gospel-accounts-of-jesus-crucifixion-250140


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/10/crucifixion-contradictions-or-how-did-jesus-really-die/


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Don't pat yourself too hard just yet, I am at work, I'll get to it later today


Lol ok. Well, it’s freezing rain here and I’m stuck in the office all day (work remotely) Most likely will be kicking off some stew or chili in a few to get the house smelling hungry. Later


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

Those are good bullethead. I guess I’m looking for more than another Writers opinion since we have to have evidence.
Meaning - what’s out there that you or any Writer in those links have to hang your hats on that you know for certain what Jesus did or didn’t say?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just picking up where you asked me (not weeding through the entire thread) - since neither of you were able to explain your "contradictions"...………
> 
> They say:
> Matthew 27: 5o Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the ghost.
> ...



The contradictions were shown in post 129. Did you not read that post?

In Mark and Matthew he asks why god has forsaken him, then he cries out in a loud voice and dies. This portrays a Jesus that died in a state of distress and his last words are “my god, why hast thou forsaken me?”.

In Luke he doesn’t ask why god has forsaken him at all. He cries out in a loud voice and then says “father into thy hands I commend my spirit” and then he dies. This is a more serene Jesus than portrayed in Mark and Matthew and his last words are different.

In John he doesn’t cry out in a loud voice at all. He has a drink of vinegar and then says “It is finished” and bows his head and dies. Again we have a serene composed Jesus in contrast to the Jesus in Mark and Matthew.

Four gospels and three different accounts of what his last words were. This is not a general theme we are talking about here. What his last words were is a specific detail which each gospel attests to but only Mark and Matthew comport with one another. Luke and John both contradict every other gospel.

Now you can try to piece those together into a stereo gospel that none of the authors wrote and that makes sense and good luck with that. If he said one thing and then died then he couldn’t have said something different and then died. There is no getting around that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The contradictions were shown in post 129. Did you not read that post?
> 
> In Mark and Matthew he asks why god has forsaken him, then he cries out in a loud voice and dies. This portrays a Jesus that died in a state of distress and his last words are “my god, why hast thou forsaken me?”.
> 
> ...


Reread my post again, slowly. Right now, you only have an opinion, nothing factual.
What you got to prove he didn’t cry out with a loud voice after the vinegar and before it is finished? 

We can assume perception of individuals in the writing detail. But to debunk it, you must be holding onto some solid evidence of everything he said. Let’s see it.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

“General theme according to the Writers - Jesus cried out with a loud voice, he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, he also said It is finished, he bowed his head and he gave up the ghost.”

^No gospel says this. In Mark and Matthew he dies after crying out in a loud voice without saying anything more. Luke says he gives up the ghost after saying “into thy hands I commend my spirit”. John makes no mention of him crying out in a loud voice at all and only says “It is finished” and then dies.




Spotlite said:


> Reread my post again, slowly.



Reread those scriptures again.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> “General theme according to the Writers - Jesus cried out with a loud voice, he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, he also said It is finished, he bowed his head and he gave up the ghost.”
> 
> ^No gospel says this. In Mark and Matthew he dies after crying out in a loud voice without saying anything more. Luke says he gives up the ghost after saying “into thy hands I commend my spirit”. John makes no mention of him crying out in a loud voice at all and only says “It is finished” and then dies.
> 
> ...


Lol ok you got nothing. I figured as much


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Reread my post again, slowly. Right now, you only have an opinion, nothing factual.
> What you got to prove he didn’t cry out with a loud voice after the vinegar and before it is finished?
> 
> We can assume perception of individuals in the writing detail. But to debunk it, you must be holding onto some solid evidence of everything he said. Let’s see it.



What is factual is that we have three differing accounts of his last words. I don’t know which if any are historically accurate. I just know they can’t all be accurate and it may be that none of them are. Best case scenario Mark and Matthew are accurate which would mean Luke and John are not. Two out of four gospels got it wrong. If either Luke or John are accurate then three out of four gospels got it wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol ok you got nothing. I figured as much



Declaring victory for yourself doesn’t help you here. I know you see the contradictions for yourself based on your selective summarization. You’re making yourself look silly at this point.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Declaring victory for yourself doesn’t help you here. I know you see the contradictions for yourself based on your selective summarization. You’re making yourself look silly at this point.


Not declaring victory, I’m not that arrogant.

The whole concept pointed out over the last few pages were about individual perception. Unless you have a solid transcript somewhere to prove what was said and what wasn’t, you don’t have the evidence to back up your contradiction claim.

Now, take it to a spiritual connection (which is what’s believed that the spirit breathed words on a Writer) and personal examples have been given here before. Non believers won’t assign that to a deity, since they don’t know what to assign it to, most just go with “nothing” and there it rest. Since you don’t even know how or what to assign it to, how can you even know it’s not even happening???

That’s not victory, just pointing out you only gave an opinion based on what you believe / disbelieve. Now, not so fast on a diversion attempt to make others look silly. Pay attention to what you require as evidence and proof from believers and what you’re attempting to use as proof. If you’re saying they’re contradicting the last words of Jesus, show us the text containing the entire list of the last words of Jesus. Until then, you’re no different than us, you either believe or you don’t.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

I’d be happy to read your fifth gospel that uses the other four as sources and tries to reconcile the differences between them. We can call it the gospel of Spot. Maybe it could even be canonized. Should be fun!


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not declaring victory, I’m not that arrogant. Just pointing out the fact that your option is just that.
> 
> The whole concept pointed out over the last few pages were about individual perception. Unless you have a solid transcript somewhere to prove what was said and what wasn’t, you do t have the evidence to back up your contradiction claim.
> 
> Now, take it to a spiritual connection (which is what’s believed that the spirit breathed words on a Writer) and personal examples have been given here before. Non believers won’t assign that to a deity, since they don’t know what to assign it to, most just go with “nothing” and there it rest. Since you don’t even know how or what to assign it to, how can you even know it’s not even happening???



This isn’t about perception this is about what actually happened. It’s your belief that these accounts are historically accurate, not mine. The problem here is they can’t all be historically accurate. I don’t need to know what Jesus actually said to know that. The differing accounts are all I need.

Now you claim to have a special “spiritual understanding” that us non-believers with our “carnal understanding” (whatever that means) lack. So with your special understanding I will ask you this very simple question once again, what were Jesus last words? No long drawn out convoluted explanation is needed. Just tell us exactly what his last words were. Then we can compare that to what the gospels say.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

I think and maybe Im wrong here but.....
Atlas and Bullet are coming from the angle of -
We are taught/told the words are GOD'S words.
Not Luke's words, not John's words, not.... But GOD's words.
John, Luke, whoever were merely holding the quill but it was GOD doing the writing through their pen.
In which case, logically, the words should be EXACTLY the same.
If there is ANY difference theres really only a couple of choices =
1. They are NOT God's words. They are Johh's/Luke's/whoever's version of God's supposed words.
2. God wrote through the different writers different (no matter how small the differences may be) versions of the same story.

Of course different people can and do come up with different versions of the same thing they see or hear........... because they are human.
That would make the Bible human's words not God's words.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think and maybe Im wrong here but.....
> Atlas and Bullet are coming from the angle of -
> We are taught/told the words are GOD'S words.
> Not Luke's words, not John's words, not.... But GOD's words.
> ...



I don’t set the bar that high. I think most believers would say the words are inspired not dictated which would give the author a little wiggle room. I just don’t see enough wiggle room to cover the issue in this case. If you have the same accounts then you should be able to give those separate accounts to people who aren’t aware of the others and when you ask them questions based on those accounts you should not get contradictory answers. Someone who only read Mark or Matthew if asked what Jesus last words were would say one thing. Someone who only read Luke would say something completely different. And someone who only read John would say something different still.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I don’t set the bar that high. I think most believers would say the words are inspired not dictated which would give the author a little wiggle room. I just don’t see enough wiggle room to cover the issue in this case. If you have the same accounts then you should be able to give those separate accounts to people who aren’t aware of the others and when you ask them questions based on those accounts you should not get contradictory answers. Someone who only read Mark or Matthew if asked what Jesus last words were would say one thing. Someone who only read Luke would say something completely different. And someone who only read John would say something different still.


Would make an interesting question to ask the believers here although on this particular sub forum we probably wouldn't get enough responses.
I was taught the Bible is God's words. Not anybody's version or inspiration of God's words. So no wiggle room.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think and maybe Im wrong here but.....
> Atlas and Bullet are coming from the angle of -
> We are taught/told the words are GOD'S words.
> Not Luke's words, not John's words, not.... But GOD's words.
> ...


They are believed to be God’s words. But there is no indication given anyplace to clarify if God only gave portions of things to different Writers or if the Writers added or eliminated words. If they added or eliminated anything, then it’s Writers words. Without a transcript we have nothing to prove / disprove any of that.
The point that Atlas and bullet wants to make is that the Writers are simply contradictory, ultimately pointing to writing based on stories they heard. They don’t know that, the believe that.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They are believed to be God’s words. But there is no indication given anyplace to clarify if God only gave portions of things to different Writers or if the Writers added or eliminated words. If they added or eliminated anything, then it’s Writers words. Without a transcript we have nothing to prove / disprove any of that.
> The point that Atlas and bullet wants to make is that the Writers are simply contradictory, ultimately pointing to writing based on stories they heard. They don’t know that, the believe that.



I explained in my last post how we know that.  An individual answering the question based on a single account will give a different answer from someone basing their answer on a different account. If you ask any of them based on a single gospel how Jesus was killed they would all agree he was crucified because the gospels don’t contradict on that point.

The accounts clearly state that he said what they say he said and then he died. They leave no room for insertion and if you do insert anything into their account then you are altering their account.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They are believed to be God’s words. But there is no indication given anyplace to clarify if God only gave portions of things to different Writers or if the Writers added or eliminated words. If they added or eliminated anything, then it’s Writers words. Without a transcript we have nothing to prove / disprove any of that.
> The point that Atlas and bullet wants to make is that the Writers are simply contradictory, ultimately pointing to writing based on stories they heard. They don’t know that, the believe that.


I can see both sides of the debate.
I think I can agree that the words can be a bit different without actually contradicting each other -
"The flower is red".
"The flower is crimson".
Different words. Overall means pretty much the same thing.
But not exactly the same thing.
Is that good enough when it comes to God's words?
Yes and No in my opinion.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I explained in my last post how we know that.  An individual answering the question based on a single account will give a different answer from someone basing their answer on a different account. If you ask any of them based on a single gospel how Jesus was killed they would all agree he was crucified because the gospels don’t contradict on that point.
> 
> The accounts clearly state that he said what they say he said and then he died. They leave no room for insertion and if you do insert anything into their account then you are altering their account.


The last deer I shot ran 10 to 12 feet, fell on his right side, and kicked several times and died with his tongue stuck out.

I told my buddy he ran several feet before he took a dirt nap. I told my son he ran a few yards and crashed. I told my wife he didn’t go far before he was kicking around.

Which one is contradictory?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The last deer I shot ran 10 to 12 feet, fell on his right side, and kicked several times and died with his tongue stuck out.
> 
> I told my buddy he ran several feet before he took a dirt nap. I told my son he ran a few yards and crashed. I told my wife he didn’t go far before he was kicking around.
> 
> Which one is contradictory?



You’re trying to draw an analogy between accounts that corroborate and accounts that do not corroborate.

Still waiting for you to tell us what his last words were.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You’re trying to draw an analogy between accounts that corroborate and accounts that do not corroborate.
> 
> Still waiting for you to tell us what his last words were.


Lol you’re good at diversions!!! You’re the one that claims they’re contradictory so the ball is in your court here. You kind of need something detailing the complete list of words so you can prove the contradiction. I’m neither denying or admitting anything, I just simply asked how do you know he didn’t say all those things after the vinegar and before he died. Personally, I believe he said all those and maybe some more words. One would be foolish to think a man remains quiet, speechless and not much to say when facing death.

My only point is the only way to know which one of my deer stories is contradictory is to know the whole story from myself. The others only know what I told and gave them, unless they saw it. Even seeing it they can forget some detail. So none are contradictory unless they add to it. No one is going to know that except me the one telling the story. Nothing you can prove / disprove unless you talked to me about it. All you can do is believe it or not.

You’re talking about 4 books supposedly written 50 to 100 years AD - how do you know some of the accounts were not witnessed / given by some of the crowd standing from afar off. People are still telling their story of events they saw or heard from the 40”s.

50 years later I’m sure some detail was forgotten, I’m sure an eyewitness can live longer than 50 to 100 years old.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course different people can and do come up with different versions of the same thing they see or hear........... because they are human.
> That would make the Bible human's words not God's words.


Some are hung up with believing that every single word in the Bible is the “quoted” word from God. 
Every sermon preached this last Sunday was supposed to be a word from God. I highly doubt any preacher chained to give an exact quote from God. If one wants to call that mans words, I don’t take issue with them over that. That’s a belief / disbelief issue.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

“So none are contradictory unless they add to it.”

Which is _exactly_ what you would have to do to every gospel to get them on the same page with each other. Every gospel is giving its own different version of the event. That is not even in dispute here. You want to reconcile them by combining it all together. In some cases that may be possible but not in this case because each gospel clearly states that he said what he said and then he died.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

If this were any other context than a religious book you dare not question the veracity if we wouldn’t even be having this debate.

What was the last thing John Doe said before he died?

Answer 1. He let out a loud cry and breathed his last breath.

Answer 2. He said “father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Answer 3. He said, “It is finished” and bowing his head he yielded up his spirit.

If any one of these are true accounts then the other two are not because they each give a different account for what happened immediately preceding the moment of death. We don’t need to know which if any are actually true to know that they can’t all be true. Best case scenario only one of them is.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If this were any other context than a religious book you dare not question the veracity if we wouldn’t even be having this debate.
> 
> What was the last thing John Doe said before he died?
> 
> ...



And if we were talking about this in the context of anyone else you would not look at those claims and conclude they comport with one another. This is just another example of a believer refusing to challenge their preconceptions of biblical infallibility even when the contradictions are staring them in the face.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> “So none are contradictory unless they add to it.”
> 
> Which is _exactly_ what you would have to do to every gospel to get them on the same page with each other. Every gospel is giving its own different version of the event. That is not even in dispute here. You want to reconcile them by combining it all together. In some cases that may be possible but not in this case because each gospel clearly states that he said what he said and then he died.


They’re telling it as they saw it heard it. Since you didn’t eyewitness the story they’re telling, you’re left with 3 opinions, believe it, disbelieve it, or find the full unaltered version and compare. That’s all I’m saying. You believe they’re contradictory, but you know you can’t prove it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> And if we were talking about this in the context of anyone else you would not look at those claims and conclude they comport with one another. This is just another example of a believer refusing to challenge their preconceptions of biblical infallibility even when the contradictions are staring them in the face.


No, I know what happens in a spiritual setting and there’s nothing you could possibly, remotely, phantom or imagine with your descriptions of what you think / know is happening / not happening.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> “So none are contradictory unless they add to it.”
> 
> Which is _exactly_ what you would have to do to every gospel to get them on the same page with each other. Every gospel is giving its own different version of the event. That is not even in dispute here. You want to reconcile them by combining it all together. In some cases that may be possible but not in this case because each gospel clearly states that he said what he said and then he died.


Unless you have a complete detailed transcript to compare the 4 Gospels  with, you’re pushing a chain uphill with your contradiction theory. Not much need in cow trailing with all the added explanations, you either have it or not to prove your claim?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If this were any other context than a religious book you dare not question the veracity if we wouldn’t even be having this debate.
> 
> What was the last thing John Doe said before he died?
> 
> ...


I don’t know Atlas. I made no claim of knowing anything. I asked how do you know he didn’t take the vinegar, say all those two things in that loud cry, and bowed his head to die? Or did he take the vinegar, say those two things, then cry out loud, bowed his head and died? 

Is it possible, not possible? Did he say both, one or neither? How do you know?? You’re making the claim, not me.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Unless you have a complete detailed transcript to compare the 4 Gospels  with, you’re pushing a chain uphill with your contradiction theory. Not much need in cow trailing with all the added explanations, you either have it or not to prove your claim?



Simply not true that you need to know what happened to know that incompatible accounts are contradictory.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t know Atlas. I made no claim of knowing anything. I asked how do you know he didn’t take the vinegar, say all those two things in that loud cry, and bowed his head to die? Or did he take the vinegar, say those two things, then cry out loud, bowed his head and died?
> 
> Is it possible, not possible? Did he say both, one or neither? How do you know?? You’re making the claim, not me.



We know he didn’t say all of those things in the loud cry because they make a distinction between the cry and what he said except for John which makes no mention of a cry at all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

I think at the root of what you guys are battling over is the meaning of "contradiction".
Fact - the words are not the same/are different. They do not agree with each other as to what was actually said.
Fact - The different words tell the same story in that words were spoken and Jesus "died". The different words don't change that.
I think you are going to go round and round until you agree on what "contradiction" means.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think at the root of what you guys are battling over is the meaning of "contradiction".
> Fact - the words are not the same/are different. They do not agree with each other as to what was actually said.
> Fact - The different words tell the same story in that words were spoken and Jesus "died". The different words don't change that.
> I think you are going to go round and round until you agree on what "contradiction" means.



The problem is that we are talking about what he said immediately preceding his death. None of the passages leave room in their account for additions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The problem is that we are talking about what he said immediately preceding his death. None of the passages leave room in their account for additions.


So that would fall under this fact -


> Fact - the words are not the same/are different. They do not agree with each other as to what was actually said.


Spot is using this fact -


> Fact - The different words tell the same story in that words were spoken and Jesus "died". The different words don't change that.


Both of your points(facts) are valid at the same time.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> So that would fall under this fact -
> 
> Spot is using this fact -
> 
> Both of your points(facts) are valid at the same time.



The second point is not what is in dispute. If they all said “he said something and died” there would be no contradiction. The contradiction comes from the incompatible details in their accounts. If we go back to post 225 nobody is going to claim all of those answers could be true at the same time because each statement is claimed to be immediately followed by death. That precludes the insertion of additional statements.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

See the question posed at the 1:09:00 mark.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The second point is not what is in dispute. If they all said “he said something and died” there would be no contradiction. The contradiction comes from the incompatible details in their accounts. If we go back to post 225 nobody is going to claim all of those answers could be true at the same time because each statement is claimed to be immediately followed by death. That precludes the insertion of additional statements.


By the way, Im just sticking my nose in so feel free to tell me to mind my own business 
But from where I sit... Spot has already acquiesced that the words are different.... so you "win" on that point.
Do you acquiesce that the differing words still tell the same story? If so and I think you would have pretty hard time arguing that they don't, then you are both winners


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> By the way, Im just sticking my nose in so feel free to tell me to mind my own business
> But from where I sit... Spot has already acquiesced that the words are different.... so you "win" on that point.
> Do you acquiesce that the differing words still tell the same story? If so and I think you would have pretty hard time arguing that they don't, then you are both winners



Same in some respects and different in others.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Same in some respects and different in others.


Come on, it wont hurt (much), you can admit they tell the same story 
And by the same story, I mean the "big picture".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Come on, it wont hurt (much), you can admit they tell the same story
> And by the same story, I mean the "big picture".



I already acknowledged that a long time ago. “He said something and then died.” Ok... If that’s as deep as we want to go in looking at the accounts in evaluating their reliability then yes at that high level they are in agreement. That’s not the question we are discussing. The question I have repeated many times now is what were his last words? And the answer to that question depends on which gospel you read. They are not the same in their answer to that question and I already explained how that difference could be demonstrated. Police don’t put every witness together in a room so they can get their story straight if they want to know the veracity of a witness. They take their accounts separately and then compare the accounts in detail.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Come on, it wont hurt (much), you can admit they tell the same story
> And by the same story, I mean the "big picture".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Those are good bullethead. I guess I’m looking for more than another Writers opinion since we have to have evidence.
> Meaning - what’s out there that you or any Writer in those links have to hang your hats on that you know for certain what Jesus did or didn’t say?


Here is the deal. We each have no actual proof of what was or what was not said. We only have writings from writers who were not there either.
So then we have to go beyond our guesses and look into the laws regarding Who gets crucified. We have to look at the methods and practices of Cruxifition. We have to take into account the purposeful ways people were crucified in order to gain the desired results. We have to take into account the determinations of modern medical examiners who tell us what crucifixion does to the parts of the body and what a person is or is not capable of doing during the various stages of crucifixion. 
We have to take into account 4 different writers(although two are so similar that it is accepted that one is a copy of another) miraculously being together at all the same times and all the same places to witness Jesus all along his 3 years of known existence and yet they all say something different than the others. Last words differ, numbers of people present differ, who and number of people at and inside the tomb differ and on and on and on....
To read it at face value like you do, yeah I can see why you have no other choice than to believe like you do.
I go beyond face value and with research I try to decide what is more likely than not.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I already acknowledged that a long time ago. “He said something and then died.” Ok... If that’s as deep as we want to go in looking at the accounts in evaluating their reliability then yes at that high level they are in agreement. That’s not the question we are discussing. The question I have repeated many times now is what were his last words? And the answer to that question depends on which gospel you read. They are not the same in their answer to that question and I already explained how that difference could be demonstrated. Police don’t put every witness together in a room so they can get their story straight if they want to know the veracity of a witness. They take their accounts separately and then compare the accounts in detail.


Look at the second sentence in bullets post above ^^^^^^^
Outside of that second sentence it’s just a chicken race to try and prove his very last word or words unless you were there to hear them. He might have asked for more vinegar and no one heard him.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They are believed to be God’s words. But there is no indication given anyplace to clarify if God only gave portions of things to different Writers or if the Writers added or eliminated words. If they added or eliminated anything, then it’s Writers words. Without a transcript we have nothing to prove / disprove any of that.
> The point that Atlas and bullet wants to make is that the Writers are simply contradictory, ultimately pointing to writing based on stories they heard. They don’t know that, the believe that.


Spotlite, without the actual original texts properly translated there is a far greater chance that you are hanging your beliefs on writings that are not even close to what was originally said, and the originals most likely have nothing to do with anything Divine anyway.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Look at the second sentence in bullets post above ^^^^^^^
> Outside of that it’s just a chicken race to try and prove his very last word or words unless you were there to hear them. He might have asked for more vinegar and no one heard him.


No, the second sentence is not the do all end all.
I expounded upon that second sentence in order to show you the other ways available to be able to form a more educated opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Look at the second sentence in bullets post above ^^^^^^^
> Outside of that second sentence it’s just a chicken race to try and prove his very last word or words unless you were there to hear them. He might have asked for more vinegar and no one heard him.


Did God hear him?
Is God capable of getting that information known?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No, the second sentence is not the do all end all.
> I expounded upon that second sentence in order to show you the other ways available to be able to form a more educated opinion.


The second sentence is the end of the road unless you were there, or have the full unaltered quoted verbatim transcript. Everything else is just your expounded opinion. Which is ok, but it’s still just an opinion.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Did God hear him?
> Is God capable of getting that information known?


Well yeah, it took 4 Gospels to finally get those last two sentences in


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I can see both sides of the debate.
> I think I can agree that the words can be a bit different without actually contradicting each other -
> "The flower is red".
> "The flower is crimson".
> ...


There was One Red flower
There were Four crimson flowers.

Replace red/crimson flowers with Roman Guards, Angels, Women, Witnesses...etc etc and Specific Numbers mean Specific things.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Look at the second sentence in bullets post above ^^^^^^^
> Outside of that second sentence it’s just a chicken race to try and prove his very last word or words unless you were there to hear them. He might have asked for more vinegar and no one heard him.



I’ve never claimed knowledge of what he said. In fact I said I don’t know nor do I need to. I don’t know why you continue to ignore that. One witness says your deer ran 100 yards to the east and dropped dead. Another witness says your deer ran 100 yards to the west and dropped dead. You say he dropped dead right where you shot him. I wasn’t there and I don’t know which if any account is true but I already know from the accounts that they can’t all be true. Even if you tried to merge them and say well actually it ran east and then west before dying you would still be contradicting the other two accounts.

Yo do not need to know what actually happened to identify incompatible accounts. Police and courts do this all the time. If that concept is lost on you I can’t help you.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well yeah, it took 4 Gospels to finally get those last two sentences in


No, even you admit that you don't know if the sentences are even correct.
Makes me wonder how accurate Jesus's words were throughout the Gospels, especially when it was just Jesus and One other person who absolutely was not the authors.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No, even you admit that you don't know if the sentences are even correct.
> Makes me wonder how accurate Jesus's words were throughout the Gospels, especially when it was just Jesus and One other person who absolutely was not the authors.


My question to you is how do you know they’re incorrect to be able to claim anything? I’ve admitted that I don’t know everything that was said, how can you possibly know? Without that knowledge you’ve nothing left except to either believe or not believe. You and Atlas are speaking as if you know exactly what was or wasn’t said. If you know for sure they’re inconsistent, show which one is accurate and show how you know. If they’re all wrong, show that. But please show something other than what you believe by using some solid evidence of what Jesus actually said.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The second sentence is the end of the road unless you were there, or have the full unaltered quoted verbatim transcript. Everything else is just your expounded opinion. Which is ok, but it’s still just an opinion.


Sorry, but it is not the end of the road.
It is the beginning from where to start researching. 
When you use the examples of research that I've given you which tell about the laws, practices, methods, bodies capabilities under the ways of crucifixion  etc etc, it paints a picture that what is written is not particularly true in some areas and more likely completely false in others.
Your point is only accurate if we have to stop with what is written in the bible and there are no other means of checking into it further.
Luckily we can check into it further.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My question to you is how do you know they’re incorrect to be able to claim anything? I’ve admitted that I don’t know everything that was said, how can you possibly know? Without that knowledge you’ve nothing left except to either believe or not believe. You and Atlas are speaking as if you know exactly what was or wasn’t said. If you know for sure they’re inconsistent, show which one is accurate and show how you know. If they’re all wrong, show that. But please show something other than what you believe by using some solid evidence of what Jesus actually said.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My question to you is how do you know they’re incorrect to be able to claim anything? I’ve admitted that I don’t know everything that was said, how can you possibly know? Without that knowledge you’ve nothing left except to either believe or not believe. You and Atlas are speaking as if you know exactly what was or wasn’t said. If you know for sure they’re inconsistent, show which one is accurate and show how you know. If they’re all wrong, show that. But please show something other than what you believe by using some solid evidence of what Jesus actually said.


Are you not reading what Atlas and I post?
4 gospels total
2 of which are so similar that one is a copy of the other.
2 more Gospels which say things differently than the 2 above and differently from each other.
Even if one is spot on no questions asked 100% correct, the others are not.
You tell us which one is spot on 100% accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The second sentence is the end of the road unless you were there, or have the full unaltered quoted verbatim transcript. Everything else is just your expounded opinion. Which is ok, but it’s still just an opinion.


Opinion based upon research.
Much different than opinion based off of what makes sense in my head.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I’ve never claimed knowledge of what he said. In fact I said I don’t know nor do I need to. I don’t know why you continue to ignore that. One witness says your deer ran 100 yards to the east and dropped dead. Another witness says your deer ran 100 yards to the west and dropped dead. You say he dropped dead right where you shot him. I wasn’t there and I don’t know which if any account is true but I already know from the accounts that they can’t all be true. Even if you tried to merge them and say well actually it ran east and then west before dying you would still be contradicting the other two accounts.
> 
> Yo do not need to know what actually happened to identify incompatible accounts. Police and courts do this all the time. If that concept is lost on you I can’t help you.


Sure reports are incomplete everywhere. But that’s not your argument. If that was your complete argument we would have agreed several post back when I acknowledged the stories differ in words. Your argument is to use differing accounts to prove that the Gospels are not God inspired, just man made stories.


----------



## Madman (Nov 12, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> 2019 Apologetic award goes to....


No need to make an argument what you said was simply not true.  


1gr8bldr said:


> Just a terrible  biased translation. One only needs to read chapter 1 to see what Polycarp believes. Try this one; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm


I didn't realize you were a Latin/Greek/Hebrew Scholar.
All one has to do is read the writings of Polycarp, in context, and it is evident to understand exactly what he believed.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Opinion based upon research.
> Much different than opinion based off of what makes sense in my head.


Well let’s see the research. But somewhere in that research, show us evidence that someone, anyone or no one recorded his last words verbatim.


----------



## Madman (Nov 12, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> 2019 Apologetic award goes to....


There is no need to make a defense, what you said was simply not correct.  The four Gospel accounts in no way contradict each other.  It is your responsibility to show otherwise.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Are you not reading what Atlas and I post?
> 4 gospels total
> 2 of which are so similar that one is a copy of the other.
> 2 more Gospels which say things differently than the 2 above and differently from each other.
> ...


No I’m not reading your post. Because you two run in circles and ask the same question I’ve asked y’all. It’s your way of never answering. I did read this one though.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


>


I know.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Sure reports are incomplete everywhere. But that’s not your argument. If that was your complete argument we would have agreed several post back when I acknowledged the stories differ in words. Your argument is to use differing accounts to prove that the Gospels are not God inspired, just man made stories.



Not incomplete. Incompatible. The deer ran 100 yards to the east and dropped dead is a complete account. The deer ran 100 yards west and dropped dead is a complete account. They are not compatible. If one is true the other cannot be true. The same holds for the different accounts of his last words. Dead deer don’t keep running and dead men don’t continue speaking.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well let’s see the research. But somewhere in that research, show us evidence that someone, anyone or no one recorded his last words verbatim.


If you took your own advice you would not believe a single word in the Bible for the same reasons you say we don't know and have to show.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The last deer I shot ran 10 to 12 feet, fell on his right side, and kicked several times and died with his tongue stuck out.
> 
> I told my buddy he ran several feet before he took a dirt nap. I told my son he ran a few yards and crashed. I told my wife he didn’t go far before he was kicking around.
> 
> Which one is contradictory?


I agree. And truth be told, I think your story has an equal amount of God inspired effort in it as the bible.
Now, tell me if you could forsee any possible problems down the road with your story and correct it on the first try if you thought it could be a problem.
And compare that to a God that should have known then that you and I (and a billion others) would, could and will use the writings in the Bible against the writings in the Bible.

Is there ANY way that could have been avoided?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you took your own advice you would not believe a single word in the Bible for the same reasons you say we don't know and have to show.


Well, that’s just mind babbling lol ? You mean you are surprised that you need to show your evidence / research and not sone link?????


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They’re telling it as they saw it heard it. Since you didn’t eyewitness the story they’re telling, you’re left with 3 opinions, believe it, disbelieve it, or find the full unaltered version and compare. That’s all I’m saying. You believe they’re contradictory, but you know you can’t prove it.


If they are telling stories as they saw it or heard it then we certainly know how inaccurate that is.
You make a great case for the contents of the bible being nothing more than fallible and error filled events as witnessed by man but written by other men decades and centuries afterwards. 
By all means,  keep going.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Not incomplete. Incompatible. The deer ran 100 yards to the east and dropped dead is a complete account. The deer ran 100 yards west and dropped dead is a complete account. They are not compatible. If one is true the other cannot be true. The same holds for the different accounts of his last words. Dead deer don’t keep running and dead men don’t continue speaking.


Deer can still stumble several feet after death when in full strut 
For the rest. You’re arguing over two sentences that any man can speak in just a few seconds before their last breath.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well, that’s just mind babbling lol ? You mean you are surprised that you need to show your evidence / research and not sone link?????


The links tell the facts that i just do not possess myself.
I am not a medical examiner who studied crucifixion.  Are you?
If you are not, it is too much to think that a medical examiners explanation of what happens to the human body during crucifixion and what the capabilities of a person being crucified is....is more accurate or at least a better understanding than what we each have ourselves?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No I’m not reading your post. Because you two run in circles and ask the same question I’ve asked y’all. It’s your way of never answering. I did read this one though.


And your answer is...


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If they are telling stories as they saw it or heard it then we certainly know how inaccurate that is.
> You make a great case for the contents of the bible being nothing more than fallible and error filled events as witnessed by man but written by other men decades and centuries afterwards.
> By all means,  keep going.


Yea ok. You got me. Your research is where????


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The links tell the facts that i just do not possess myself.
> I am not a medical examiner who studied crucifixion.  Are you?
> If you are not, it is too much to think that a medical examiners explanation of what happens to the human body during crucifixion and what the capabilities of a person being crucified is....is inaccurate or at least a better understanding than what we each have ourselves?


Well dang I’m sure there are tons of links debunking links out there. We were always instructed from you that posting a link is not valid.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And your answer is...


Lol filter back through the mud. I gave one a long time ago.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well dang I’m sure there are tons of links debunking links out there. We were always instructed from you that posting a link is not valid.


Never instructed by me...
I use links all the time.
If you can find a link that a medical examiner states that suffocating people due to crucifixion who can barely take in a sip of air hold conversations by all means.....


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I agree. And truth be told, I think your story has an equal amount of God inspired effort in it as the bible.
> Now, tell me if you could forsee any possible problems down the road with your story and correct it on the first try if you thought it could be a problem.
> And compare that to a God that should have known then that you and I (and a billion others) would, could and will use the writings in the Bible against the writings in the Bible.
> 
> Is there ANY way that could have been avoided?


When we can go into a court room and there’s no need to have a lawyer for the defendant and one for the plaintiff over the same law - we have then become a people that have removed personal opinions.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yea ok. You got me. Your research is where????


So you are telling me that you use a book that you didnt write yourself as not only your source of biblical information, but FACT!  Yet I have to build a time machine and go back 1,986 years to snoop at some event which is recorded nowhere else in history because me providing the testimony of experts is not good enough...
Ok..


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Never instructed by me...
> I use links all the time.
> If you can find a link that a medical examiner states that suffocating people due to crucifixion who can barely take in a sip of air hold conversations by all means.....


I’m sure there was at least a minute “before” the suffocation began though, right??? At least 30 seconds just get the whole process started?? Did he have time to drink vinegar?? You’re really making a mountain out of this to prove what????  This is where you and Atlas are stuck.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So you are telling me that you use a book that you didnt write yourself as not only your source of biblical information, but FACT!  Yet I have to build a time machine and go back 1,986 years to snoop at some event which is recorded nowhere else in history because me providing the testimony of experts is not good enough...
> Ok..


Mine is based on faith. Yours is based on tangible, real evidence, so yes.unless you’re just believing what those link writers are writing?? But they sometimes differ and argue, too. So man it looks like you are just like us after all lol


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> When we can go into a court room and there’s no need to have a lawyer for the defendant and one for the plaintiff over the same law - we have then become a people that have removed personal opinions.


I'll give you a dollar to take the bible into a courtroom and prove its validity on Legal terms


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Deer can still stumble several feet after death when in full strut
> For the rest. You’re arguing over two sentences that any man can speak in just a few seconds before their last breath.



Yes! Before their last breath. Not after. Now look at the sequence in each gospel. In Mark and Matthew his last breath comes after crying out in a loud voice. Not after speaking. In Luke he cries out in a loud voice but he does not then draw his last breath. He says something. The Jesus in Mark and Matthew can’t speak at this point because according to them he is already dead! In John he doesn’t he doesn’t cry out at all. He says it is finished and draws his last breath. But he can’t do that after saying what Luke said because in Luke he is dead after he says into thy hands I commend my spirit. I think what you are missing is if you load the statements up together and then have him dying you still haven’t resolved the problem of inaccuracy because each account indicates he dies right after what they claim are his last words.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m sure there was at least a minute “before” the suffocation began though, right??? At least 30 seconds just get the whole process started?? Did he have time to drink vinegar?? You’re really making a mountain out of this to prove what????  This is where you and Atlas are stuck.


Ohhh,now you are Sure...
You really didnt read the Crucifixion link I gave you.
I can tell because the novice arguments you make are solely from not educating yourself from the information that was provided to you.

The bible makes Jesus muttering words at his last breath like a Hollywood actor death scene.
It is not that romantic.
His last words could have been hours before his death.
In the realm of crucifixion,  Jesus punked out early.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Mark: Last word “a” then last breath.

Matthew: Last word “a” then last breath.

Luke: Last word “b” then last breath.

John: Last word “c” then last breath.

Spot: Last words “a, b, c, and maybe some other stuff we don’t know about” then last breath.

Sorry spot, if your rendition is historically accurate the others are not.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I'll give you a dollar to take the bible into a courtroom and prove its validity on Legal terms


The point is our human nature bullet. If we all thought the same way, there’ll be no need for lawyers. We are human with opinions, not robots. As long as we have opinions you can’t change any bible or jaw to where everyone thinks the same.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You really didnt read the Crucifixion link I gave you.
> I can tell because the novice arguments you make are solely from not educating yourself from the information that was provided to you.
> 
> The bible makes Jesus muttering words at his last breath like a Hollywood actor death scene.
> ...


No I don’t read unexplained links from anyone.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Mark: Last word “a” then last breath.
> 
> Matthew: Last word “a” then last breath.
> 
> ...


You’re still hurt aren’t you??


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

Ok the point is clear. You two have nothing to show.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Mine is based on faith. Yours is based on tangible, real evidence, so yes.unless you’re just believing what those link writers are writing?? But they sometimes differ and argue, too. So man it looks like you are just like us after all lol


Our difference is called evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’re still hurt aren’t you??



I think you know better than that.  I never expected you to acknowledge the obvious contradictions. This is not our first rodeo dealing with believers stuck on their preconceptions of biblical infallibility. I still don’t mind spelling things out just to rub it in a bit.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The point is our human nature bullet. If we all thought the same way, there’ll be no need for lawyers. We are human with opinions, not robots. As long as we have opinions you can’t change any bible or jaw to where everyone thinks the same.


Facts and Evidence clear that up.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Our difference is called evidence.


Ok one more and I’m going hunting.
So of all the links, studies, different opinions, researchers out there - you ultimately go with the one you believe. Unless.........you’ve put it to test yourself. So no, you’re not different, you’re relying on another writer that aligns with your thoughts. As we all do.,

If I kill one, I will send 3 of y’all a little different story of it and we can collaborate on her to see who can pick on any contradictions


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No I don’t read unexplained links from anyone.


Lololol, If i really really really liked Santa, I would shut the real world out also.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Ok I think we’ve beat this horse long enough. Which one is next? The denials of Peter? Death of Judas? Accounts of the resurrection? Jesus genealogy? Etc etc etc...


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I think you know better than that.  I never expected you to acknowledge the obvious contradictions. This is not our first rodeo dealing with believers stuck on their preconceptions of biblical infallibility. I still don’t mind spelling things out just to rub it in a bit.


Lol ok ? But the problem with this statement is ...........get ready for it - I acknowledged they differ in words.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok the point is clear. You two have nothing to show.


By your own admittance, You dont read what we show, then you claim we dont show it.
It really is a neat system you have.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Lololol, If i really really really liked Santa, I would shut the real world out also.


If you were a nicer child you’d have good reason to like Santa lol ? seriously, headed to the woods!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol ok ? But the problem with this statement is ...........get ready for it - I acknowledged they differ in words.



So what?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok one more and I’m going hunting.
> So of all the links, studies, different opinions, researchers out there - you ultimately go with the one you believe. Unless.........you’ve put it to test yourself. So no, you’re not different, you’re relying on another writer that aligns with your thoughts. As we all do.,
> 
> If I kill one, I will send 3 of y’all a little different story of it and we can collaborate on her to see who can pick on any contradictions


Unless you kill the Buck of God which was sacrificed to save all the other deer, I fully expect the story to change each time.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> By your own admittance, You dont read what we show, then you claim we dont show it.
> It really is a neat system you have.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Unless you kill the Buck of God which was sacrificed to save all the other deer, I fully expect the story to change each time.



He may be on to something drawing comparisons between the gospels and hunting/fishing stories.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

Madman said:


> There is no need to make a defense, what you said was simply not correct.  The four Gospel accounts in no way contradict each other.  It is your responsibility to show otherwise.


Yes they do


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

My motive in showing that the bible has contradictions in it is to build one's faith, not tear it down. For example, millennial's are leaving the faith after having grown up in church. Why, their teachers have lost all credibility. All their church days, they were told that the bible has no mistakes, no contradictions, eyewitnesses accounts, etc. Then they go to college, take a religious course as an elective, and then are shown these things as if the instructor is brilliant for having been able to read. Then they are faced with a crisis. They look back at their past teachers and write them off as being non credible. Then they see the church they once was a part of as all wrong, the blind leading the blind, and never return... and lose faith. However, if they had been taught correctly, from child hood, that the bible does have mistakes, contradictions, etc, that it was not eyewitness accounts in all cases, that our translations are biased, as one might expect.....even showing where these are, discussing how they got there, how it does not mean it never happened, etc, then we would see a different outcome from millennial's.  Consider that this infallible does more harm than good. Consider that what I am saying has merit. I do believe the bible is inspired. There is amazing inspired context within. But man's finger prints are all over. For example, Solomon, instead of being the wise man he thought he was.... Solomon is the perfect example of what man, each and every one of us would be if we were given all we wanted, no restraints. Power, money, servants, wives, on and on. Unbridled, what ever you want. Seriously, was not 50 wives enough.. Solomon was the most empty man in the bible. No friends, not knowing what love was, only knowing lust. He turned over every rock he could find looking for happiness. Building things, showing off his splender to other kings and queens, amassing "things", having the people serve him rather than he serve the people. In the end of his wretched life, he was envious of the simple man, who had a simple job, a wife that loved him. Yet, in his day, he thought he was so smart, writing volumes of nothing worthwhile, all the while, not realizing he was the perfect example of unbridled man. This is major inspiration found in the bible. Not Solomon's worthless proverbs that can be overridden by simply Love one another.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> My motive in showing that the bible has contradictions in it is to build one's faith, not tear it down.


If that’s your motive, you might want to review your tactics very closely. That’s a very reversed way to build faith - one has to have faith to believe that Jesus died and rose again, then you come along pointing out what you call contradictions in that story in order build their faith in it more??????


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

Lets talk about embellishments, of context. In Matt, he told of a great earthquake. Yet MK, Luke and John don't mention it. If you are writing about the death of Jesus, would it not be strange not to mention it? is this simply just left out as if it was not important? Was it merely that same old story that men can see the same event yet tell it differently? Did they think, Matthew  already told it so I don't need to? Or... is it a total embellishment in Matthew? This can't be reconciled with common sense. Realize that Matthew , mark and John have Jesus drinking from the sponge, yet don't all speak of the earthquake that shook violently, busting open graves, splitting the temple curtain top to bottom. Interesting that John did not mention the sun not shinning either? Being that John left out all except the vinegar, then let's remove him from the conversation since it would be ambiguous to speculate as to what or why he writes as he does. But for Mark and Luke to tell us about the curtain, darkness over the land, yet not mention the most horrifying aspect of the event, the earthquake that  was enough to bust open graves???? Embellishment is the word


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If that’s your motive, you might want to review your tactics very closely. That’s a very reversed way to build faith - one has to have faith to believe that Jesus died and rose again, then you come along pointing out what you call contradictions in that story in order build their faith in it more??????


My faith is not in a book. It's in the underlying basic story found within. Not in the details that you guys so vehemently protect


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

More, Context problems, if Mary had seen and expected Jesus to do miracles, such as water to wine, why would she and the family go to take charge of him for they said he is out of his mind?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

More context problems. If the soldiers had seen Peter cut off the ear of one of those arresting Jesus, then Jesus put it back on, there is no way that they would have beat him or mock him. No way. Most would have converted right there on the spot. One or the other never happened, beating Jesus or the ear replaced by Jesus. Which one is an embellished story?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> My faith is not in a book. It's in the underlying basic story found within. Not in the details that you guys so vehemently protect


Understood, but when you’re dealing with folks on the street, the majority haven’t even got to the book yet, let alone the tons of links and translations out there of everyone else claiming they got it right, too. For the record, the Book works, try it over skeptics.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Understood, but when you’re dealing with folks on the street, the majority haven’t even got to the book yet, let alone the tons of links and translations out there of everyone else claiming they got it right, too. For the record, the Book works, try it over skeptics.


You post among a plethora of skeptics in which the book has done more to drive their skepticism than reaffirm their beliefs


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You post among a plethora of skeptics in which the book has done more to drive their skepticism than reaffirm their beliefs


If it’s anything worth considering, I’ve previously asked 1gr which one of the 3 A’s he considers himself.? He hasn’t confirmed but he doesn’t appear to be a Christian Apologetic - defender of the Christian faith, Christian being a follow of Jesus Christ and his teachings. A follower of Christ’s teachings also believes in certain things concerning Jesus / God in the Godhead. So you may be exactly right and I stand corrected bullet with one exception, it isn’t the Book that drives their skepticism, they align their research to fit their skepticism.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If it’s anything worth considering, I’ve previously asked 1gr which one of the 3 A’s he considers himself.? He hasn’t confirmed but he doesn’t appear to be a Christian Apologetic - defender of the Christian faith, Christian being a follow of Jesus Christ and his teachings. A follower of Christ’s teachings also believes in certain things concerning Jesus / God in the Godhead. So you may be exactly right and I stand corrected bullet with one exception, it isn’t the Book that drives their skepticism, they align their research to fit their skepticism.


Are you telling me my reasons and experiences?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Are you telling me my reasons and experiences?


Good question. Because I have the same question each time we debate.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Good question. Because I have the same question each time we debate.


1. You didnt answer me with a yes or no.
2. Have I ever told you what you believe and why? And if I have, since this is our most recent debate, can you show me where I did that?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> 1. You didnt answer me with a yes or no.
> 2. Have I ever told you what you believe and why? And if I have, since this is our most recent debate, can you show me where I did that?


1. I gave my “opinion”, that is, we all favor research that supports our stance on anything - I receive your opinion when I’m told that my experiences are of my imagination, or I refuse to overlook contradictions, research, and deny what you call evidence. Truth is, if the evidence is that solid for either of us we wouldn’t be having this debate.
2. See # 1 ^^^^


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So you may be exactly right and I stand corrected bullet with one exception, it isn’t the Book that drives their skepticism, they align their research to fit their skepticism.


I am included with "their".
Your statement is not stated as opinion.

Absolutely 100% I can tell you that reading the Bible has caused me to question the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> 1. I gave my “opinion”, that is, we all favor research that supports our stance on anything - I receive your opinion when I’m told that my experiences are of my imagination, or I refuse to overlook contradictions, research, and deny what you call evidence. Truth is, if the evidence is that solid for either of us we wouldn’t be having this debate.
> 2. See # 1 ^^^^



Where did I say your experiences are your Imagination?

The contradictions exist. We have pointed them out. 
It is not my opinion that causes the contradictions to exist.

You have taken an awful lot of time trying to explain and make excuses as to why the contradictions may sound like contradictions but because we weren't there that we dont really know what was said or what was meant that they are not, or might not be contradictory. 
But as written in the versions available to us,  they are contradictory and many examples have been given to show that.

The Evidence used by believers, which is contained in the Bible as the infallible and inerrant word of your God, has been shown that it is in fact errant and fallible as written right now in whichever version you have to reference. Your argument is that since we were not there, and since the authors of the gospels may not have been there that Man may have gotten things incorrect....!BUT! continue to expect us to believe that the contents of the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God.

The reality of all this is that we have discussed one issue. "We" can bring up verse after verse that contradicts and is in error from various books and chapters.  If believers want to argue that "man" may have messed up in some spots and the skeptics were not there to tell a story any differently,  then you have to include yourself into the mix and realize you were not there, the errorless book is full of errors and it has been shown that whatever version of the book you are reading and referencing right now is not the same (by your own admission of "Man's" involvement and what is lost in translation or scribes "corrections")version as what was originally said in the original language.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Where did I say your experiences are your Imagination?
> 
> The contradictions exist. We have pointed them out.
> It is not my opinion that causes the contradictions to exist.
> ...


A contradiction is one Writer saying Jesus died in a boat while another saying he was killed in a train wreck. 

Writers mentioning certain details and some not does not mean the missing detail didn’t occur. 

What you think the soldiers should have done when an ear was cut off, or how they should have acted doesn’t validate truth or false. 

If you want to find a problem with your new truck, you will. 

We both can find links to support our stance


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> 2. Have I ever told you what you believe and why? And if I have, since this is our most recent debate, can you show me where I did that?


Yup right up there ^^^^^^ post # 316. The Bible isn’t my only source of “evidence” as to “why” I believe what I do.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> A contradiction is one Writer saying Jesus died in a boat while another saying he was killed in a train wreck.
> 
> Writers mentioning certain details and some not does not mean the missing detail didn’t occur.
> 
> ...


Spotlite, we differ in that I fact check the fact checkers. I don't have stance, I go with the facts that provable and probable. If the facts favored the Bible I would be an Apologist. If the accounts of a crucifixion are not consistent with crucifixion then Houston We Have A Problem.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yup right up there ^^^^^^ post # 316. The Bible isn’t my only source of “evidence” as to “why” I believe what I do.


Negative GhostRider...
I am just saying the words in the bible as touted as being inerrant and infallible as Evidence used by believers....
It was an example of ONE of the things believers use.
I picked out THAT particular example specifically. 
Nowhere did I say that was what YOU use exclusively. 

This is how ancient writings get jumbled centuries later. Add a word, take a word away, interpret things to what a person thinks was said in order to fit a false narrative instead of what is actually said....


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, we differ in that I fact check the fact checkers. I don't have stance, I go with the facts that provable and probable. If the facts favored the Bible I would be an Apologist. If the accounts of a crucifixion are not consistent with crucifixion then Houston We Have A Problem.


So you got links???


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So you got links???


You flat out said that you do not read the links.
I already posted the links.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You flat out said that you do not read the links.
> I already posted the links.


The point about links that I want to make is that’s something that you have are convinced is accurate. It’s not your work. At the end of the day you’re no different than I am, you found information out there that you believe to be the most accurate.

You can’t honestly say that you do not favor research that aligns with what you believe is accurate.

You’re fact checking facts with what?? Other links that agree?? We can all do that.

I will read the links when there’s a description given, but too many times in here it’s thrown back as the lazy way of debating - throw a link up or a scripture with no explanation.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The point about links that I want to make is that’s something that you have are convinced is accurate. It’s not your work. At the end of the day you’re no different than I am, you found information out there that you believe to be the most accurate.
> 
> You can’t honestly say that you do not favor research that aligns with what you believe is accurate.
> 
> ...


The point of the links I post is that there are people who are way more qualified than I am, who have done way more research than I have, who make their living in specific fields which I do not, and who's credentials are well respected among their peers who are also in the same fields of research of which I am not.

When evidence points a certain way, and it is backed up by other evidence and it is determined that More Likely Than Not a certain event happened or did not happen, then I choose a side to hang my hat.
In the case regarding the Bible as the infallible and inerrant Word of God, I believed it to be just that for approximately 20 years until I read the bible multiple times and started to research the contents further for both Pro and Con. I look into the history of the religion,  the cultures involved,  the religions of other cultures, the customs of the times, the practices of the times and I use the work of many qualified people that specialize in those areas. I read Pro and Con and then research what I learn from each to make a decision about what leaves doubt vs no doubt in my mind..
It is much more involved than just finding a link which supports my thoughts. I post the links that have swayed my thinking.

I have said this 100 times and I will continue to say this.
If someone tells me about a Pygmy tribe that lived in caves on an island near Bora Bora 10,000 years ago and I find out that Archeology has found the bones of 3.5ft tall human remains in a cave in an island near Bora Bora, drawings on the cave walls that support human capabilities, artifacts at levels in the dirt that suggest a time frame of 10,000 years ago I am going to tend to accept the claim that a Pygmy tribe existed.
On the other hand, If I am told of such a tribe, along with tales of such a tribe not only existing but performing things in such ways that have never been seen before or since, and events happening that are not local but worldwide where other cultures that existed at those same times in history would also record and add in Stories of miraculous magnitude that not only shaped that area but the entire world...and NONE of it can be backed up by any sort of research, testing, Archaeology,  Forensics , but instead the "proof" are stories written by people who lived after that tribe was gone  and the stories  are full of discrepancies,  errors, inaccuracies,  inconsistencies and the excuse why is because "Well you dont know, you were not there, maybe we just didn't  find the right island or the right cave yet......" and meanwhile the stories tell us EXACTLY what island and EXACTLY what cave and it has been checked and rechecked for centuries and still nothing...
Yeah Spot, I am going to side with one of those. I go beyond opinion and wishful thinking and stick with what can and has been backed up by evidence.

In the case of Jesus last words, all you have is what was written 40 to 100 years after he supposedly said it. It took place at a time in human and world history where EVERYBODY had gods involved in every aspect of their lives. Your ace in the hole is a Book that is claimed to be the words of god. THE WORDS OF GOD!! And the most you can offer as an excuse as to why it is so ungodlike is that "well man wrote it so maybe that it why it is ungodlike".
Yes, YES Spotlite,  it IS the works of man.
The God of all creation, the god of the Universe...and it can't write a god worthy book.

Real world studies about those claims leave the contents of that book as being yet another bunch of works by anonymous authors who wrote stories about how they think and hoped they became  race, a culture and a nation. Oh, and with no proof to back it up from the beginning of the book to the end. If the things claimed in the beginning are not true, then the events that unfold after, but based on that first untruth absolutely cannot also be true.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2019)

Fair enough bullet. Your point is clear.

I guess what I’m getting at is the point to where you looked into the pros and cons. Some of these people researching off of research and that’s all they know. To follow research, one WILL favor their idea of what they already think / believe to be accurate. Research is great, but nothing beats experience and that’s where we are going to get stuck again. No research out there is going to touch that.

I get that you don’t believe the Bible to be true, that’s not in question. Just don’t post a link and expect me to dig into that link to figure out what your thoughts are.

I once read tons of articles about what a bedding area for deer looks like. Until I saw a deer in a bedding area, all I could do was believe it to be accurate. I can tell you about it and what I saw but until you see it......

When I experience things exactly the way this Bible describes it, many times, that makes me question research that goes against it. You’ve yet to experience this, matter of fact you claim you couldn’t even find God. See the difference???

Now I’m off to South GA for work.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Fair enough bullet. Your point is clear.
> 
> I guess what I’m getting at is the point to where you looked into the pros and cons. Some of these people researching off of research and that’s all they know. To follow research, one WILL favor their idea of what they already think / believe to be accurate. Research is great, but nothing beats experience and that’s where we are going to get stuck again. No research out there is going to touch that.
> 
> ...


I express my thoughts,then post the link that backs up and explains my thoughts and points in greater detail.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2019)

Spotlite, regarding the Bible and religious stories, there is no real world tests or comparisons to to judge the miraculous by.
Real people, real places and events that actually happened are recorded by multiple sources. Often many are recorded by friend and foe alike. They corroborate each other. The people who study those things gain credibility by backing up their claims with work and evidence. They use outside sources and evidence to make their case.
On the other hand people arguing Biblical happenings have nothing other than the contents of the Bible to use to validate itself.
It is like having a Car brochure that lists all sorts of performance capabilities but nobody ever actually drives the car or even sees the car to test it. They argue that the car can go from 0-60 in 2.5 seconds and the qtr mile at 10.80 at 131mph and when questioned about where they got those figures they say right here, look, right here in the brochure. Then you have some experts that can talk all kinds of stats about those stats but it is all based off of no actual real experiences.  It is using the story as its own source.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 14, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, regarding the Bible and religious stories, there is no real world tests or comparisons to to judge the miraculous by.
> Real people, real places and events that actually happened are recorded by multiple sources. Often many are recorded by friend and foe alike. They corroborate each other. The people who study those things gain credibility by backing up their claims with work and evidence. They use outside sources and evidence to make their case.
> On the other hand people arguing Biblical happenings have nothing other than the contents of the Bible to use to validate itself.
> It is like having a Car brochure that lists all sorts of performance capabilities but nobody ever actually drives the car or even sees the car to test it. They argue that the car can go from 0-60 in 2.5 seconds and the qtr mile at 10.80 at 131mph and when questioned about where they got those figures they say right here, look, right here in the brochure. Then you have some experts that can talk all kinds of stats about those stats but it is all based off of no actual real experiences.  It is using the story as its own source.



Fulfilled prophecy after fulfilled prophecy is what backs up the scripture. Secular history even supports these fulfilled prophecies, some right down to the very day. No brochure needed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Fulfilled prophecy after fulfilled prophecy is what backs up the scripture. Secular history even supports these fulfilled prophecies, some right down to the very day. No brochure needed.


Show it.
I disagree
Jesus never qualified to be the Messiah based on the OT/ Torah so there is no way anything else was fulfilled. 


You post em, we will deal with them accordingly


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, regarding the Bible and religious stories, there is no real world tests or comparisons to to judge the miraculous by.
> Real people, real places and events that actually happened are recorded by multiple sources. Often many are recorded by friend and foe alike. They corroborate each other. The people who study those things gain credibility by backing up their claims with work and evidence. They use outside sources and evidence to make their case.
> On the other hand people arguing Biblical happenings have nothing other than the contents of the Bible to use to validate itself.
> It is like having a Car brochure that lists all sorts of performance capabilities but nobody ever actually drives the car or even sees the car to test it. They argue that the car can go from 0-60 in 2.5 seconds and the qtr mile at 10.80 at 131mph and when questioned about where they got those figures they say right here, look, right here in the brochure. Then you have some experts that can talk all kinds of stats about those stats but it is all based off of no actual real experiences.  It is using the story as its own source.


No, outside of research, studies, links, etc......it’s like me telling you there are fish in the pond and you walk away saying there isn’t because you never got a bite. Leave it right there and that’s where we are. 

But, I get what you’re saying. When I speak of experiences, I’m speaking of things found in that Bible that you and those experts haven’t discovered / experienced. To hear “y’all” to try and explain that or simply just say “I don’t know” is the proof you haven’t. Sorry, but there are certain things you just have to have a personal experience with. 

I’m aware of the “heal a broken bone” tactic. The tangible items that’ll “make you believe” is the farthest thing from what I’m speaking of. I’m not concerned about sending you a picture of a fish from that pond asking “do you believe me now”. I’d rather you figure out what it takes to catch one out of there.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 14, 2019)

In regards to Jesus filling in the check boxes of Messiah prophesy.... The OT was not fulfilled. Yet, the NT explains how they misunderstood those prophesy's. Was it reverse engineering on the part of NT writers? One could make that argument and have a strong argument unable to be proved wrong. Or, did they misunderstand, putting God in a box, where God had much bigger plans than they had imagined. On every level, every item that every site I have read, regarding Jesus not fulfilling Jewish expectation, I see it fitting perfectly.... yet, a NT writer before my time, had influence on that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, outside of research, studies, links, etc......it’s like me telling you there are fish in the pond and you walk away saying there isn’t because you never got a bite. Leave it right there and that’s where we are.
> 
> But, I get what you’re saying. When I speak of experiences, I’m speaking of things found in that Bible that you and those experts haven’t discovered / experienced. To hear “y’all” to try and explain that or simply just say “I don’t know” is the proof you haven’t. Sorry, but there are certain things you just have to have a personal experience with.
> 
> I’m aware of the “heal a broken bone” tactic. The tangible items that’ll “make you believe” is the farthest thing from what I’m speaking of. I’m not concerned about sending you a picture of a fish from that pond asking “do you believe me now”. I’d rather you figure out what it takes to catch one out of there.


On such things that you talk about, you and every other religious person in every other religion experience things that you link to your specific religion and your specific god(s).

Your pond/fish analogy is a little off.
To be more accurate, I would be hiking the Sahara Desert and come upon you who is sitting on a Sand Dune overlooking more sand for as far as the eye can see. You also have a fishing rod with the line and bait cast out 50yds laying on top of the sand. I would mention to you that there are no fish there and your reply would be "That is preposterous, I just had a bite"
I leave wishing you well but shaking my head remembering that my pastor took me fishing to that same "pond" for 20 years and we never caught anything then either. We just walked out pretending to have a stringer full, telling stories about how lucky we are to have such a honie hole, reenacting how we set the hook and marveling at how every single fish was over 5lbs...but neither of us  mentioned a word to each other when stopping at Micky D's for something to eat at the end of each fishing trip otherwise we would have starved. Funny how we knew everyone in line ahead and behind us.
You have a stringer full Spotlite, yep. Enjoy your Filet-O-Fish.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> In regards to Jesus filling in the check boxes of Messiah prophesy.... The OT was not fulfilled. Yet, the NT explains how they misunderstood those prophesy's. Was it reverse engineering on the part of NT writers? One could make that argument and have a strong argument unable to be proved wrong. Or, did they misunderstand, putting God in a box, where God had much bigger plans than they had imagined. On every level, every item that every site I have read, regarding Jesus not fulfilling Jewish expectation, I see it fitting perfectly.... yet, a NT writer before my time, had influence on that.


Not hard to write a script to suit for Part II when someone else already laid the groundwork down in Part I.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> On such things that you talk about, you and every other religious person in every other religion experience things that you link to your specific religion and your specific god(s).
> 
> Your pond/fish analogy is a little off.
> To be more accurate, I would be hiking the Sahara Desert and come upon you who is sitting on a Sand Dune overlooking more sand for as far as the eye can see. You also have a fishing rod with the line and bait cast out 50yds laying on top of the sand. I would mention to you that there are no fish there and your reply would be "That is preposterous, I just had a bite"
> ...


Remember post 316 (imagination). Lol ok then.
And you just made my point, 1. you think you got it figured out, 2. admit you don’t know, - yet you somehow have  an “answer”,  that will explain it in a way that validates # 2.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Remember post 316 (imagination). Lol ok then.
> And you just made my point, 1. you think you got it figured out, 2. admit you don’t know, - yet you somehow have  an “answer”,  that will explain it in a way that validates # 2.


In THAT(YOUR) world, anything and everything is possible.  Nobody is mistaken or incorrect because if they can think it it 'might' be true.

I dont have anything figured out Spotlite but I do not have to eat the whole cow to know I am eating beef either.
I am going with the evidence to form my more likely than not opinion. 

At some point, Something that is touted as being the Ultimate,  the Pinnacle of truth of all that is Spiritual and Physical has to come out of the shadows of feelings and thoughts and enter the realm of the physical.
When the handbook which tells of physical things fails to produce such things when held to scrutiny the scales start to tip the other way.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Remember post 316 (imagination). Lol ok then.
> And you just made my point, 1. you think you got it figured out, 2. admit you don’t know, - yet you somehow have  an “answer”,  that will explain it in a way that validates # 2.


Regarding post 316....
You made the Analogy in post 330.
You DO know what an Analogy is right?
Or is this yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

In regards to ... were the NT writers working... reverse engineering, trying to make Jesus fit... 1, the scriptures, 2, the Messiah expectations? Yes, and yes. Especially the scriptures. The messiah, yes but not as much. Was it done so in a stretch? Were any over reaching? This would make a great conversation topic and something I would find very interesting as well entertaining. For example. The NT writers just had a mindset, that they did not convey. They did not give us a list and show how jesus checked that box. It was assumed by the writer as the truth, therefore it needed no explanation. This in itself, to me, gives validity to what they believed. So much so, that they did not realize they needed to prove this point about Jesus. So, what do we gather from this? That, although we have a conflict of whether he fulfilled the messianic prophesys, they seemingly did not. How did it "come out" in their writings, as unintentional points? Think of this, and what I would like to see, is help, pointing out more of these, "conquering death". This is a loaded 2 words. Speaking to his kingship extending to much more than military. Interesting that the NT never explains that the messianic expectations of the Jews were much smaller than God's intentions, yet over and over, we see the NT explain a much more glorious outcome. Also, all the sites linked said that the messiahs son would continue to rule, that he would die. This is reverse of the reverse, engineering, on their part. It's not in scripture, it's their assumption. God is not limited to their assumption as they try to dismiss Jesus as the Messiah. And, the NT, address this without implying that it is anything other than an assumption that they stated without even realizing it. That Jesus will sit down at the right hand of the Father when all the work is completed. This eludes to the idea that the messiah will conquer all their oppressors, and no more pain suffering or fighting will occur. I realized the other day, that I say, without realizing it, that we are going up to the mountains or riding down to the beach. The up and down being the point. it's habit. Yet, I'm riding in a truck, up or down is something I never intended to convey and did not realize I was even saying it. If you were a disciple of Jesus day, walking in sandals, you knew full well which destination was up or down. Point is, that the NT writers are dropping hints, that they never intended to convey. Meaning, these writings are not intended to prove Jesus as the Messiah. It's assumed. And to go further, they are not trying to imply that the Jewish understanding of the Messiah was many misunderstood points... or that all these Jewish expectations were illusions to much grander, more glorious things. Now that I have been brain storming, I need to go back through to find these hidden gems, or to verify that I have not focuded to much on one verse about conquer and myself assumed to much. But my recollection tells me there are many more such instances. Help me make a list someone, please.
Edit, short version to clarify, the word "conquer" was a unintended word use, that just came out in the sentence revealing an belief foundation not intending to be proved.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Regarding post 316....
> You made the Analogy in post 330.
> You DO know what an Analogy is right?
> Or is this yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black?


Analogy: a comparison of something - mirage / imagination. Fishing on top the sand. Your use of the analogy points back to an illusion / imagination. 

My use of the analogy is very simple - Just because you haven’t caught one doesn’t mean they’re not there. Ugly chicks don’t believe in true love either.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> In regards to ... were the NT writers working... reverse engineering, trying to make Jesus fit... 1, the scriptures, 2, the Messiah expectations? Yes, and yes. Especially the scriptures. The messiah, yes but not as much. Was it done so in a stretch? Were any over reaching? This would make a great conversation topic and something I would find very interesting as well entertaining. For example. The NT writers just had a mindset, that they did not convey. They did not give us a list and show how jesus checked that box. It was assumed by the writer as the truth, therefore it needed no explanation. This in itself, to me, gives validity to what they believed. So much so, that they did not realize they needed to prove this point about Jesus. So, what do we gather from this? That, although we have a conflict of whether he fulfilled the messianic prophesys, they seemingly did not. How did it "come out" in their writings, as unintentional points? Think of this, and what I would like to see, is help, pointing out more of these, "conquering death". This is a loaded 2 words. Speaking to his kingship extending to much more than military. Interesting that the NT never explains that the messianic expectations of the Jews were much smaller than God's intentions, yet over and over, we see the NT explain a much more glorious outcome. Also, all the sites linked said that the messiahs son would continue to rule, that he would die. This is reverse of the reverse, engineering, on their part. It's not in scripture, it's their assumption. God is not limited to their assumption as they try to dismiss Jesus as the Messiah. And, the NT, address this without implying that it is anything other than an assumption that they stated without even realizing it. That Jesus will sit down at the right hand of the Father when all the work is completed. This eludes to the idea that the messiah will conquer all their oppressors, and no more pain suffering or fighting will occur. I realized the other day, that I say, without realizing it, that we are going up to the mountains or riding down to the beach. The up and down being the point. it's habit. Yet, I'm riding in a truck, up or down is something I never intended to convey and did not realize I was even saying it. If you were a disciple of Jesus day, walking in sandals, you knew full well which destination was up or down. Point is, that the NT writers are dropping hints, that they never intended to convey. Meaning, these writings are not intended to prove Jesus as the Messiah. It's assumed. And to go further, they are not trying to imply that the Jewish understanding of the Messiah was many misunderstood points... or that all these Jewish expectations were illusions to much grander, more glorious things. Now that I have been brain storming, I need to go back through to find these hidden gems, or to verify that I have not focuded to much on one verse about conquer and myself assumed to much. But my recollection tells me there are many more such instances. Help me make a list someone, please.
> Edit, short version to clarify, the word "conquer" was a unintended word use, that just came out in the sentence revealing an belief foundation not intending to be proved.


Koresh's followers had a mindset, a belief which they felt need not be written down also.
How valid do you take them to have been?

What about the validity of some people who heard about Koresh from survivors and write it down 50 to 100 years later?
Heck would you believe a Waco Fire survivor(got out before) if they wrote a book now??


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Analogy: a comparison of something - mirage / imagination. Fishing on top the sand. Your use of the analogy points back to an illusion / imagination.
> 
> My use of the analogy is very simple - Just because you haven’t caught one doesn’t mean they’re not there. Ugly chicks don’t believe in true love either.


The difference spotlite is that you cannot even show me the pond and THAT is why I believe there are no fish in it!!!!!


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The difference spotlite is that you cannot even show me the pond and THAT is why I believe there are no fish in it!!!!!


(Bible) You claimed you swam in it......

There are things in there that absolutely work exactly the way scripture lays it out. And outside of the Bible there is absolutely zero information / explanation of it other than, and even for yourself - “I don’t know”. And until you experience it, you won’t know.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> (Bible) You claimed you swam in it......
> 
> There are things in there that absolutely work exactly the way scripture lays it out. And outside of the Bible there is absolutely zero information / explanation of it other than, and even for yourself - “I don’t know”. And until you experience it, you won’t know.



Can you list some of these things?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Koresh's followers had a mindset, a belief which they felt need not be written down also.
> How valid do you take them to have been?
> 
> What about the validity of some people who heard about Koresh from survivors and write it down 50 to 100 years later?
> Heck would you believe a Waco Fire survivor(got out before) if they wrote a book now??


My post was not directed at belief of something in general, but an addressing of the messiah aspect. Whether it's accepted as truth or not, the topic at the moment, or my assumption of such,  seemed to be about the Jews declaring Jesus did not fill in the check boxes of their messianic expectations. And how the NT writers addressed this, was it reverse engineering or not? My point being they seemingly were not attempting to show or prove, as if they assumed it so... as if they were not having to prove it so in their circles.... As if they were not under scrutiny over it... etc. Does not prove anything, I know... just interesting


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Can you list some of these things?


LOL, bible predictions that come true to validate it's inspiration.... This is amazing to me. And the bible nailed it. How could writers of that day ever predicted such. The trinity, the 666. The trinity Jesus claiming to be God, just as the bible predicted that the antichrist, the imposter christ, would claim to be god, would steal the real Christ identity, deceive the bride, defile her, making her a wh0re, a city on 7 hills, which is Rome, the foundation of the trinity from which many trin churches derived.

 "Come out from her my people"


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Can you list some of these things?


Not interested in another 3 ring circus on here. 



1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, bible predictions that come true to validate it's inspiration.... This is amazing to me. And the bible nailed it. How could writers of that day ever predicted such. The trinity, the 666. The trinity Jesus claiming to be God, just as the bible predicted that the antichrist, the imposter christ, would claim to be god, would steal the real Christ identity, deceive the bride, defile her, making her a wh0re, a city on 7 hills, which is Rome, the foundation of the trinity from which many trin churches derived.
> 
> "Come out from her my people"


Lol it had nothing to do with predictions. Thus is a fine example that I gave bullet about non believers trying to explain this


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> My post was not directed at belief of something in general, but an addressing of the messiah aspect. Whether it's accepted as truth or not, the topic at the moment, or my assumption of such,  seemed to be about the Jews declaring Jesus did not fill in the check boxes of their messianic expectations. And how the NT writers addressed this, was it reverse engineering or not? My point being they seemingly were not attempting to show or prove, as if they assumed it so... as if they were not having to prove it so in their circles.... As if they were not under scrutiny over it... etc. Does not prove anything, I know... just interesting


I would also say.... that the lack of... NT writer trying to fill a check list of messianic expectations... reveals dating of the writing. Meaning, surely in the days and year of Jesus, did he fulfill these expectations was certainly foremost on everyone mind. Surely there were conversation, discussion, debate, argument, fighting, etc.. over this topic, thus giving the NT writer the mindset that he needed to justify this jesus as the Messiah. Example, food sacrificed to idols was a conflict in the days of Paul, thus he wrote about it, clarifying, making his case. But in the NT writings, this seems to be assumed, thus leading me to believe it was written much later than originally thought


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not interested in another 3 ring circus on here.
> 
> 
> Lol it had nothing to do with predictions. Thus is a fine example that I gave bullet about non believers trying to explain this


I will agree that one of us is deceived, but which one? Only time will tell


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

In my trinitarian days from my up bringing, I used to think that Rev 13 displayed an evil copy of the trinity. The 3 beast, 3 in 1 of the dragon. Again in Rev 16:13, dragon, beast and prophet. Fatal wound of 2nd, causing fire to come down of the 3rd, the 3 part mark [F,S and HS]. Is it an evil copy? Ask yourself also... why have you never made this connection?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> (Bible) You claimed you swam in it......
> 
> There are things in there that absolutely work exactly the way scripture lays it out. And outside of the Bible there is absolutely zero information / explanation of it other than, and even for yourself - “I don’t know”. And until you experience it, you won’t know.



Spot, There are so many ponds to swim in then. So many neither of us have even dipped a toe in. So many where the fish bite just as well (ya know, if ya have the "right" bait)
By your own words, you have not given the others a chance. You have not experienced them so you don't know.
I have just eliminated one more pond than you. I am not thinking about catching fish, i am not satisfied feeling like I've caught fish, Spotlite where are your fish?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I will agree that one of us is deceived, but which one? Only time will tell


How would you be able to agree to that??? You don’t even know what I’m talking about yet.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spot, There are so many ponds to swim in then. So many neither of us have even dipped a toe in. So many where the fish bite just as well (ya know, if ya have the "right" bait)
> By your own words, you have not given the others a chance. You have not experienced them so you don't know.
> I have just eliminated one more pond than you. I am not thinking about catching fish, i am not satisfied feeling like I've caught fish, Spotlite where are your fish?


One problem though - since we have both eliminated all but the one, there’s only the one left that we disagree on - not much need in considering all the others??

Some folks just can’t catch fish because they think they know more than the fish. Since I’m not a socialist, you gotta figure out how to catch your own. You thinking I don’t have any holds as much water as a bucket full of holes.

Now go have fun with this. I’m headed to my lease to get ready for tomorrow.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 15, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I will agree that one of us is deceived, but which one? Only time will tell


You implied that I was a non believer.   trying to explain the bible. I agree that a non believer can not explain the bible, one of us is a non believer [of the truth], deceived


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> One problem though - since we have both eliminated all but the one, there’s only the one left that we disagree on - not much need in considering all the others??
> 
> Some folks just can’t catch fish because they think they know more than the fish. Since I’m not a socialist, you gotta figure out how to catch your own. You thinking I don’t have any holds as much water as a bucket full of holes.
> 
> Now go have fun with this. I’m headed to my lease to get ready for tomorrow.


In Clara Pellar's voice..Spotlite, Where's the Fish?
It is one thing to brag about being a good fisherman and another to show us the fish.
Empty Micky D's wrappers don't cut it.

Ps, every bucket has at least one hole.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not interested in another 3 ring circus on here.
> 
> 
> Lol it had nothing to do with predictions. Thus is a fine example that I gave bullet about non believers trying to explain this



I'm asking in the most sincere way possible.

I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't know how this might be construed as an indictment of my character or intentions.  I think I've demonstrated over the past ten years that I ask questions in good faith with no malicious intent, only with the intent of furthering the conversation.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm asking in the most sincere way possible.
> 
> I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't know how this might be construed as an indictment of my character or intentions.  I think I've demonstrated over the past ten years that I ask questions in good faith with no malicious intent, only with the intent of furthering the conversation.


I know you are and I should have been more clear. I have the upmost respect for you in the way that you conduct yourself with your questions / debates. 

What I mean with the 3 ring circus comment is we’ve went down that road and we just won’t agree. No harm meant, just don’t see it being productive, since I will have nothing new to bring to the table for evidence. Just being honest.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> You implied that I was a non believer.   trying to explain the bible. I agree that a non believer can not explain the bible, one of us is a non believer [of the truth], deceived


I guess what I’m saying is you really don’t know what I’m referring to with my comment because you eluded to predictions, so I’m just wondering how you’d know in advance of who’s wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I know you are and I should have been more clear. I have the upmost respect for you in the way that you conduct yourself with your questions / debates.
> 
> What I mean with the 3 ring circus comment is we’ve went down that road and we just won’t agree. No harm meant, just don’t see it being productive, since I will have nothing new to bring to the table for evidence. Just being honest.



I'm asking for your testimony.  I figured you would jump at the chance to give it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm asking for your testimony.  I figured you would jump at the chance to give it.


How many times?????


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> How many times?????



I don't recall you ever relating any parts where any promises the Gospel makes have ever come true in your experience.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I don't recall you ever relating any parts where any promises the Gospel makes have ever come true in your experience.


Sure I have. Remember my back issue????? My buddy that was deaf from birth to 14?? My daughter diagnosed with situs inversus? I was in the X-ray room both times due to her age.

Remember the example I gave of how the spirit works within a body of Christ??? How I was visiting an out of state church while working, the minister pulled me off to the side one on one and read my mail about a situation?? Told me exactly who I needed to contact (by name) and it worked out exactly the way he said it would. This just happened again within the last few weeks. These are things I told no one so there was no one else that could have gotten word to either of them. They were very specific and accurate.

It’s not all about predictions and history. These are things that happen to the Christian that make what you call a contradiction over wording, translations, etc seem a lot less important. These are things that work in our daily lives and outside of scripture there’s absolutely no explanation of them other than clueless doctors. No I haven’t healed a broken bone or raised the dead but I honestly don’t Know if I have that kind of faith to try that and if you apply that scripture accurately, it takes faith. Plus if you apply everything accurately, even a husband honoring his wife so his prayers aren’t hindered.......there’s more to it than one scripture.

I don’t really care who wrote what and when, when it works, it works.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

I wonder why someone who has the most faith, or even Jesus himself does not heal an amputee.
Is something like that possible?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Sure I have. Remember my back issue????? My buddy that was deaf from birth to 14?? My daughter diagnosed with situs inversus? I was in the X-ray room both times due to her age.
> 
> Remember the example I gave of how the spirit works within a body of Christ??? How I was visiting an out of state church while working, the minister pulled me off to the side one on one and read my mail about a situation?? Told me exactly who I needed to contact (by name) and it worked out exactly the way he said it would. This just happened again within the last few weeks. These are things I told no one so there was no one else that could have gotten word to either of them. They were very specific and accurate.
> 
> ...


Honestly though,  when those things happen to Muslims and people of other faith and to people with no faith and to skeptics and to devil worshippers and to non Christians....
Who is Responsible?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Honestly though,  when those things happen to Muslims and people of other faith and to people with no faith and to skeptics and to devil worshippers and to non Christians....
> Who is Responsible?


I don’t even concern myself with that. I really don’t. That bat sound hypocritical but I don’t even care. I know where you’re going but see we’ve ruled them all out except the one for me. The Muslim call God Allah, the Prophet is different. 

If there’s a god out there doing things to be to make me think that my God is responsible, he’s but a very smart god.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I wonder why someone who has the most faith, or even Jesus himself does not heal an amputee.
> Is something like that possible?


Sure. But read my post again. If you know any version of the Bible as well as say - clue, “hinder” and “applying all scripture”


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t even concern myself with that. I really don’t. That bat sound hypocritical but I don’t even care. I know where you’re going but see we’ve ruled them all out except the one for me. The Muslim call God Allah, the Prophet is different.
> 
> If there’s a god out there doing things to be to make me think that my God is responsible, he’s but a very smart god.


Their results are the same as yours. You cannot rule them out because if what you say is true evidence of your god then is also evidence of theirs.
You just choose to ignore them, place fingers in ears and La La La La it all away.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Sure. But read my post again. If you know any version of the Bible as well as say - clue, “hinder” and “applying all scripture”


So amputees are not worthy enough? Not Christian enough? Not faithful enough?
Why doesn't it happen?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I wonder why someone who has the most faith, or even Jesus himself does not heal an amputee.
> Is something like that possible?



Luke 22:50-51


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So amputees are not worthy enough? Not Christian enough? Not faithful enough?
> Why doesn't it happen?


???????? No one said that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Their results are the same as yours. You cannot rule them out because if what you say is true evidence of your god then is also evidence of theirs.
> You just choose to ignore them, place fingers in ears and La La La La it all away.


You’re missing the point. I’m not interested in proving them right or wrong. It has zero influence on me. I’m not insecure like that. I don’t have to convince them or myself anything about their stories. A man telling me he saw a UFO is not anything for me to lose sleep over or debate with him about. I can listen to his story and say cool beans. I’m the same way with you believing or not believing me - cool beans.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’re missing the point. I’m not interested in proving them right or wrong. It has zero influence on me. I’m not insecure like that. I don’t have to convince them or myself anything about their stories. A man telling me he saw a UFO is not anything for me to lose sleep over or debate with him about. I can listen to his story and say cool beans. I’m the same way with you believing or not believing me - cool beans.


If you acknowledged the others you would then have to acknowledge their gods.  Since their gods do everything your god does they are either just as real or just as phony. The cool beans keeps you from thinking about it. If their gods are as real, one of them may be responsible for your experiences and good fortunes and not the one you think.
You had better look into it deeper.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you acknowledged the others you would then have to acknowledge their gods.  Since their gods do everything your god does they are either just as real or just as phony. The cool beans keeps you from thinking about it. If their gods are as real, one of them may be responsible for your experiences and good fortunes and not the one you think.
> You had better look into it deeper.



To be fair - show us these “others” you keep bringing up.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> To be fair - show us these “others” you keep bringing up.


Pick a religion,  pick a god.
They are as readily available as yours.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> To be fair - show us these “others” you keep bringing up.


Spotlite,the link that I am providing below talks about the experiences of people of other faiths have with their gods. 
I know you need an explanation before you dare click on a link.

https://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/2014/10/hindu-spiritual-experience.html?m=1


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

This is very interesting, particularly the last paragraph.
Does anyone agree?
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-myths-legends.html
From the article:



> The Bible is clear as to its authorship. Although many different men wrote, the Holy Spirit of God is the actual author. Second Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that Scripture is inspired by God, which means it is literally “God-breathed.” He wrote it, He preserved it down through the centuries, He lives within its very pages and His power is manifest in our lives through it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,the link that I am providing below talks about the experiences of people of other faiths have with their gods.
> I know you need an explanation before you dare click on a link.
> 
> https://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/2014/10/hindu-spiritual-experience.html?m=1


Ok that affects me how? Just because they have a testimony (be it real or not) has zero affect on what I believe / disbelieve. Their proof / lack of proof isn’t “evidence” for or against me or them.

For the record, every religion except Buddhism and those where “you’re your own god” ultimately believe in one supreme being. How do you know that the one supreme being isn’t sitting there looking at all of us getting it wrong? If the Muslim looks unto God as Allah and I look unto God as God - big deal. It’s the all the between that will matter but it doesn’t do away with God or make us wrong / right because of the other.

Take my testimony for what it means to you. I have no reason to justify it or analyze it against all other religions, atheism or the agnostic. It’s mine and mine alone.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

Ambush - this is the 3 ring circus I was speaking of lol ?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ambush - this is the 3 ring circus I was speaking of lol ?


You mean the 3 ring circus of:
In the 1st ring we have Spotlite saying that his experiences and testimonies are proof.
In the 2nd ring we have Spotlite saying that other's experiences and testimonies are not proof.
And in the 3rd ring we have the "what if" Ringmaster where everything that can be imagined by a what if that is Pro his god is an excuse, but if the same "what if" is applied to another god then it is preposterous. 
???


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok that affects me how? Just because they have a testimony (be it real or not) has zero affect on what I believe / disbelieve. Their proof / lack of proof isn’t “evidence” for or against me or them.
> 
> For the record, every religion except Buddhism and those where “you’re your own god” ultimately believe in one supreme being. How do you know that the one supreme being isn’t sitting there looking at all of us getting it wrong? If the Muslim looks unto God as Allah and I look unto God as God - big deal. It’s the all the between that will matter but it doesn’t do away with God or make us wrong / right because of the other.
> 
> Take my testimony for what it means to you. I have no reason to justify it or analyze it against all other religions, atheism or the agnostic. It’s mine and mine alone.


You don't even believe in One Supreme Being.
You are a 3 is one type of guy


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

I'm headed out to shoot a new 450 Bushmaster upper and some handloads.
I'll catch up later on.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You mean the 3 ring circus of:
> In the 1st ring we have Spotlite saying that his experiences and testimonies are proof.
> In the 2nd ring we have Spotlite saying that other's experiences and testimonies are not proof.
> And in the 3rd ring we have the "what if" Ringmaster where everything that can be imagined by a what if that is Pro his god is an excuse, but if the same "what if" is applied to another god then it is preposterous.
> ???


 my goodness. I’m going back to the woods lol


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You don't even believe in One Supreme Being.
> You are a 3 is one type of guy


I’m not trinity.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I'm headed out to shoot a new 450 Bushmaster upper and some handloads.
> I'll catch up later on.


Now that sounds fun!!! Been shooting my 45-70 a good but.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not trinity. View attachment 991485


Do you worship God or Jesus?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Do you worship God or Jesus?


Jesus is a manifestation of God.,


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You mean the 3 ring circus of:
> In the 1st ring we have Spotlite saying that his experiences and testimonies are proof.
> In the 2nd ring we have Spotlite saying that other's experiences and testimonies are not proof.
> And in the 3rd ring we have the "what if" Ringmaster where everything that can be imagined by a what if that is Pro his god is an excuse, but if the same "what if" is applied to another god then it is preposterous.
> ???


My evidence is just for me. I’ve always made that clear.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ambush - this is the 3 ring circus I was speaking of lol ?




It's not a circus.  Bullet asked you why you don't consider other people's proof of their gods to be as valid as your proof of yours.  You said:

1. I don't care to disprove their gods.
_ "Ok that affects me how? Just because they have a testimony (be it real or not) has zero affect on what I believe / disbelieve. Their proof / lack of proof isn’t “evidence” for or against me or them."_

2. All believers in god might be wrong. .
_"For the record, every religion except Buddhism and those where “you’re your own god” ultimately believe in one supreme being. How do you know that the one supreme being isn’t sitting there looking at all of us getting it wrong? If the Muslim looks unto God as Allah and I look unto God as God - big deal."_

_3. _My testimony only proves my god to me.
_      "Take my testimony for what it means to you. I have no reason to justify it or analyze it against all other religions, atheism or the agnostic. It’s mine and mine alone."_

That's a pretty good conversation.  I think what Bullet wants you say is "My proof of my god is as good as their proof of their god".   He probably wants you to recognize that both your "proofs" are equally suspect, meaning they are equally unprovable and completely subjective experiences.  

That's my attempt to describe what's going on in your discussion.  Tell me if I got it wrong.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's not a circus.  Bullet asked you why you don't consider other people's proof of their gods to be as valid as your proof of yours.  You said:
> 
> 1. I don't care to disprove their gods.
> _ "Ok that affects me how? Just because they have a testimony (be it real or not) has zero affect on what I believe / disbelieve. Their proof / lack of proof isn’t “evidence” for or against me or them."_
> ...


If it stops with just “why” but......
And I’ve never stated what I thought of others. I’ve made it clear more than once that it doesn’t affect what I believe or disbelieve. I’m not interested is saying their proof is as valid as mine. I’ve never went there.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If it stops with just “why” but......
> And I’ve never stated what I thought of others. I’ve made it clear more than once that it doesn’t affect what I believe or disbelieve. I’m not interested is saying their proof is as valid as mine. I’ve never went there.



Obviously you don't think their proof is as valid as yours because yours is real and theirs is not, even though you both use the same exact kind of subjective, personal experience to make that determination.  It's OK to say it. I know it looks bad but that's how it works.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Obviously you don't think their proof is as valid as yours because yours is real and theirs is not, even though you both use the same exact kind of subjective, personal experience to make that determination.  It's OK to say it. I know it looks bad but that's how it works.


That is it in a nutshell.
The gods/followers are all in the same boat.
The evidence for all is the same.
Either they are all equally true or they are all equally false.
Ignoring the others or pretending to ignore them just to avoid having to not sound hypocritical is bad sport.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Obviously you don't think their proof is as valid as yours because yours is real and theirs is not, even though you both use the same exact kind of subjective, personal experience to make that determination.  It's OK to say it. I know it looks bad but that's how it works.


Obviously???? Based on what??? You and bullet are somehow convinced that you know what I think.

I’ve made no such claims that your assumptions are addressing. Just because you took it one god / God further doesn’t mean I have to. I found something in the one that you didn’t. If I’m wrong, I’d be ok with that. But it’s consistently working just fine for me so I see, or have no reason to reconsider.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That is it in a nutshell.
> The gods/followers are all in the same boat.
> The evidence for all is the same.
> Either they are all equally true or they are all equally false.
> Ignoring the others or pretending to ignore them just to avoid having to not sound hypocritical is bad sport.


See this is what happens when you form an opinion based on assumptions that favor the way you think things are.
You’re missing the facts - I haven’t ever given my opinion about these “others” you bring up.
There’s nothing hypocritical in being obedient. The one I serve says not to have any other gods before him. So, I don’t entertain or assume any credit anywhere else.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> See this is what happens when you form an opinion based on assumptions that favor the way you think things are.
> You’re missing the facts - I haven’t ever given my opinion about these “others” you bring up.
> There’s nothing hypocritical in being obedient. The one I serve says not to have any other gods before him. So, I don’t entertain or assume any credit anywhere else.


No need to have or put any other gods before yours. He obviously is saying there are other gods. (BUT in the religious history of the Hebrews they always had and worshipped other gods, then Yaweh said no more, he chose them, created them to be HIS people and they shall have no other gods before him...that is another lesson entirely...)
So you acknowledging other gods is just that. No need to worship them. Just acknowledge that there must be other gods that do work in other people's lives. IE: Their gods, not yours.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No need to have or put any other gods before yours. He obviously is saying there are other gods. (BUT in the religious history of the Hebrews they always had and worshipped other gods, then Yaweh said no more, he chose them, created them to be HIS people and they shall have no other gods before him...that is another lesson entirely...)
> So you acknowledging other gods is just that. No need to worship them. Just acknowledge that there must be other gods that do work in other people's lives. IE: Their gods, not yours.


Just to be clear - unless I know the absolute answer for sure, I don’t tell anyone what they did / didn’t experience.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just to be clear - unless I know the absolute answer for sure, I don’t tell anyone what they did / didn’t experience.


You'll wise up sooner or later


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You'll wise up sooner or later


Wisest thing a man can do is keep his thoughts to himself unless he does know what another man has or doesn’t ......unless he’s clear that he’s only sharing his opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Wisest thing a man can do is keep his thoughts to himself unless he does know what another man has or doesn’t ......unless he’s clear that he’s only sharing his opinion.


* said on an internet forum


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> * said on an internet forum


Bullet, I’m not sure why you feel the need to paint pictures based on assumptions. THATS the 3 ring circus I spoke of.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I wonder why someone who has the most faith, or even Jesus himself does not heal an amputee.
> Is something like that possible?


Discussion of these things is interesting, yet leave most of us believers as looking as though we have no credibility. For example, most here know that I believe the simple basic underlying truth is found within lots of NT embellishments, specifically thinking of the 4 gospels. However, approximately 100 years later, after Jesus death,  based on Paul's comment that some of those jesus appeared to, the 500," are still living today..".. In this same writing, Paul is talking about spiritual gifts, all sorts, including healings. Speaking as if it was normal, speaking as if it were not that big of a deal. I would have thought that it would have gained quite the attention and specifics might be recorded. However, in our day, where are they? Expect that idiots will pull out 1 or 2 instances they call a modern day miracle, yet don't expect it to be a real miracle, like a paraplegic walking. They will go to the internet to find some source that they can use, yet 1, 2 or 5 hardly constitutes any proof considering the amount of Christians spread throughout the world. So, where does that leave me as I don't think Paul's writings are embellished like Matthew, for example. Have gifts been revoked? Does no one have the faith for it? Has everyone sought after the greater gift of Love? Was Paul's writings sincere? Was it Paul who wrote this? Did they expire? Are those with the gift unaware? Are those with the gift scared of it? That they could do it and remain humble? "A time when no man can work", is this what we see? I don't know where I stand on this? And I understand fully why an atheist  would declare there is nothing to stand on. Frankly, I think this sort of conflict does more harm to promote the gospel than it does good. Is it a slippery slope to question? Of course not. As an apologetic of truth, I have to face these things head on, admit when i can't justify everything. Does it mean Jesus never died for my sins, NO. I just prefer to be real.... than to lose credibility


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet, I’m not sure why you feel the need to paint pictures based on assumptions. THATS the 3 ring circus I spoke of.


That has nothing to do with being a circus.
You are telling me what a wise man does(keep it to himself) yet doing it where literally anyone with an internet connection can "hear" it.
It cracks me up....then again so does a circus....so pick whichever of the 3 rings you want.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That has nothing to do with being a circus.
> You are telling me what a wise man does(keep it to himself) yet doing it where literally anyone with an internet connection can "hear" it.
> It cracks me up....then again so does a circus....so pick whichever of the 3 rings you want.


I keep what I think of others testimony to myself. I don’t paint a picture with it and make assumptions like below. I don’t try to answer those things I don’t have the absolute answer for but will give an opinion if asked. You don’t even know my answers or opinion about those others, yet assume this. I was asked to give my testimony and two of y’all ran on your assumptions of what y’all thought my answers would be about those “others”. That’s the circus show. You got your carts before the horse. 


bullethead said:


> That is it in a nutshell.
> The gods/followers are all in the same boat.
> The evidence for all is the same.
> Either they are all equally true or they are all equally false.
> Ignoring the others or pretending to ignore them just to avoid having to not sound hypocritical is bad sport.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I keep what I think of others testimony to myself. I don’t paint a picture with it and make assumptions like below. I don’t try to answer those things I don’t have the absolute answer for but will give an opinion if asked. You don’t even know my answers or opinion about those others, yet assume this. I was asked to give my testimony and two of y’all ran on your assumptions of what y’all thought my answers would be about those “others”. That’s the circus show. You got your carts before the horse.


If you are engaged in a conversation but are only willing to engage up to a point then you leave it open to assumptions. But,at least in my case, I was eliminating the obvious with my In a Nutshell reply. You have free reign to explain your position before or after that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you are engaged in a conversation but are only willing to engage up to a point then you leave it open to assumptions. But,at least in my case, I was eliminating the obvious with my In a Nutshell reply. You have free reign to explain your position before or after that.


Not so fast hoss......back up to post # 365 & 378 - great examples of how you assume things. The key here is you DIDNT ask me anything - you stated. Point made. Move along.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not so fast hoss......back up to post # 365 & 378 - great examples of how you assume things. The key here is you DIDNT ask me anything - you stated. Point made. Move along.


I replied to You, #363 





> I don’t even concern myself with that. I really don’t. That bat sound hypocritical but I don’t even care. I know where you’re going but see we’ve ruled them all out except the one for me. The Muslim call God Allah, the Prophet is different.
> 
> If there’s a god out there doing things to be to make me think that my God is responsible, he’s but a very smart god.



As far as #378.
Lets clarify.
Are you saying that you believe that There is no God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

I know you stated that Jesus is God manifesting himself.
So, is it your belief that in Heaven there is no Jesus?
Or
Does god pop in and out of character as needed?

I said what I said about you and the Trinity because you have mentioned God. Jesus. And the Holy Spirit in past threads at different times so it was not assumption on my end, I was under the impression.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I replied to You, #363
> 
> As far as #378.
> Lets clarify.
> ...


I’m saying there is but not individually. God is a spirit, the Word was God and made flesh. A manifestation of something doesn’t mean that “something” is an “individual”. If God manifested (or revealed) himself through a talking rock, that talking rock is not a separate God.

As far as to what we were discussing in reference to other gods - if you’re saying that you’ve ruled them all out and took it one God further than I did, it’s implying that there is only one that we should be discussing.

Ive acknowledged many times there are other gods - you can make a god out of anything. Wether you believe or think it has any power or not isn’t the issue, you assumed that the Christian is hypocritical because we “don’t acknowledge other testimonies”. Truth is, we aren’t saying there is no power in the “moon god” that someone feels helped them out, we recognize the experience, but, we also acknowledge and understand the work of satan through deception.

It has nothing to do with telling others they “didn’t experience”, it has everything to do with recognizing how the God we know works. The Indian might have saw the great buffalo in his vision.

At the end of the day unless I have something absolute other than my belief / disbelief, I don’t / can’t tell him that it wasn’t real to him. I can believe that it just might have been the rabbit tobacco from the peace pipe, or the work of satan. I won’t give his “spirit” any credit unless I recognize it as a work of God. That’s being obedient to my beliefs.

And you’re free and welcome to tell me what you believe or don’t believe, but there is nothing absolute or factual about it other than you do or don’t believe it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

God in your opinion was God in the flesh, NOT the Son of god in the flesh.
Is that your position?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> God in your opinion was God in the flesh, NOT the Son of god in the flesh.
> Is that your position?


Both. For the purpose of the story -
1. God is a spirit, manifest himself in the flesh. A spirit can’t die. The Godhead is “one” with different manifestations / functions. The flesh was crucified, God didn’t die. The same spirit that raised Jesus will raise the believers.

2. Jesus was the son of God, all believers are the children of God. The Father is another function of the Godhead. Believers are one body in Christ in spirit, they in him, him in them.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Both. For the purpose of the story -
> 1. God is a spirit, manifest himself in the flesh. A spirit can’t die. The Godhead is “one” with different manifestations / functions. The flesh was crucified, God didn’t die. The same spirit that raised Jesus will raise the believers.
> 
> 2. Jesus was the son of God, all believers are the children of God. The Father is another function of the Godhead. Believers are one body in Christ in spirit, they in him, him in them.


But the Father is not even the Father... since it was the 3rd person, the HS who came upon mary. What a mess. Look at the verses. No way around it


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Both. For the purpose of the story -
> 1. God is a spirit, manifest himself in the flesh. A spirit can’t die. The Godhead is “one” with different manifestations / functions. The flesh was crucified, God didn’t die. The same spirit that raised Jesus will raise the believers.
> 
> 2. Jesus was the son of God, all believers are the children of God. The Father is another function of the Godhead. Believers are one body in Christ in spirit, they in him, him in them.


Are you a Oneness believer or Trinity? The reason I ask is because you compared God manifest as a Human to God manifest as a Rock. That seems more Oneness than the always being Son manifesting as a human.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you a Oneness believer or Trinity? The reason I ask is because you compared God manifest as a Human to God manifest as a Rock. That seems more Oneness than the always being Son manifesting as a human.


Oneness. Most trinity aren’t real trinity. They narrow it back to the one God and embedded within their argument they’re saying the same thing - God is Jesus, Jesus is God, Jesus the son of God, i in him, him in me, the Father and I are one, etc. Manifest meaning God revealing himself as human. Get a “trinitarian” to explain John 1 and see how trinity they are when they’re finished.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> But the Father is not even the Father... since it was the 3rd person, the HS who came upon mary. What a mess. Look at the verses. No way around it



You’re thinking of you and your biological son. Don’t think that way.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Both. For the purpose of the story -
> 1. God is a spirit, manifest himself in the flesh. A spirit can’t die. The Godhead is “one” with different manifestations / functions. The flesh was crucified, God didn’t die. The same spirit that raised Jesus will raise the believers.
> 
> 2. Jesus was the son of God, all believers are the children of God. The Father is another function of the Godhead. Believers are one body in Christ in spirit, they in him, him in them.


So in your world God is everywhere at all times in everyone and everything (except non christians but definitely in burning bushes, donkeys and possibly rocks?)AND watching himself in Holy Ghost form impregnate Mary so she can carry HIMself around for 9 months, then he watches her bear HIMself where he is watching HIMself live inconspicuously for 30 years where He/3 laid low with no recordings of any significant deeds. Then for the last three years God and Man-God act separately as one and being God he is SO good that he can hold conversations with himself while referring to himself as something else and even question himself while calling himself father.

Hey bro, whatever helps you get out of bed in the morning. If you can simplify all that down to the point where you can look at yourself in the mirror(well, you are probably looking at god anyway at that point) then you deserve to roll with it.
Take care, be safe, shoot a big un. Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’re thinking of you and your biological son. Don’t think that way.


Spotlite, if someone has to suspend reality in favor of the absurd they can make anything sound in their head.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, if someone has to suspend reality in favor of the absurd they can make anything sound in their head.


And you’re here . 


Spotlite said:


> And you’re free and welcome to tell me what you believe or don’t believe, but there is nothing absolute or factual about it other than you do or don’t believe it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> And you’re here .


Spotlite your rules for me apply to yourself also.
We are both here: it is called reality the capital of Earth.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So in your world God is everywhere at all times in everyone and everything (except non christians but definitely in burning bushes, donkeys and possibly rocks?)AND watching himself in Holy Ghost form impregnate Mary so she can carry HIMself around for 9 months, then he watches her bear HIMself where he is watching HIMself live inconspicuously for 30 years where He/3 laid low with no recordings of any significant deeds. Then for the last three years God and Man-God act separately as one and being God he is SO good that he can hold conversations with himself while referring to himself as something else and even question himself while calling himself father.
> 
> Hey bro, whatever helps you get out of bed in the morning. If you can simplify all that down to the point where you can look at yourself in the mirror(well, you are probably looking at god anyway at that point) then you deserve to roll with it.
> Take care, be safe, shoot a big un. Happy Thanksgiving.


Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family too!! I won’t address the rest because I’ve far gotten away from grade school tactics ? But no, you’re assuming way too much again.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite your rules for me apply to yourself also.
> We are both here: it is called reality the capital of Earth.


Not my rules. You and I are left with only belief and disbelief, if either of us had something concrete, we would be drowning minnows and this forum wouldn’t exist.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family too!! I won’t address the rest because I’ve far gotten away from grade school tactics ?


Spot, I have to bring it to the level of the opposition so it is understood.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spot, I have to bring it to the level of the opposition so it is understood.


How bout bringing it to the level of questions rather than making sarcastic statements from what you assume???


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not my rules. You and I are left with only belief and disbelief, if either of us had something concrete, we would be drowning minnows and this forum wouldn’t exist.


I am satisfied showing nothing because I claim nothing. You on the other hand admit to claiming something but have nothing to show.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> How bout bringing it to the level of questions rather than making statements from what you assume???


I don't know how to write in Koine Greek so I go with my layman's interpretation of what is written in the book.
I guess by your own rules even you can't say I am wrong...
Anything is possible Spot.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am satisfied showing nothing because I claim nothing. You on the other hand admit to claiming something but have nothing to show.


True, until you claim anything as “evidence”. I will buy your “most likely” as the way you believe things are, but when it turns to facts and evidence, that’s concrete, I want to see it.  I’ve always said it’s my belief. You asked what I believed, I didn’t come throwing it to you. Your disbelief doesn’t affect it in any way.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I don't know how to write in Koine Greek so I go with my layman's interpretation of what is written in the book.
> I guess by your own rules even you can't say I am wrong...
> Anything is possible Spot.


Greek???? Funny, a lot of folks admit that but they trust someone that says “hey this Greek words means this in English”

It’s not my job to say you’re wrong. I think that’s where you’re falling off the wagon. I gotta go with what I believe for myself.

Even if I thought the Bible was fictional, I can read it and understand the story line of what it’s saying about all that. It’s clear as a bell.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> True, until you claim anything as “evidence”. I will buy your “most likely” as the way you believe things are, but when it turns to facts and evidence, that’s concrete, I want to see it.  I’ve always said it’s my belief. You asked what I believed, I didn’t come throwing it to you. Your disbelief doesn’t affect it in any way.


We each have absolutely zero evidence to show that anything like the god of the bible exists. I was a believer turned skeptic because of my search for evidence and finding zero.
1 Point for zero proof.
You are a believer and claim this god exists yet you cannot produce a shred of evidence to back any of it up.
That is not a draw, it is:
2 points for zero proof.

Therefore unless one of us, or the other 7 billion people on the planet now can do what the previous billions of people have not been able to do, which is produce evidence of ANY sort of god....
It most definitely is a More Likely Than Not Scenario. And that is being kind. 

You get wrapped up in thinking that because someone can imagine or think of something in their head and convince themselves that it is true then because nobody else can counter their imagination then it shows evidence that what the person imagined has a whiff of truth. 
It is completely false to think like that.
When there is no evidence to counter,  other than thoughts and feelings it actually means there is NO EVIDENCE.
If you had something tangible that could not be refuted then you have something.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Greek???? Funny, a lot of folks admit that but they trust someone that says “hey this Greek words means this in English”
> 
> It’s not my job to say you’re wrong. I think that’s where you’re falling off the wagon. I gotta go with what I believe for myself.
> 
> Even if I thought the Bible was fictional, I can read it and understand the story line of what it’s saying about all that. It’s clear as a bell.


I can read Marvel Universe Comics, follow along, understand the story line and think it is clear as a bell To Me.
Since the bible, that comic book and testimony at these Impeachment hearings are all able to be seemingly followed,  seemingly understood and seemingly clear as a bell, Yet there are millions of different and varying differences in what is CLEAR as a bell with each...your point does not really help your case.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I can read Marvel Universe Comics, follow along, understand the story line and think it is clear as a bell To Me.
> Since the bible, that comic book and testimony at these Impeachment hearings are all able to be seemingly followed,  seemingly understood and seemingly clear as a bell, Yet there are millions of different and varying differences in what is CLEAR as a bell with each...your point does not really help your case.


Just let it rest. I only answered your question, which I knew would turn into a 3 ring circus because you feel the need to be so accurate and learned and to try to prove everyone wrong. I’m not really interested in what you think, or comparing to others for  justification of what I believe. I’m just that secure with it. I just answered your question. Have a good day Sir.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just let it rest. I only answered your question, which I knew would turn into a 3 ring circus because you feel the need to be so accurate and learned and to try to prove everyone wrong. I’m not really interested in what you think, I just answered your question. Have a good day Sir.


If I had to overlook accuracy,  evidence and facts, I'd still believe. 
Take care.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If I had to overlook accuracy,  evidence and facts, I'd still believe.
> Take care.


I will reply once more - so now you got evidence????? Why you still looking to see if you overlooked or missed anything???

Truth is, you don’t have any more evidence to stand on than I do.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I will reply once more - so now you got evidence????? Why you still looking to see if you overlooked or missed anything???


Yes, yes I have evidence against.  The evidence against is the Zero Evidence available and given for. When there is absolutely no evidence available to show a god THAT is the evidence against!

And yes, I am still looking to check, recheck and check again. I'd love to find a god. I'd love for a god to find me instead of various believers in such gods speaking for and making excuses for a god that is a no show.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yes, yes I have evidence against.  The evidence against is the Zero Evidence available and given for. When there is absolutely no evidence available to show a god THAT is the evidence against!
> 
> And yes, I am still looking to check, recheck and check again. I'd love to find a god. I'd love for a god to find me instead of various believers in such gods speaking for and making excuses for a god that is a no show.


Ok the fallacy of the ole argument from ignorance stance shines bright -  Gotcha ?

So, you now know what I believe. And, that’s where I will leave it now. You don’t have evidence as you think, you’re entitled to what you believe, but there’s nothing factual about it at all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok the fallacy of the ole argument from ignorance stance shines bright -  Gotcha ?
> 
> So, you now know what I believe. And, that’s where I will leave it now. You don’t have evidence as you think, you’re entitled to what you believe, but there’s nothing factual about it at all.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Lets say you claim I robbed a bank in your hometown yesterday. 
You go to the police and they investigate. The bank says it was not robbed. Not a single teller or customer that was in the bank all day says that they witnessed a robbery or that anyone even close to my description was anywhere near the bank. There is not so much as a penny missing. There is no surveillance footage of me in the bank or around the bank or anywhere in your state. 
Do you think that I still have to prove that I did not rob that bank?
There is ignorance going on Spot and but you'll get no argument from me as to the source.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok the fallacy of the ole argument from ignorance stance shines bright -  Gotcha ?
> 
> So, you now know what I believe. And, that’s where I will leave it now. You don’t have evidence as you think, you’re entitled to what you believe, but there’s nothing factual about it at all.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


I honestly have no clue to the depths of what you believe.  I have to go with what you admit to and present here.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2019)




----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Lets say you claim I robbed a bank in your hometown yesterday.
> You go to the police and they investigate. The bank says it was not robbed. Not a single teller or customer that was in the bank all day says that they witnessed a robbery or that anyone even close to my description was anywhere near the bank. There is not so much as a penny missing. There is no surveillance footage of me in the bank or around the bank or anywhere in your state.
> Do you think that I still have to prove that I did not rob that bank?
> There is ignorance going on Spot and but you'll get no argument from me as to the source.


Poor analogy. You know exactly what argument from ignorance means here.

Only difference is I am not trying to prove I’m right, somehow, you’re ego is not letting you grasp that.

The fallacy is you leave no room for the unknown. Perhaps you may in fact “know”, if you do, you should be able to present that very easily without question. And you shouldn’t be looking for what you might have missed when you sought God. If he’s not there, you didn’t miss anything, right??? 


bullethead said:


> Yes, yes I have evidence against.  The evidence against is the Zero Evidence available and given for. When there is absolutely no evidence available to show a god THAT is the evidence against!.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Again, In the world of illusion and make believe(Hollywood)...anything is possible. 
I'll add the world of delusion to the list also.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Again, In the world of illusion and make believe(Hollywood)...anything is possible.
> I'll add the world of delusion to the list also.


So your ambition in life is to ask people what they believe and why they believe it - then belittle it with your opinion? Remember, you asked - I never tried to sell you anything as truth.

Either way, I have zero respect for anyone of the nature. I don’t believe in Big Foot but I won’t knock a man that does unless he’s trying to convince me he’s out there.
 Truth is, you’re not 100% sure yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So your ambition in life is to ask people what they believe and why they believe it - then belittle it with your opinion? Remember, you asked - I never tried to sell you anything as truth.


Oh dear Zeus no, You should see how serious and focused I can get when it is something important.
For these belief conversations I question the process that is used to form their opinions.



Spotlite said:


> Either way, I have zero respect for anyone of the nature. I don’t believe in Big Foot but I won’t knock a man that does unless he’s trying to convince me he’s out there.
> Truth is, you’re not 100% sure yourself.


Are you sure that I am not 100% sure?  Are you knocking me even though I have not tried to convince you of my assuredness?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Oh dear Zeus no, You should see how serious and focused I can get when it is something important.
> For these belief conversations I question the process that is used to form their opinions.
> 
> 
> Are you sure that I am not 100% sure?  Are you knocking me even though I have not tried to convince you of my assuredness?


Unless you have a different account this time - I asked you before if you’re 100% certain there is no God. We’ve had this conversation many times. You’ve never claimed to be. I won’t go back and look. You can just tell us how certain you are now.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Unless you have a different account this time - I asked you before if you’re 100% certain there is no God. We’ve had this conversation many times. You’ve never claimed to be. I won’t go back and look. You can just tell us how certain you are now.


But in your world , There is NO way that I can know anything with 100% certainty.  So even if I say that I am not 100% sure of a god existing pr not existing..there is a chance that I may in fact be 100% sure and I just don't know it or vise versa.
There is no right or wrong answer correct?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2019)

No, it’s like being pregnant - either you is or you aint Lol ? Happy Thanksgiving Bullet, seriously-


----------



## bullethead (Nov 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, it’s like being pregnant - either you is or you aint Lol ? Happy Thanksgiving Bullet, seriously-


Take care Spotlite. 
I enjoy the gear grinding and always appreciate your input.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


>



Just for the record, bullet and I are blunt with one another but there’s never any harm meant, I’d drown minnows with him any day of the week, except on Sunday, I’m dragging him in somewhere to look for God


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just for the record, bullet and I are blunt with one another but there’s never any harm meant, I’d drown minnows with him any day of the week, except on Sunday, I’m dragging him in somewhere to look for God


Truth
And
I'll gladly help you look on a Sunday, I can't find him either


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Truth
> And
> I'll gladly help you look on a Sunday, I can't find him either



That was cold - but pretty good lol


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok the fallacy of the ole argument from ignorance stance shines bright -  Gotcha ?
> 
> So, you now know what I believe. And, that’s where I will leave it now. You don’t have evidence as you think, you’re entitled to what you believe, but there’s nothing factual about it at all.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance



Nope. He didn’t make an argument from ignorance. He said the absence of evidence is itself evidence (not proof) that there is no god. It’s all the evidence one would expect for something that didn’t exist. You believe god does exist. On what evidence is your belief grounded?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Nope. He didn’t make an argument from ignorance. He said the absence of evidence is itself evidence (not proof) that there is no god. It’s all the evidence one would expect for something that didn’t exist. You believe god does exist. On what evidence is your belief grounded?


Read again. Have a happy thanksgiving.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Read again. Have a happy thanksgiving.



I read it just fine the first time. What he cites is exactly what we should expect if the proposition that god does not exist is true. The bible does actually make claims about god which can be put to the test. Unfortunately for the believer those claims don't pass the test which serves as evidence that they are false. This is not an argument from ignorance. God of the gaps claims are arguments from ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 24, 2019)

You are confusing argument from ignorance with negative evidence.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_evidence


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 24, 2019)

Read it again - specifically:


*appeal to ignorance* (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true

You’re both saying that since I can’t, or haven’t proven that God does exist, that’s the evidence he doesn’t.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 24, 2019)

That is part of the evidence. It’s what we should expect to be the case for someone who claims something exists that doesn’t. But that is only part of the evidence. We also have claims in the Bible that don’t hold true like the claim that prayer works. There is actually greater negative evidence for the god of the Bible than there is for fairies because unlike Yahweh there is no authoritative text which makes demonstrably false claims about what we can expect from fairies.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 24, 2019)

No, you have myself claiming prayer works. Ive got experiences that you nor any doctor has an explanation for. You’re forgetting the unknown.

What is your proof that God doesn’t exist?

To narrow this down, you’re ultimately going to prove you haven’t found evidence of God, that does not equate to God doesn’t exist. You’re going to overlook testimonies where there are no medical explanations, and you’re going to want amputees instantly healed for proof. 

Testimonies - the unknown 
Amputees - all you have is not yet = the unknown


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, you have myself claiming prayer works. Ive got experiences that you nor any doctor has an explanation for. You’re forgetting the unknown.
> 
> What is your proof that God doesn’t exist?
> 
> ...



We can easily put prayer to the test with a controlled experiment and show that it doesn’t work. Any time you want to do that just let me know. Prayer to Yahweh is no more effective than prayer to any other mythical being. That is what we can expect of a deity that doesn’t exist.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> We can easily put prayer to the test with a controlled experiment and show that it doesn’t work. Any time you want to do that just let me know. Prayer to Yahweh is no more effective than prayer to any other mythical being. That is what we can expect of a deity that doesn’t exist.


You’re exactly right, it is what you can expect from a deity that doesn’t exist. Problem is, you still don’t know that God doesn’t, you can believe he doesn’t though. I will ask you again, tell us how certain you are - 100%, 99.99999%, other???

Your  assessment is opinionated, I have personal stories that say otherwise. And, before you go to your favorite link about the “prayer study research”, I asked you last time to provide the same documentation you requested from me - let’s see before and after X-rays, reports, diagnosis, etc.

If this is what you call proof.....


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’re exactly right, it is what you can expect from a deity that doesn’t exist. Problem is, you still don’t know that God doesn’t, you can believe he doesn’t though. I will ask you again, tell us how certain you are - 100%, 99.99999%, other???
> 
> Your  assessment is opinionated, I have personal stories that say otherwise. And, before you go to your favorite link about the “prayer study research”, I asked you last time to provide the same documentation you requested from me - let’s see before and after X-rays, reports, diagnosis, etc.
> 
> If this is what you call proof.....



I’m as certain Yahweh doesn’t exist as you are that Apollo, Ra, Odin, fairies, and hobgoblins don’t exist. There is no more evidence for one of those than for the other. Again, quite different from what the Bible tells us we should expect and exactly what we should expect of something that doesn’t exist. That’s just the way it is. Yes we have prayer studies that show prayer doesn’t heal people but we could conduct our own test that doesn’t depend on healing and confirm it doesn’t work. Again that’s just the way it is. Anecdotal stories are of no use. Everyone has stories. The Greeks had stories. There is a building in Delphi constructed to honor a Greek god a man was convinced healed his blind wife. If the Bible were true you wouldn’t need to rely on personal accounts. The fact that is all you and believers of other religions have makes my point, not yours. 

From the origins of Yahweh, to the origins of our own species, to the failed prophecy of Jesus return, the false claims about the efficacy of prayer and more we know enough to know the Bible isn’t true. On that basis and on the basis of the absence of any positive evidence of Yahweh it has to place the odds of his existence somewhere between extremely slim and none. Now if you want to make a more unfalsifiable claim of the deists god then sure there is less reason to believe such a god doesn’t exist. But that would be by design just like Russell’s teapot. Make what you will of such claims. My inclination is to go with the adage “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Read it again - specifically:
> 
> 
> *appeal to ignorance* (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true
> ...


Its not that YOU cant prove God exists that is evidence.
Its that NOONE can or at least noone has.
Big difference when talking about evidence.
And yes, some believers have experiences that to them absolutely confirm the existence of God. Of course, a youve heard from us a bazillion times, that includes believers of every god that has been known to man.
And Im not arguing with you, Im just trying to get you to understand the evidence argument a little more clearly.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not that YOU cant prove God exists that is evidence.
> Its that NOONE can or at least noone has.
> Big difference when talking about evidence.
> And yes, some believers have experiences that to them absolutely confirm the existence of God. Of course, a youve heard from us a bazillion times, that includes believers of every god that has been known to man.
> And Im not arguing with you, Im just trying to get you to understand the evidence argument a little more clearly.



The problem I had as a believer was that this lack of evidence was not what the Bible tells us to expect. If the Bible is true then where is the evidence. Jesus said those who believe in him would be able to perform the same miracles as him and greater miracles. Show me any believer on the planet that can perform the same miracles attributed to him. Between the reality the Bible claims and the reality we actually have something has to give. If a person actually cares about the truth of their belief there has to be an answer to this.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

So spot you claim prayer works. Let’s put that claim to the test. I will write a random word on a slip of paper and place it in a sealed envelope. Then you pray for god to reveal that word to you. Once your prayer is answered we can do a video call. You tell me the word that was revealed to you and I will open the envelope and we will see if your prayer worked or not. We can even repeat the experiment as many times as you want just to be sure. What do you say?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The problem I had as a believer was that this lack of evidence was not what the Bible tells us to expect. If the Bible is true then where is the evidence. Jesus said those who believe in him would be able to perform the same miracles as him and greater miracles. Show me any believer on the planet that can perform the same miracles attributed to him. Between the reality the Bible claims and the reality we actually have something has to give. If a person actually cares about the truth of their belief there has to be an answer to this.


Yep. The Bible is kind of a double edge sword.
Obviously was very useful in promoting Christianity when people really had no way to verify the claims made in it and probably really had no interest in verifying it or discrediting it.
Fast forward to now when boatloads of information are at your fingertips and we are all much more aware of "scams" or one sided stories…..
and all the stuff in the Bible is working against promoting Christianity.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not that YOU cant prove God exists that is evidence.
> Its that NOONE can or at least noone has.
> Big difference when talking about evidence.
> And yes, some believers have experiences that to them absolutely confirm the existence of God. Of course, a youve heard from us a bazillion times, that includes believers of every god that has been known to man.
> And Im not arguing with you, Im just trying to get you to understand the evidence argument a little more clearly.


I understand


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So spot you claim prayer works. Let’s put that claim to the test. I will write a random word on a slip of paper and place it in a sealed envelope. Then you pray for god to reveal that word to you. Once your prayer is answered we can do a video call. You tell me the word that was revealed to you and I will open the envelope and we will see if your prayer worked or not. We can even repeat the experiment as many times as you want just to be sure. What do you say?


Spot is too smart for that.
He is going to point out that you want some sort of instant results and that's not how it works. Might take years/decades etc etc.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So spot you claim prayer works. Let’s put that claim to the test. I will write a random word on a slip of paper and place it in a sealed envelope. Then you pray for god to reveal that word to you. Once your prayer is answered we can do a video call. You tell me the word that was revealed to you and I will open the envelope and we will see if your prayer worked or not. We can even repeat the experiment as many times as you want just to be sure. What do you say?


You honestly think it’s a game, or something YOU can control??? You are only proving that you really don’t understand the Bible. If you did, you’d be more in depth of how prayer and faith work in its entirety,, not with two or three scriptures.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You honestly think it’s a game, or something YOU can control??? You are only proving that you really don’t understand the Bible. If you did, you’d be more in depth of how prayer and faith work in its entirety,, not with two or three scriptures.


Actually Atlas's suggestion falls under basically a "scientific experiment/test".
Not a game.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You honestly think it’s a game, or something YOU can control??? You are only proving that you really don’t understand the Bible. If you did, you’d be more in depth of how prayer and faith work in its entirety,, not with two or three scriptures.



You claimed prayer works. If that is true then this simple test would confirm it. So what’s the problem?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Spot is too smart for that.
> He is going to point out that you want some sort of instant results and that's not how it works. Might take years/decades etc etc.


Lol no 

But, I’ve seen instant results.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol no
> 
> But, I’ve seen instant results.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually Atlas's suggestion falls under basically a "scientific experiment".
> Not a game.


The question was is it a game or something he thinks he can control in an experiment.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You claimed prayer works. If that is true then this simple test would confirm it. So what’s the problem?


I love how you use diversion tactics, first, let’s see your proof of how you know God doesn’t exist. Show us how you are 100% certain.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


>


I have no time for mockery. Yes I’ve seen it. Now you can tag back out and let someone else in the ring.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol no
> 
> But, I’ve seen instant results.


Ive been broke and wished I wasn't. Then walked out and found $5  in the parking lot.
Instant results.
I dont expect anybody to believe that I just proved wishes come true.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been broke and wished I wasn't. Then walked out and found $5  in the parking lot.
> Instant results.
> I dont expect anybody to believe that I just proved wishes come true.


We are not even in the same field.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The question was is it a game or something he thinks he can control in an experiment.



It’s precisely because I can’t control the outcome that it’s a good test. Let’s run the test and leave it entirely in the hands of your deity and see what results we get. You’ve made the positive claim that prayer works so why avoid an opportunity to prove it?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I have no time for mockery. Yes I’ve seen it. Now you can tag back out and let someone else in the ring.



Crying mockery is in itself a diversion tactic. The difference between you and me is I’m open to putting my position to the test in a way that could prove me wrong. You aren’t. You dare not stray from unfalsifiable and unrepeatable one off anecdotes and we both know why.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> We are not even in the same field.


Sure we are.
Here's where evidence comes in and why we harp on it.
The parking lot is a Publix parking lot.
Where people use cash.
And take it out/put it back in their pocket/purse.
Where people dont notice they dropped it or it fell out cause they are focused on not getting run over. Or are yakking on their cell phone.
The evidence is starting to mount that it wasnt a wish that was responsible for me finding $5.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been broke and wished I wasn't. Then walked out and found $5  in the parking lot.
> Instant results.
> I dont expect anybody to believe that I just proved wishes come true.


Not talking about luck, or coincidence. Here’s just a one for y’all to pick through. 

- Child-hood (church member) friend of mine was born deaf, communication was sign language only. He couldn’t hear firecrackers right beside him. At 10 years old his parents took him up for prayer. I was there. Jerry received instant hearing and started looking around at the things he started hearing. He has no hearing issues today and does not wear hearing aids, at 49 years old. 

Tell us what you think happened - why and how. Show us it had nothing to do with prayer and his faith.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

You are trying to sneak in a falsifiable claim while avoiding any test that might falsify it. That sounds like something one might do when they are knowingly asserting an untruth.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Crying mockery is in itself a diversion tactic. The difference between you and me is I’m open to putting my position to the test in a way that could prove me wrong. You aren’t. You dare not stray from unfalsifiable and unrepeatable one off anecdotes and we both know why.


Lol ok.

I have a belief in God.
You’re challenging that with what??? It’s my belief. It makes me no more right or wrong than you, other than I believe I’m right. I’m not trying or don’t care to convince you. But don’t challenge me with your claims and then request me to do the work.

When I feel the need to challenge your disbelief, I will do the work then.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You are trying to sneak in a falsifiable claim while avoiding any test that might falsify it. That sounds like something one might do when they are knowingly asserting an untruth.


Are you trying to tell me that I didn’t know the boy and communicate with him with pictures, etc from crawling age to 10, try to scare him with firecrackers he couldn’t hear, saw him get heated for, watched him in amazement look around at sounds he heard, see him with no hearing aids, have him ask me if can hear something he now hears in the woods, and can talk to him today with no sign language or any other means of communication assistance??? You’re too good to be true!!!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not talking about luck, or coincidence. Here’s just a one for y’all to pick through.
> 
> - Child-hood (church member) friend of mine was born deaf, communication was sign language only. He couldn’t hear firecrackers right beside him. At 10 years old his parents took him up for prayer. I was there. Jerry received instant hearing and started looking around at the things he started hearing. He has no hearing issues today and does not wear hearing aids, at 49 years old.
> 
> Tell us what you think happened - why and how. Show us it had nothing to do with prayer and his faith.


I personally would say "dang that cant be a coincedence".
Then I would consider all the opposing evidence.
Then I would consider it cant be proven that prayer and faith were responsible for it.
And I would end up at "I don't know".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Nope. He didn’t make an argument from ignorance. He said the absence of evidence is itself evidence (not proof) that there is no god. It’s all the evidence one would expect for something that didn’t exist. You believe god does exist. On what evidence is your belief grounded?


Spotlite overlooked Evidence of Absence (me) in is link under examples.
And for his argument, Appeal to Ignorance fits well and is in his own link under examples.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol ok. When you have your solid evidence, we will talk.



You claim prayer works. Where is the solid evidence of that? I’m offering you an opportunity to demonstrate the truth of your claim and yet you refuse it. If you prefer to heal the deaf by prayer I’m sure we can also arrange that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite overlooked Evidence of Absence (me) in is link under examples.
> And for his argument, Appeal to Ignorance fits well and is in his own link under examples.


They all sort of tie together on the end. Both of us are still Jeff with what we only believe or not, can’t prove anything to the other.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I personally would say "dang that cant be a coincedence".
> Then I would consider all the opposing evidence.
> Then I would consider it cant be proven that prayer and faith were responsible for it.
> And I would end up at "I don't know".


Yup, and we are both left with what we believe and nothing more. It doesn’t prove one thing to the other.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I love how you use diversion tactics, first, let’s see your proof of how you know God doesn’t exist. Show us how you are 100% certain.


*Appeal to ignorance*: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. 
This example clearly states what appeal to ignorance is: "Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."[


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They all sort of tie together on the end. Both of us are still Jeff with what we only believe or not, can’t prove anything to the other.


Its probably always going to boil down to that. At least in our life time anyway.
All we can do for now is debate what we feel is the stronger evidence.
Might sound odd but I actually take a bit of comfort in the fact that I cant PROVE you/believers wrong. Its what allows me to debate it without actually "feeling bad".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Are you trying to tell me that I didn’t know the boy and communicate with him with pictures, etc from crawling age to 10, try to scare him with firecrackers he couldn’t hear, saw him get heated for, watched him in amazement look around at sounds he heard, see him with no hearing aids, have him ask me if can hear something he now hears in the woods, and can talk to him today with no sign language or any other means of communication assistance??? You’re too good to be true!!!!



What do you make of the story of the Greek whose blind wife regained her sight thanks to his god? Could you persuade him otherwise? Could you verify or falsify his story or the countless other tales of miracles? Are we to conclude that all of them are true? Are we to conclude none of them are? Or some true and some false and if so in what basis do we sort the wheat from the chaff? On personal testimony? If this is the bar you want to set to warrant belief then we must believe in much more than just your god. And yet you don’t so there must be a higher standard for your god to meet that others cannot. I just gave you a test that is repeatable and can confirm your claims and yet you don’t want to take it up. I grew up with similar stories. I even had a few of my own not of miracles but of events that convinced me my prayers were doing something.

The Bible says whatever you ask in prayer will be done. Do we need to quote the scriptures again or do you already know them? If those are true then might I ask why you are going back to a childhood experience to cite an example of a prayer miracle (assuming it was a miracle)? Should we not expect miracles to be a regular occurrence? Should we not expect that you have repeatedly prayed for the deaf, the blind, and yes even amputees and seen them restored? On the basis of scripture this is a reasonable expectation. But that’s not what we get.

Here is what we get and this is a real world example based on Christian friends of my family. Three year old is playing with other kids while parents are busy and gets trapped in a hot car. Parents find him in the car on the brink of death and he is flown to the hospital. His entire family of believers are praying for his life. Now at this point one of two things can happen. He survives or he doesn’t. If he does then you can be sure they will claim it as proof that prayer works and it was a miracle, never mind the fact it’s something that can and does happen absent prayer. If he dies do they hold it as a failed test of prayer? Of course not. In that case it was all part of God’s plan. Perhaps to teach them a lesson or some such nonsense. That’s called stacking the deck and by that standard you can pray to anything and get the same results.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> *Appeal to ignorance*: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa.
> This example clearly states what appeal to ignorance is: "Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."[


True - but in here, the evidence that God doesn’t exist is because we haven’t proven he does.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They all sort of tie together on the end. Both of us are still Jeff with what we only believe or not, can’t prove anything to the other.


How in your gods name can I or anyone else prove that something does not exist with evidence when there is absolutely no evidence of it's existence?  
Explain to me how I would go about doing that.

Can you explain, with evidence that there are not 10,000 more gods which are more powerful than your god?

This is the equivalent of our conversation in here: 
There is  2'x2'  glass box in front of us that is transparent and clearly empty to the eye. You tell me there is a 13,000lb elephant in there. I say no there is not. And you say because I cannot prove that there is not a 13,000lb elephant in there, that the possibility that there is one is just as likely. 
The result is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence of an elephant being in that box. Nothing adds up that a 13,000lb elephant could possibly fit in that box even if an elephant was actually there so the empty box is clear evidence against an elephant actually being in that box. No further evidence is necessary to prove it is not there. Now, for the person claiming there is an elephant in that box, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence. Show us the elephant.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What do you make of the story of the Greek whose blind wife regained her sight thanks to his god? Could you persuade him otherwise? Could you verify or falsify his story or the countless other tales of miracles? Are we to conclude that all of them are true? Are we to conclude none of them are? Or some true and some false and if so in what basis do we sort the wheat from the chaff? On personal testimony? If this is the bar you want to set to warrant belief then we must believe in much more than just your god. And yet you don’t so there must be a higher standard for your god to meet that others cannot. I just gave you a test that is repeatable and can confirm your claims and yet you don’t want to take it up. I grew up with similar stories. I even had a few of my own not of miracles but of events that convinced me my prayers were doing something.
> 
> The Bible says whatever you ask in prayer will be done. Do we need to quote the scriptures again or do you already know them? If those are true then might I ask why you are going back to a childhood experience to cite an example of a prayer miracle (assuming it was a miracle)? Should we not expect miracles to be a regular occurrence? Should we not expect that you have repeatedly prayed for the deaf, the blind, and yes even amputees and seen them restored? On the basis of scripture this is a reasonable expectation. But that’s not what we get.
> 
> Here is what we get and this is a real world example based on Christian friends of my family. Three year old is playing with other kids while parents are busy and gets trapped in a hot car. Parents find him in the car on the brink of death and he is flown to the hospital. His entire family of believers are praying for his life. Now at this point one of two things can happen. He survives or he doesn’t. If he does then you can be sure they will claim it as evidence proof that prayer works and it was a miracle, never mind the fact it’s something that can and does happen absent prayer. If he dies do they hold it as a failed test of prayer? Of course not. In that case it was all part of God’s plan. Perhaps to teach them a lesson or some such nonsense. That’s called stacking the deck and by that standard you can pray to anything and get the same results.


I think you’re missing my point, I’m not here to prove anyone wrong or deny their story. I just will defend what I believe in. Nothing more.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> How in your gods name can I or anyone else prove that something does not exist with evidence when there is absolutely no evidence of it's existence?
> Explain to me how I would go about doing that.
> 
> Can you explain, with evidence that there are not 10,000 more gods which are more powerful than your god?
> ...


YET - you haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean it’s not there. I get your point, but you not finding it yet only means that. My wife always finds my spare in keys in my travel bag after I’ve emptied and would argue to my grave they’re not in there.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> True - but in here, the evidence that God doesn’t exist is because we haven’t proven he does.



And more...

If the scriptures in your bible were true then proof would be easy. You wouldn’t give a second thought to taking part in the prayer experiment I proposed. The Bible makes claims which are demonstrably false. Claims which if true could have confirmed the existence of this deity. There is no getting around that.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think you’re missing my point, I’m not here to prove anyone wrong or deny their story. I just will defend what I believe in. Nothing more.



I understand that and my point is that your defense is no stronger than the defense others have for deities that you don’t believe exist.

Read that again and let it sink in. If the Bible were true your defense would be much stronger. Yet it isn’t. Why is that the case?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think you’re missing my point, I’m not here to prove anyone wrong or deny their story. I just will defend what I believe in. Nothing more.


We understand that you are not here to prove anyone else wrong. The problem is that you are unable to prove yourself right by saying that others cannot find find evidence that disproves what only exists in your thoughts and feelings.
Beliefs are beliefs and are often beyond reality. Until someone can prove those beliefs actually exist in reality, they do not exist.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> YET - you haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean it’s not there. I get your point, but you not finding it yet only means that. My wife always finds my spare in keys in my travel bag after I’ve emptied and would argue to my grave they’re not in there.



John 14:12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.


“Whoever believes”... You believe. Yes? Can you do the works Jesus did? Can any believer?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> YET - you haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean it’s not there. I get your point, but you not finding it yet only means that. My wife always finds my spare in keys in my travel bag after I’ve emptied and would argue to my grave they’re not in there.


How long is a good time to rule out "yet".
This is more of the nonsensical argument that anything and everything exists. Any combination of thoughts that a person could conjure up in their minds exists solely because even those things are not here right now, Maybe, Possibly, someday they might be.
It is an unrealistic outlook


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I understand that and my point is that your defense is no stronger than the defense others have for deities that you don’t believe exist.
> 
> Read that again and let it sink in. If the Bible were true your defense would be much stronger. Yet it isn’t. Why is that the case?


But I’m not comparing, only you are. You’re defense is no stronger than mine when I say I don’t believe the others about their deities. I have NOTHING but what I believe to say they’re wrong. I be foolish to try. Let that sink in.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> How long is a good time to rule out "yet".
> This is more of the nonsensical argument that anything and everything exists. Any combination of thoughts that a person could conjure up in their minds exists solely because even those things are not here right now, Maybe, Possibly, someday they might be.
> It is an unrealistic outlook


When those of us who say we found him say we can no longer find him.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> How long is a good time to rule out "yet".
> This is more of the nonsensical argument that anything and everything exists. Any combination of thoughts that a person could conjure up in their minds exists solely because even those things are not here right now, Maybe, Possibly, someday they might be.
> It is an unrealistic outlook



For me I’m willing to allow an indefinite time for “yet”. I’m not beyond being convinced. Until that happens it is clear to me based on the things we do know where the weight of probability rests concerning the question.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But I’m not comparing, only you are. You’re defense is no stronger than mine when I say I don’t believe the others about their deities. I have NOTHING but what I believe to say they’re wrong. I be foolish to try. Let that sink in.



Absolutely! And if the Bible were true you would have far more than that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> For me I’m willing to allow an indefinite time for “yet”. I’m not beyond being convinced. Until that happens it is clear to me based on the things we do know where the weight of probability rests concerning the question.


And that’s a fair position. But when you jump the gun and write it off before you’re convinced........


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Absolutely! And if the Bible were true you would have far more than that.


Oh good Lord lol - you missed it again, YOU have absolutely nothing to prove me wrong except what you believe lol. Happy Thanksgiving


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But I’m not comparing, only you are. You’re defense is no stronger than mine when I say I don’t believe the others about their deities. I have NOTHING but what I believe to say they’re wrong. I be foolish to try. Let that sink in.


There are reasons why you think they are not right either. And those are the reasons that you do not acknowledge their validity and why you do not worship those other deities.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> When those of us who say we found him say we can no longer find him.


So then, in your world there also is a very likely possibility that there is a Giant mass of cosmic Pasta and Sauce that rules our Universe because as long as there are people who believe in it exists, so will the FSM...
Right?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> There are reasons why you think they are not right either. And those are the reasons that you do not acknowledge their validity and why you do not worship those other deities.


Yes there are reasons.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So then, in your world there also is a very likely possibility that there is a Giant mass of cosmic Pasta and Sauce that rules our Universe because as long as there are people who believe in it exists, so will the FSM...
> Right?


My world?????
Nah, I can just simply say I don’t believe it, it’s extremely unlikely. If I wanted to prove that, I got some work to do for myself rather than shooting their stories down.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> And that’s a fair position. But when you jump the gun and write it off before you’re convinced........



Shall we go down the laundry list of deities and mythical figures you don’t believe in? You have the same standard as us. You just happen to lower the bar for one deity and we don’t. And I would bet it just happens to be the same deity you were taught from early childhood to believe in. What a coincidence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> For me I’m willing to allow an indefinite time for “yet”. I’m not beyond being convinced. Until that happens it is clear to me based on the things we do know where the weight of probability rests concerning the question.





> I’m not beyond being convinced.


I think thats ^ something that often gets lost in the shuffle here.
Just because we havent heard an argument that can convince us, doesnt mean we cant be convinced.
I know I could be convinced.
Buts its not going to be by an argument that any human can make (based on what we know/dont know at this point).


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Shall we go down the laundry list of deities and mythical figures you don’t believe in? You have the same standard as us. You just happen to lower the bar for one deity and we don’t. And I would bet it just happens to be the same deity you were taught from early childhood to believe in. What a coincidence.


Why??? We’ve ruled all out equally until we get to the one you took further. I found something you overlooked.

Trust me, if it was just something I was taught, I’d been out of this a long time ago. Living and experiencing this is more than Sunday with a suit and tie.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think thats ^ something that often gets lost in the shuffle here.
> Just because we havent heard an argument that can convince us, doesnt mean we cant be convinced.
> I know I could be convinced.
> Buts its not going to be by an argument that any human can make (based on what we know/dont know at this point).


Bingo!!! That’s why I always say it’s not my job to convince. Only God can reveal himself ya a willing vessel.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Oh good Lord lol - you missed it again, YOU have absolutely nothing to prove me wrong except what you believe lol. Happy Thanksgiving



Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I’ve already pointed out repeatedly the negative evidence that supports my position. I’ve also given you a means and an opportunity to prove your position is true and mine is not which you inexplicably declined. That says far more about what you really believe than anything you can say.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I’ve already pointed out repeatedly the negative evidence that supports my position. I’ve also given you a means and an opportunity to prove your position is true and mine is not which you inexplicably declined. That says far more about what you really believe than anything you can say.


Ok lol ? and ditto. You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You can’t possibly be in a state of “not beyond being convinced” and already convinced at the same time.  Stick with “most likely” or “highly possible” or you just don’t believe it. Stop pretending that you got the goods to prove anything. If you did, you’d be beyond “not beyond being convinced’. ?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why??? We’ve ruled all out equally until we get to the one you took further. I found something you overlooked.



My assertion is that they are all equally lacking in positive evidence that would confirm them AND there is greater negative evidence against Yahweh than against a mythical creature such as a fairy for which there are no authoritative claims which we can falsify. If anything the case for your god is on weaker footing than the case for fairies but even if we generously ignore the negative evidence they would be the same.

Now if you claim there is some standard you have set which Yahweh can get past but other deities can’t I would like to know what it is. We’ve already I think agreed on the point that Yahweh is not unique in having personal testimonies made on his behalf. Other deities have that. So what else have you got?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Bingo!!! That’s why I always say it’s not my job to convince. Only God can reveal himself ya a willing vessel.


Well if God is going to convince me, I just hope he doesn't decide to do it by drowning me or turning me into a pillar of salt or something


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> My assertion is that they are all equally lacking in positive evidence that would confirm them AND there is greater negative evidence against Yahweh than against a mythical creature such as a fairy for which there are no authoritative claims which we can falsify. If anything the case for your god is on weaker footing than the case for fairies but even if we generously ignore the negative evidence they would be the same.
> 
> Now if you claim there is some standard you have set which Yahweh can get past but other deities can’t I would like to know what it is. We’ve already I think agreed on the point that Yahweh is not unique in having personal testimonies made on his behalf. Other deities have that. So what else have you got?


I’ve never claimed anything other than my personal experiences that confirms my belief for me only. I’ve acknowledged that many times, “for me only”. The only time I expect more from you saying “I don’t believe it” is when you state that it isn’t happening, to me.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok lol ? and ditto. You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You can’t possibly be in a state of “not beyond being convinced” and already convinced at the same time.  Stick with “most likely” or “highly possible” or you just don’t believe it. Stop pretending that you got the goods to prove anything. If you did, you’d be beyond “not beyond being convinced’. ?



If a believer took you to Walter Reed hospital and prayed to Odin for the amputees and they sprouted new limbs would that not convince you that you were wrong about Odin? It would be pretty convincing evidence to me.

According to scripture you should be able to do that. Yet you can’t. You can’t even get a confirmed better success rate than someone praying to some other deity you don’t believe in. We can test that! I’m ready to run that test any time you are. As it stands right now I already have the evidence I would expect to have from two gods that don’t exist. If you are going to claim the efficacy of prayer is greater for one than the other then the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well if God is going to convince me, I just hope he doesn't decide to do it by drowning me or turning me into a pillar of salt or something


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If a believer took you to Walter Reed hospital and prayed to Odin for the amputees and they sprouted new limbs would that not convince you that you were wrong about Odin? It would be pretty convincing evidence to me.
> 
> According to scripture you should be able to do that. Yet you can’t. You can’t even get a confirmed better success rate than someone praying to some other deity you don’t believe in. We can test that! I’m ready to run that test any time you are. As it stands right now I already have the evidence I would expect to have from two gods that don’t exist. If you are going to claim the efficacy of prayer is greater for one than the other then the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate the truth of your claim.


Sure. If that’s what you require then ok. But just because you require that for you, doesn’t mean anything to anyone but you.

According to what scripture(s)???? You’re going to pull one ur two. Do you not realize there are tons of scripture about prayer, healing, faith, hindering prayers, following Christ, “believers”, etc????? You double check them all to make sure you lined up “line upon line”?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve never claimed anything other than my personal experiences that confirms my belief for me only. I’ve acknowledged that many times, “for me only”. The only time I expect more from you saying “I don’t believe it” is when you state that it isn’t happening, to me.



And nobody can tell you what you experienced! Isn’t that a convenient refuge. I’ve been there. I once thought it was a strong argument. It’s not. And again see post 492. If John 14:12 is true then you don’t need to rely on unconvincing personal testimony. So why are you???


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Sure. If that’s what you require then ok. But just because you require that for you, doesn’t mean anything to anyone but you.
> 
> According to what scripture(s)???? You’re going to pull one ur two. Do you not realize there are tons of scripture about prayer, healing, faith, hindering prayers, following Christ, “believers”, etc????? You double check them all to make sure you lined up “line upon line”?



What I require is good evidence. The same level of evidence it would take to convince you that Odin was real. That means something that isn’t known to happen on its own, something extraordinary, repeatable, and lacking any other reasonable explanation.

The level of evidence you would require for Odin is not what you actually have for Yahweh. You’re lowering the bar for one deity and no other.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> And nobody can tell you what you experienced! Isn’t that a convenient refuge. I’ve been there. I once thought it was a strong argument. It’s not. And again see post 492. If John 14:12 is true then you don’t need to rely on unconvincing personal testimony. So why are you???


Yea I specifically asked for more than one scripture. They all have to line up.

Either way, cut the chase. I believe in God of the Bible and use my own experiences for confirmation, while acknowledging that I can’t prove anything anything to you or care to confirm / deny / compare 10,000 deities in the process. 

So I’m going to ask you once more, outside of what you don’t believe, and relying on what others can’t show you, exactly what evidence do you have?? And if you have such great evidence, why are you saying that you are not beyond being convinced???? Evidence is proof, right???


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


>


Not saying you missed it but just in case you did -
All 3 of the A/As just said we would/could be convinced.
In other words we are willing/or open to be convinced.
If we dont get convinced.........who's fault is that?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yea I specifically asked for more than one scripture. They all have to line up.
> 
> Either way, cut the chase. I believe in God of the Bible and use my own experiences for confirmation, while acknowledging that I can’t prove anything anything to you or care to confirm / deny / compare 10,000 deities in the process.
> 
> So I’m going to ask you once more, outside of what you don’t believe, and relying on what others can’t show you, exactly what evidence do you have?? And if you have such great evidence, why are you saying that you are not beyond being convinced???? Evidence is proof, right???



I think I’ve already been over what I have. I have the lack of any positive evidence and I have the falsified claims of the bible(negative evidence). My position would actually be weaker if not for the Bible.

I say I’m not beyond being convinced because that is true. I’ve already given you a couple examples of evidence that could convince me. But that evidence has yet to be demonstrated. If you could walk on water and raise the dead as John 14:12 says you will that would be quite remarkable. I don’t know what other scriptures you think you need. John is quite clear on this point. And as we all know there are no contradictions to be found in scripture. It says what it means and means what it says. Doesn’t it?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

This really is simple. I say prayer to Yahweh is no more effective than prayer to Odin or any other deity. You say it is. I’ve suggested one prayer test which for some reason you didn’t like. So tell us how you would put the claim to the test.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Not saying you missed it but just in case you did -
> All 3 of the A/As just said we would/could be convinced.
> In other words we are willing/or open to be convinced.
> If we dont get convinced.........who's fault is that?


Yours, or mine? Or both???


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> This really is simple. I say prayer to Yahweh is no more effective than prayer to Odin or any other deity. You say it is. I’ve suggested one prayer test which for some reason you didn’t like. So tell us how you would put the claim to the test.


Ok I can buy that. That’s your belief, assumption, etc. Nothing factual about it.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yea I specifically asked for more than one scripture. They all have to line up.
> 
> Either way, cut the chase. I believe in God of the Bible and use my own experiences for confirmation, while acknowledging that I can’t prove anything anything to you or care to confirm / deny / compare 10,000 deities in the process.
> 
> So I’m going to ask you once more, outside of what you don’t believe, and relying on what others can’t show you, exactly what evidence do you have?? And if you have such great evidence, why are you saying that you are not beyond being convinced???? Evidence is proof, right???




Why don't you believe Spotlite when he says this:

_"Either way, cut the chase. I believe in God of the Bible and use my own experiences for confirmation, while acknowledging that I can’t prove anything anything to you or care to confirm / deny / compare 10,000 deities in the process."_

That's "game over" as far as I can tell.  He is saying two things that make perfect sense. 1) He chooses to attribute the cause of the events he has experienced to The God of Abraham.  He could attribute them to any other reason, but he prefers the reason he has chosen.  2) His experience of revelation is completely subjective and unique to him and as such, it can't apply to anyone else's experience.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If you could walk on water and raise the dead as John 14:12 says you will that would be quite remarkable. I don’t know what other scriptures you think you need


And I thought you knew the Bible enough to dispute it????
As an example, if some things come only by fasting and prayer, and if a man doesn’t honor his wife, his prayers are hindered - you don’t think you need to look at ALL of them????


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Seems to me that what you want him to do is use the words "illogical" or "irrational" to describe his beliefs.  I don't think he has any problem saying that, nor do any other believers that I know.

You have to experience the "quickening" in order to believe.  Rationality and reason will not get you there.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I can buy that. That’s your belief, assumption, etc. Nothing factual about it.


Nobody is telling you that what you believe isn't your beliefs.
We are are showing you why your beliefs are not necessarily always truths. Lack of evidence that backs them up being the main culprit.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> And I thought you knew the Bible enough to dispute it????
> As an example, if some things come only by fasting and prayer, and if a man doesn’t honor his wife, his prayers are hindered - you don’t think you need to look at ALL of them????



That’s not what John says. Not what Matthew says either. But add as many caveats as you like. If you add so many that the scripture doesn’t hold true for any believers then in what sense is the scripture true? John doesn’t say, might, possibly, maybe, can if all these other criteria are met. John cites Jesus as saying “will do”. This is unambiguous. The only criterion he gives is belief.

What does Matthew say?

Matthew 21
*21*And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. *22*“And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”

Only one criteria here and that is believe. Believe and all things you ask in prayer you will receive. Not some things. Not maybe you will receive and maybe you won’t. That’s the claim Jesus says is true. Is it? Let’s test it and see. Out of more than a billion believers how many can demonstrate the truth of these scriptures in John and Matthew? How many can perform the same miracles as Jesus and even greater miracles? Forget walking on water. Let’s see if you can get revelation of a single word through prayer.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Why don't you believe Spotlite when he says this:
> 
> _"Either way, cut the chase. I believe in God of the Bible and use my own experiences for confirmation, while acknowledging that I can’t prove anything anything to you or care to confirm / deny / compare 10,000 deities in the process."_
> 
> That's "game over" as far as I can tell.  He is saying two things that make perfect sense. 1) He chooses to attribute the cause of the events he has experienced to The God of Abraham.  He could attribute them to any other reason, but he prefers the reason he has chosen.  2) His experience of revelation is completely subjective and unique to him and as such, it can't apply to anyone else's experience.



This got started with his claim that bullet was making an argument from ignorance. What he believes doesn’t really address that other than to show that he also lacks belief on the same lack of evidence for other things (so is he also making an argument from ignorance?) and he chooses to ignore the negative evidence that has been cited. Lots of folks believe lots of things and are beyond reason. He’s one of them. That doesn’t make opposition to that belief a de facto argument from ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> This really is simple. I say prayer to Yahweh is no more effective than prayer to Odin or any other deity. You say it is. I’ve suggested one prayer test which for some reason you didn’t like. *So tell us how you would put the claim to the test*.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> This got started with his claim that bullet was making an argument from ignorance. What he believes doesn’t really address that other than to show that he also lacks belief on the same lack of evidence for other things (so is he also making an argument from ignorance?) and he chooses to ignore the negative evidence that has been cited. Lots of folks believe lots of things and are beyond reason. He’s one of them. That doesn’t make opposition to that belief a de facto argument from ignorance.



Spot has given as his "evidence" his experiences and his personal revelation, what I called the "quickening.  Those are the things that "inform" his beliefs.  They aren't based on "nothing".  You can try to demonstrate that what he felt wasn't The God of Abraham and was in fact a delusion or wishful thinking, or perhaps Odin.  That's a different matter.  

As a non-believer, I would say that he's misinterpreting or mischaracterizing the nature of his experiences but I probably won't be able to prove it to him.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> This got started with his claim that bullet was making an argument from ignorance. What he believes doesn’t really address that other than to show that he also lacks belief on the same lack of evidence for other things (so is he also making an argument from ignorance?) and he chooses to ignore the negative evidence that has been cited. Lots of folks believe lots of things and are beyond reason. He’s one of them. That doesn’t make opposition to that belief a de facto argument from ignorance.


bullet - "_The evidence against is the Zero Evidence available and given for. When there is absolutely no evidence available to show a god THAT is the evidence against!"_



myself - "_The fallacy is you leave no room for the unknown"_



*Argument from ignorance* (from Latin: *argumentum ad ignorantiam*), also known as *appeal to ignorance* (in which _ignorance_ represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. *It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. *This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2


And no, I am not arguing from ignorance - my belief is based solely on what I found and does not rely on anything you have failed to discover.

bullet is probably more accurate in saying absence of evidence - but they do all feed on one another. The absence leads to it, then the claim "there is no God" because of that comes. But no-one can prove a sufficient investigation, and account for the unknown, or the not yet discovered: especially while taking a stance of "not beyond being convinced".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> bullet - "_The evidence against is the Zero Evidence available and given for. When there is absolutely no evidence available to show a god THAT is the evidence against!"_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That part you highlighted in red does not comport with his position. He did not create a false dichotomy. To the contrary he has said that he could be convinced if the evidence was there but it isn’t. There is only one side in this discussion that isnt open to the possibility they could be wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Spot has given as his "evidence" his experiences and his personal revelation, what I called the "quickening.  Those are the things that "inform" his beliefs.  They aren't based on "nothing".  You can try to demonstrate that what he felt wasn't The God of Abraham and was in fact a delusion or wishful thinking, or perhaps Odin.  That's a different matter.
> 
> As a non-believer, I would say that he's misinterpreting or mischaracterizing the nature of his experiences but I probably won't be able to prove it to him.



I don’t question that a person can have personal experiences they believe are real. I’ve also had them. Where we differ is on how much weight we should give those in forming our perception, particularly when that perception comes with expectations that run contrary to reality. I can relate because I’ve been there. You can show me problems with scripture, you can show me prayer doesn’t work, you can make arguments against the moral basis of Christianity. You can shoot down every basis I have for faith but you can’t tell me what I experienced! I once stood on that and thought it the ultimate trump card. I eventually came to realize what a weak hand it really was. In my deconversion process personal experience was the last thing on the list that came into doubt, perhaps in tandem with fear instilled from childhood of the consequences of non belief. If that’s all a person has they really don’t have much and far less than they should expect were the Bible true.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That part you highlighted in red does not comport with his position. He did not create a false dichotomy. To the contrary he has said that he could be convinced if the evidence was there but it isn’t. There is only one side in this discussion that isnt open to the possibility they could be wrong.


No, I am always open minded. But like you, I need more than your links and beliefs. Right now, prayer works for me, maybe I have not experienced it all, but I have experienced enough of it to let me know I cannot rule the rest out.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I don’t question that a person can have personal experiences they believe are real. I’ve also had them. Where we differ is on how much weight we should give those in forming our perception, particularly when that perception comes with expectations that run contrary to reality. I can relate because I’ve been there. You can show me problems with scripture, you can show me prayer doesn’t work, you can make arguments against the moral basis of Christianity. You can shoot down every basis I have for faith *but you can’t tell me what I experienced*! I once stood on that and thought it the ultimate trump card. I eventually came to realize what a weak hand it really was. In my deconversion process personal experience was the last thing on the list that came into doubt, perhaps in tandem with fear instilled from childhood of the consequences of non belief. If that’s all a person has they really don’t have much and far less than they should expect were the Bible true.


I do despise those that use the fear tactics.  And ditto!
Look, I can accept that you don't believe and can even understand your reasons, that is not the issue. The issue is when you use those reasons to tell me what I didn't experience.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, I am always open minded. But like you, I need more than your links and beliefs. Right now, prayer works for me, maybe I have not experienced it all, but I have experienced enough of it to let me know I cannot rule the rest out.



I never suggested you go off my beliefs. I asked you to show us a test that would potentially falsify your belief.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I do despise those that use the fear tactics.  And ditto!
> Look, I can accept that you don't believe and can even understand your reasons, that is not the issue. The issue is when you use those reasons to tell me what I didn't experience.



All I can say with respect to personal experience is that it’s not particularly reliable. Even a believer has to acknowledge that based on the fact there are so many contradictions created if we treat them as reliable. Also based on the fact that these personal experiences tend to confirm the bias people were raised to have. What I am saying is that if that is ones foundation for faith it really should be accompanied with a good bit of doubt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yours, or mine? Or both???


Neither.
Theres only ONE that could convince us.
So if we dont get convinced, theres really only a couple choices-
1. Our will not to be convinced is stronger than Gods will to convince us.
2. God doesn't want to convince us.
3. There is no God to convince us.
All of them open up a big can of worms based on mainstream Christian beliefs.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Neither.
> Theres only ONE that could convince us.
> So if we dont get convinced, theres really only a couple choices-
> 1. Our will not to be convinced is stronger than Gods will to convince us.
> ...


I have to agree with # 1 since I always take the stance that only God can reveal / prove himself. Which is sort of what I meant by “yours, mine or both”.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I never suggested you go off my beliefs. I asked you to show us a test that would potentially falsify your belief.


I’m not sure you really understand what all it’s going to take to prove you done it biblically, if you could even prove that, based on your objective.

If you could pull it off, not sure what you’re proving. Put yourself in my shoes now, think of all the things you require to make absolute certain it was God, I want to know with that sane level of certainty that it wasn’t you or some of the other 10,000 gods that boogered up the experiment.,


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure you really understand what all it’s going to take to prove you done it biblically, if you could even prove that, based on your objective.
> 
> If you could pull it off, not sure what you’re proving. Put yourself in my shoes now, think of all the things you require to make absolute certain it was God, I want to know with that sane level of certainty that it wasn’t you or some of the other 10,000 gods that boogered up the experiment.,



I think you’re making it more complicated than it is. Being open to the possibility you are wrong means being willing to challenge your assumptions. So far you’re not even at a point of being able to identify ways of putting your beliefs to the test let alone actually do it and accept the results.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

“If my god is real then this is what I can expect....”


“If my god is not real then this is what I can expect....”


With respect to prayer those questions are easily answered.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I think you’re making it more complicated than it is. Being open to the possibility you are wrong means being willing to challenge your assumptions. So far you’re not even at a point of being able to identify ways of putting your beliefs to the test let alone actually do it and accept the results.


I don’t think you understand faith at all.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think you understand faith at all.


Faith has nothing to do with Fact.
Having faith that prayer works does not tip the scales.
Many things in the bible which are testable fail.
It seems like believers know this and stand their ground around the untestable, unknowable and because of those two factors, Non Existent.
Having faith that the 13,000lb elephant is in the 2'x2' glass box will never make happen or make it true. Nobody can prove that you don't believe the elephant is there,  but the factual reality that the box is empty does not go away.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think you understand faith at all.



You’re right. But you do. So put the claims of your faith powers to the test. At the end of the day prayer either works or it doesn’t. Add all the caveats you want if you must water it down. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s the results or lack thereof that matter in the evaluation.

“Prayer to Yahweh is more effective than prayer to Odin.”

^This is a claim about the nature of reality. It is either true or it isn’t true. You say you are open to the possibility your beliefs are wrong. How can you test if this one in particular is true?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Faith has nothing to do with Fact.


I’m not really arguing against what you and atlas are pitching out for evidence and facts. But faith has everything to do with the Christian belief. That’s my point, you’re not going to prove / disprove faith to anyone else. You and atlas can agree that God most likely doesn’t exist, but both of you had get their on your own. It works the same way with believing he does exist.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You’re right. But you do. So put the claims of your faith powers to the test. At the end of the day prayer either works or it doesn’t. Add all the caveats you want if you must water it down. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s the results or lack thereof that matter in the evaluation.
> 
> “Prayer to Yahweh is more effective than prayer to Odin.”
> 
> ^This is a claim about the nature of reality. It is either true or it isn’t true. You say you are open to the possibility your beliefs are wrong. How can you test if this one in particular is true?


It was proven last week, and a few weeks prior ?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not really arguing against what you and atlas are pitching out for evidence and facts. But faith has everything to do with the Christian belief. That’s my point, you’re not going to prove / disprove faith to anyone else. You and atlas can agree that God most likely doesn’t exist, but both of you had get their on your own. It works the same way with believing he does exist.



Not quite, and you should at least be honest and admit that belief in god, particularly the Christian god, is embedded in Western culture and that children aren't generally exposed to the option of non-belief.  

Do you think that children should be exposed to all different kinds of beliefs or should they exposed to the ones that their parents believe in first, as to set that as the bar by which to compare all other beliefs?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It was proven last week, and a few weeks prior ?



Odin answers prayers too if you count the hits and ignore the misses.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not really arguing against what you and atlas are pitching out for evidence and facts. But faith has everything to do with the Christian belief. That’s my point, you’re not going to prove / disprove faith to anyone else. You and atlas can agree that God most likely doesn’t exist, but both of you had get their on your own. It works the same way with believing he does exist.



If your religion stuck to claims that could not be falsified then it would just be a matter of faith and nothing more. But that’s not the case.

Here is another example of claims made about Jesus by Jesus that we now know aren’t true.

https://blacknonbelievers.com/jesus-failed-prophecy-about-his-return/


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Odin answers prayers too if you count the hits and ignore the misses.



I know this is fun but, what would you do if Spot said "It might have been Odin or the flying Spaghetti Monster, but I want to believe that it was the god of Abraham that made the 'miracle' happen"?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Not quite, and you should at least be honest and admit that belief in god, particularly the Christian god, is embedded in Western culture and that children aren't generally exposed to the option of non-belief.
> 
> Do you think that children should be exposed to all different kinds of beliefs or should they exposed to the ones that their parents believe in first, as to set that as the bar by which to compare all other beliefs?


Yes it does. If done properly. Just because you teach, doesn’t mean they’ll believe it, and teaching isn’t always brainwashing. The odds are against it most young people staying in church. If they were brainwashed, the rate of retention would be a lot higher.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If your religion stuck to claims that could not be falsified then it would just be a matter of faith and nothing more. But that’s not the case.
> 
> Here is another example of claims made about Jesus by Jesus that we now know aren’t true.
> 
> https://blacknonbelievers.com/jesus-failed-prophecy-about-his-return/


Why???? Aren’t you supposed to be proving something???? I’m not doing your work lol. I’m not your tool, go get some hard evidence and show me about you, stop asking me about me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I know this is fun but, what would you do if Spot said "It might have been Odin or the flying Spaghetti Monster, but I want to believe that it was the god of Abraham that made the 'miracle' happen"?


Actually I think he more or less has said that just not in those words.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not really arguing against what you and atlas are pitching out for evidence and facts. But faith has everything to do with the Christian belief. That’s my point, you’re not going to prove / disprove faith to anyone else. You and atlas can agree that God most likely doesn’t exist, but both of you had get their on your own. It works the same way with believing he does exist.


This went from proving there is/is not a god to proving/disproving someone's faith.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> This went from proving there is/is not a god to proving/disproving someone's faith.


I know. That’s how it always goes. Atlas wants to test my beliefs (which is faith based) so that’s how we always get here.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yes it does. If done properly. Just because you teach, doesn’t mean they’ll believe it, and teaching isn’t always brainwashing. The odds are against it most young people staying in church. If they were brainwashed, the rate of retention would be a lot higher.



The degree and intensity of the brainwashing matters also.  Very few members leave Westboro Baptist or the Amish or the LDS.  Do you think it's good that the larger society takes it upon itself to dissuade denominations or extreme religions from brainwashing children?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I know this is fun but, what would you do if Spot said "It might have been Odin or the flying Spaghetti Monster, but I want to believe that it was the god of Abraham that made the 'miracle' happen"?


That kinda is our point.
A person can believe whatever they want, they can believe in whatever they want, they can believe that the Sun rises in the morning because a Big Turtle uses a hoist to raise it and then lowers it.
But the bottom line is that when talking to others who do not believe in the same things and especially when those others are skeptical and double super especially when everyone is in a gathering place where things are scrutinized and held to different standards than just believing, then the person that makes such claims should be able to provide evidence if that person wants others to believe that what they say is truthful.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The degree and intensity of the brainwashing matters also.  Very few members leave Westboro Baptist or the Amish or the LDS.  Do you think it's good that the larger society takes it upon itself to dissuade denominations or extreme religions from brainwashing children?


That’s why I said if done properly. I taught my son to hunt, he found his own passion after putting to test and questioning. I’m almost positive that you encourage your child to question and he skeptical. I did.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That kinda is our point.
> A person can believe whatever they want, they can believe in whatever they want, they can believe that the Sun rises in the morning because a Big Turtle uses a hoist to raise it and then lowers it.
> But the bottom line is that when talking to others who do not believe in the same things and especially when those others are skeptical and double super especially when everyone is in a gathering place where things are scrutinized and held to different standards than just believing, then the person that makes such claims should be able to provide evidence if that person wants others to believe that what they say is truthful.


The key here bullet, is you, and I believe ambush asked me for my testimony, opinion and belief. I never tried to sell you anything.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The key here bullet, is you, and I believe ambush asked me for my testimony. I never tried to sell you anything.


For the sake of discussion I think a few of us like to see what makes you(others) tick. I am dying for someone to explain their process and evidence in a way that grabs me or that I can relate to.
So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked.
A Priest once told me that .maybe religion wasn't for me.
You are in good company


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That kinda is our point.
> A person can believe whatever they want, they can believe in whatever they want, they can believe that the Sun rises in the morning because a Big Turtle uses a hoist to raise it and then lowers it.
> But the bottom line is that when talking to others who do not believe in the same things and especially when those others are skeptical and double super especially when everyone is in a gathering place where things are scrutinized and held to different standards than just believing, then the person that makes such claims should be able to provide evidence if that person wants others to believe that what they say is truthful.



Spot seems to be the last one left.  Better go easy on him or you'll have no one else to play with until some newbie stumbles in. 

Even the best apologists I have heard will ultimately say that reason and logic will not get someone to belief in god.  It takes a subjective and highly personal experience to get there.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For the sake of discussion I think a few of us like to see what makes you(others) tick. I am dying for someone to explain their process and evidence in a way that grabs me or that I can relate to.
> So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked.
> A Priest once told me that .maybe religion wasn't for me.
> You are in good company



Wise priest.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That kinda is our point.
> A person can believe whatever they want, they can believe in whatever they want, they can believe that the Sun rises in the morning because a Big Turtle uses a hoist to raise it and then lowers it.
> But the bottom line is that when talking to others who do not believe in the same things and especially when those others are skeptical and double super especially when everyone is in a gathering place where things are scrutinized and held to different standards than just believing, then the person that makes such claims should be able to provide evidence if that person wants others to believe that what they say is truthful.


While I agree with you 100% on the above.....
I also think Spot is coming from a different angle.


> wants others to believe that what they say is truthful


I honestly get the feeling he doesnt particularly care about "wanting us to believe him". At the end of the day he's just trying to tell us what he believes and why.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For the sake of discussion I think a few of us like to see what makes you(others) tick. I am dying for someone to explain their process and evidence in a way that grabs me or that I can relate to.
> So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked.
> A Priest once told me that .maybe religion wasn't for me.
> You are in good company



I bet you could regain your faith.  I bet I could, too.  Just believe.  Then assume all the trappings of a believer.  After they become habitual, you're well on your way. 

The reason that I don't do it is because I haven't met a person whose faith doesn't affect them in ways that I find to be unacceptably deleterious.  The math doesn't work for me.  Whatever benefits belief gives aren't worth the cost to me, and I have found ways to achieve many of the benefits of belief in secular ways.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I know this is fun but, what would you do if Spot said "It might have been Odin or the flying Spaghetti Monster, but I want to believe that it was the god of Abraham that made the 'miracle' happen"?



I want to believe there is a Buick sized lump of gold buried in my back yard. Doesn’t make it so.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For the sake of discussion I think a few of us like to see what makes you(others) tick. I am dying for someone to explain their process and evidence in a way that grabs me or that I can relate to.
> So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked.
> A Priest once told me that .maybe religion wasn't for me.
> You are in good company



Sounds like you've got an itch and can't figure out how to scratch it.  What do you want that you think belief in god might give you?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For the sake of discussion I think a few of us like to see what makes you(others) tick. I am dying for someone to explain their process and evidence in a way that grabs me or that I can relate to.
> So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked.
> A Priest once told me that .maybe religion wasn't for me.
> You are in good company


I have no problem explaining either, I think it’s healthy to discuss. Where I just “talk with the flow” is when the questions are basically accusations.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Spot seems to be the last one left.  Better go easy on him or you'll have no one else to play with until some newbie stumbles in.
> 
> Even the best apologists I have heard will ultimately say that reason and logic will not get someone to belief in god.  It takes a subjective and highly personal experience to get there.


And that is one of my 500 hangups.
If reason and logic can't be used to get me to what is touted as the Ultimate Truth, I have to question why.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I want to believe there is a Buick sized lump of gold buried in my back yard. Doesn’t make it so.




Ah, good 'ol Sam.

"..and further more, I don't want to live in a world where there isn't a Buick sized lump of gold buried in my back yard."

You should listen to his last episode of his Waking Up Course--Psychedelic Science.  Of particular interest is his description of taking mushrooms after not having 'tripped' for over 25 years.  It's subscriber content but you can subscribe by giving him a dollar or saying that you can't afford a subscription, to which they will give you a year long subscription for free.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Sounds like you've got an itch and can't figure out how to scratch it.  What do you want that you think belief in god might give you?


I dont want anything.
It's nice to have that choice


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why???? Aren’t you supposed to be proving something???? I’m not doing your work lol. I’m not your tool, go get some hard evidence and show me about you, stop asking me about me.



You said you were open minded. I asked you a very simple question concerning how you can test a truth claim which your religion makes and you endorse. You refuse to answer that question. I already offered to conduct a test which could confirm your claim but you aren’t interested in that. We both know prayer would fail that test. That and your avoidance just confirms what I already knew. It’s easy to claim faith. Anyone can do that. Not so easy to demonstrate the claimed efficacy of prayer that we find in the Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And that is one of my 500 hangups.
> If reason and logic can't be used to get me to what is touted as the Ultimate Truth, I have to question why.



I have to accept that logic and reason might not be the right tools for that job.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And that is one of my 500 hangups.
> If reason and logic can't be used to get me to what is touted as the Ultimate Truth, I have to question why.


I’m cool with questions. What I don’t entertain is when one is telling me what I didn’t witness.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I dont want anything.
> It's nice to have that choice


_
"So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked."_

Sounds to me like you think there might be some "there, there".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Ah, good 'ol Sam.
> 
> "..and further more, I don't want to live in a world where there isn't a Buick sized lump of gold buried in my back yard."
> 
> You should listen to his last episode of his Waking Up Course--Psychedelic Science.  Of particular interest is his description of taking mushrooms after not having 'tripped' for over 25 years.  It's subscriber content but you can subscribe by giving him a dollar or saying that you can't afford a subscription, to which they will give you a year long subscription for free.



Yeah I believe that’s called wishful thinking. I flip a coin and it matches my prayer then my prayer was answered. If not I ignore the result and go to the next coin flip. As Sam says, this is how you play tennis without the net. If a methodology can be used to confirm any superstition it isn’t much of a methodology.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You said you were open minded. I asked you a very simple question concerning how you can test a truth claim which your religion makes and you endorse. You refuse to answer that question. I already offered to conduct a test which could confirm your claim but you aren’t interested in that. We both know prayer would fail that test. That and your avoidance just confirms what I already knew. It’s easy to claim faith. Anyone can do that. Not so easy to demonstrate the claimed efficacy of prayer that we find in the Bible.



There's so much "boiler plate" doctrine available to dismiss your line of questioning.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

Y


atlashunter said:


> You said you were open minded. I asked you a very simple question concerning how you can test a truth claim which your religion makes and you endorse. You refuse to answer that question. I already offered to conduct a test which could confirm your claim but you aren’t interested in that. We both know prayer would fail that test. That and your avoidance just confirms what I already knew. It’s easy to claim faith. Anyone can do that. Not so easy to demonstrate the claimed efficacy of prayer that we find in the Bible.


You can’t test it atlas, even if the Bible is fictional, it tells you why you can’t, if you are to have faith. There’s a whole bunch of scripture on prayer and faith besides John. You gotta use them all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And that is one of my 500 hangups.
> If reason and logic can't be used to get me to what is touted as the Ultimate Truth, I have to question why.


I would imagine that's a common hangup among the vast majority of AAs.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m cool with questions. What I don’t entertain is when one is telling me what I didn’t witness.



How about if someone wants to question whether or not your interpretation of an event was accurate?  For example, is it possible that the deaf boy was suffering from a psychosomatic condition?  Greta Thunberg became mute because of a mental illness.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> _"So me questioning you is to bounce my hangups off you to see if you have something that I may have overlooked."_
> 
> Sounds to me like you think there might be some "there, there".


It's like the Penn State Football Scandal (that had nothing to do with Penn State Football)
I was there for football camp and Jerry Sandusky never hit on me. So glad he did not, but ya get to wondering why not? Wasnt I cute enough?
Similarly,  
Why didnt a god pick me?

Anyone that truly knows me would be laughing at the PSU reference.  I have a twisted sense oh humor,  I am not sick...
Lolololololol


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah I believe that’s called wishful thinking. I flip a coin and it matches my prayer then my prayer was answered. If not I ignore the result and go to the next coin flip. As Sam says, this is how you play tennis without the net. If a methodology can be used to confirm any superstition it isn’t much of a methodology.



The difference is that we can go dig up your backyard.  A claim like "There is a god in another plane of existence who communicates with me and listens to my problems and acts on my requests" offers nowhere to dig.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> How about if someone wants to question whether or not your interpretation of an event was accurate?  For example, is it possible that the deaf boy was suffering from a psychosomatic condition?  Greta Thunberg became mute because of a mental illness.


I guess anything is possible. But, his doctor said he was 90% in one ear and 100% in the other. Not sure what conditions could cause that other than just deaf.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Y
> 
> You can’t test it atlas, even if the Bible is fictional, it tells you why you can’t, if you are to have faith. There’s a whole bunch of scripture on prayer and faith besides John. You gotta use them all.



Let’s explore this further. Tell me why you think you can’t test it?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The difference is that we can go dig up your backyard.  A claim like "There is a god in another plane of existence who communicates with me and listens to my problems and acts on my requests" offers nowhere to dig.


That's why you gotta dig that mind!!


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The difference is that we can go dig up your backyard.  A claim like "There is a god in another plane of existence who communicates with me and listens to my problems and acts on my requests" offers nowhere to dig.



That last part is a great place to dig. If you claimed the deists god I would agree. Once you make the claim all things which you ask with faith you will receive them you’ve made a testable claim.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You can’t test it atlas, even if the Bible is fictional, it tells you why you can’t, if you are to have faith. There’s a whole bunch of scripture on prayer and faith besides John. You gotta use them all.





ambush80 said:


> There's so much "boiler plate" doctrine available to dismiss your line of questioning.


1) It tells you you can't
2) God is not your plaything to put to tests
3) If it can be proven then there's no need for faith
4) How much greater the faith (piety) of those who have not see yet believe?
5) We can't understand it with our carnal minds
......

And on, and on, and on.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> How about if someone wants to question whether or not your interpretation of an event was accurate?  For example, is it possible that the deaf boy was suffering from a psychosomatic condition?  Greta Thunberg became mute because of a mental illness.


I will give you one to pick at. Me personally, a few weeks back my Pastor called me off to the side about a situation that I’ve said nothing to no one about. Situation I have been meddling in my mind since around June  / July. I planned to talk to him about it, put it of a month, then two months, decided first of year. He read my mail accurately word for word on my own thoughts about the whole situation, even the timeline.

What happened? How’d he know word for word phrases, the situation that had nothing to do with church, the timeline and exactly what I thought about to go about handling it? If I’d told anyone, yea, maybe they let it slip. But I didn’t even tell my wife.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> 1) It tells you you can't
> 2) God is not your plaything to put to tests
> 3) If it can be proven then there's no need for faith
> 4) How much greater the faith (piety) of those who have not see yet believe?
> ...


Not exactly. Because you remove Gods will for one. Then you gotta consider the Pharisees, then consider judges where God was tired of hearing Israel waisted cries, etc. Your list isn’t even on my radar.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It's like the Penn State Football Scandal (that had nothing to do with Penn State Football)
> I was there for football camp and Jerry Sandusky never hit on me. So glad he did not, but ya get to wondering why not? Wasnt I cute enough?
> Similarly,
> Why didnt a god pick me?
> ...


My friend that was actually a very interesting post.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Let’s explore this further. Tell me why you think you can’t test it?


Nope. Not doing your work.. You’re supposed to know the Bible well enough to understand the entire story cover to cover.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I will give you one to pick at. Me personally, a few weeks back my Pastor called me off to the side about a situation that I’ve said nothing to no one about. Situation I have been meddling in my mind since around June  / July. I planned to talk to him about it, put it of a month, then two months, decided first of year. He read my mail accurately word for word on my own thoughts about the whole situation, even the timeline.
> 
> What happened? How’d he know word for word phrases, the situation that had nothing to do with church, the timeline and exactly what I thought about to go about handling it? If I’d told anyone, yea, maybe they let it slip. But I didn’t even tell my wife.


Can you ask him what word Atlas has written down in his envelope?
I know that sounds insulting to you but if this guy is a mind reader or actually has an ear for god then he will be able to know, bot guess the word.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That last part is a great place to dig. If you claimed the deists god I would agree. Once you make the claim all things which you ask with faith you will receive them you’ve made a testable claim.



I've had several believers give me their testimonies of "miracles".  Some of them absolutely defy what I understand to be natural law.  Some people say they "knew that the voice they heard was the god of Abraham".  I asked "how did you know it was the god of Abraham that was responsible".  They all say "I just knew".  That's why I posted the Contact clip.  

 The way to test Jodie Foster's experience is to do it again with someone else.  Many of the testimonies cannot be duplicated.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I will give you one to pick at. Me personally, a few weeks back my Pastor called me off to the side about a situation that I’ve said nothing to no one about. Situation I have been meddling in my mind since around June  / July. I planned to talk to him about it, put it of a month, then two months, decided first of year. He read my mail accurately word for word on my own thoughts about the whole situation, even the timeline.
> 
> What happened? How’d he know word for word phrases, the situation that had nothing to do with church, the timeline and exactly what I thought about to go about handling it? If I’d told anyone, yea, maybe they let it slip. But I didn’t even tell my wife.



Satan told him?  He's a mind reader?  He's you reincarnated from a passed life? My point is not to ridicule, it's to show that certain answers are untestable.  You will pick the explanation, no matter how far fetched, that you want to believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Can you ask him what word Atlas has written down in his envelope?
> I know that sounds insulting to you but if this guy is a mind reader or actually has an ear for god then he will be able to know, bot guess the word.



God is not your plaything to interrogate.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> My friend that was actually a very interesting post.


I honestly wish you guys knew me better, I am SO behaved on here.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> 1) It tells you you can't
> 2) God is not your plaything to put to tests
> 3) If it can be proven then there's no need for faith
> 4) How much greater the faith (piety) of those who have not see yet believe?
> ...



And you do realize none of those hold water. If prayer works that means it alters the probability of something happening absent prayer. Otherwise, on what basis could one conclude prayer worked? That alteration of probability would be measurable whether it was part of a designed experiment or not. Matthew and John set a very high probability on the efficacy of prayer working provided it is made by a believer. They do not make caveats for ineffectiveness if testing god, etc. If those caveats are true then the scriptures that make no mention of them are not. Even then one would simply look at the situations which arose outside of a controlled experiment. Does prayer work in those cases and if so to what degree of probability? That question can be studied and answered.

And notice all these mental gymnastics being performed to try to fit these scriptures to the reality. If prayer met the standards set by these scriptures not only would that be unnecessary they would be the first scriptures and tests Christians would use to demonstrate the existence of their god.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I honestly wish you guys knew me better, I am SO behaved on here.


Oh believe me, I definitely appreciated the humor.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> And you do realize none of those hold water. If prayer works that means it alters the probability of something happening absent prayer. Otherwise, on what basis could one conclude prayer worked? That alteration of probability would be measurable whether it was part of a designed experiment or not. Matthew and John set a very high probability on the efficacy of prayer working provided it is made by a believer. They do not make caveats for ineffectiveness if testing god, etc. If those caveats are true then the scriptures that make no mention of them are not. Even then one would simply look at the situations which arose outside of a controlled experiment. Does prayer work in those cases and if so to what degree of probability? That question can be studied and answered.
> 
> And notice all these mental gymnastics being performed to try to fit these scriptures to the reality. If prayer met the standards set by these scriptures not only would that be unnecessary they would be the first scriptures and tests Christians would use to demonstrate the existence of their god.



That's what people do with contradictory beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> God is not your plaything to interrogate.


The Lord works in Mysterious Ways


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. Not doing your work.. You’re supposed to know the Bible well enough to understand the entire story cover to cover.



It’s my work to substantiate your claims now?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Can you ask him what word Atlas has written down in his envelope?
> I know that sounds insulting to you but if this guy is a mind reader or actually has an ear for god then he will be able to know, bot guess the word.


Atlas is not a believer, and the pastor is not a palm reader. This was strictly spiritual related.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I've had several believers give me their testimonies of "miracles".  Some of them absolutely defy what I understand to be natural law.  Some people say they "knew that the voice they heard was the god of Abraham".  I asked "how did you know it was the god of Abraham that was responsible".  They all say "I just knew".  That's why I posted the Contact clip.
> 
> The way to test Jodie Foster's experience is to do it again with someone else.  Many of the testimonies cannot be duplicated.


Holdover bicameralism?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That's what people do with contradictory beliefs.



Yes and the necessity of it tells a story in itself.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It’s my work to substantiate your claims now?


Not exactly, I never asked you to substantiate anything. You say it doesn’t work. You substantiate only your claim. You claim to know the Bible, so you should be able to find what I’m taking about with ease, especially if you know it well enough to dispute it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Atlas is not a believer, and the pastor is not a palm reader. This was strictly spiritual related.


So god can't relay the word or won't?
How do you know unless you , a believer, asks?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Atlas is not a believer, and the pastor is not a palm reader. This was strictly spiritual related.



Who needs to be a palm reader when you have a direct line to omniscience? I’m not a believer but your pastor is so let him say his prayer and get the answer from god. Thousand bucks to his church if he gets it right. Five thousand if he can go three for three. Ten for ten and I will convert to Christianity. I will record it so everyone can see what happens.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly, I never asked you to substantiate anything. You say it doesn’t work. You substantiate only your claim. You claim to know the Bible, so you should be able to find what I’m taking about with ease, especially if you know it well enough to dispute it.



You said prayer can’t be tested. I asked why. That is your claim not mine. Then you tell me you’re not doing my work for me. You say it can’t be tested but you can’t tell me why?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Holdover bicameralism?



Ha ha.  You made me use the dictionary.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So god can't relay the word or won't?
> How do you know unless you , a believer, asks?


My question was to simply ask what happened in my situation. You chose to create a “what if” diversion to talk about the envelope that atlas has.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Ha ha.  You made me use the dictionary.


Me too.
My first thought was I didn't even reaize there were straight cameras never mind bi ones.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You said prayer can’t be tested. I asked why. That is your claim not mine. Then you tell me you’re not doing my work for me. You say it can’t be tested but you can’t tell me why?


Ok gotcha. The fact that you ask thus question is evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Who needs to be a palm reader when you have a direct line to omniscience? I’m not a believer but your pastor is so let him say his prayer and get the answer from god. Thousand bucks to his church if he gets it right. Five thousand if he can go three for three. Ten for ten and I will convert to Christianity. I will record it so everyone can see what happens.


You need help.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You need help.



That’s what I thought.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My question was to simply ask what happened in my situation. You chose to create a “what if” diversion to talk about the envelope that atlas has.


It is a test to see what connection if any the pastor actually has with your god.
It is not a diversion. 
If your pastor talks to god and gets the contents of the envelope right, then you will have won me over. I will believe he also talked to god to know your situation.
If you are uneasy doing it because you might fail and then "we" will just have more ammunition to use just say it.
If your pastor has the power, the talent, the connection  this is your chance to convert a non believer. I have faith that this is your calling.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It is a test to see what connection if any the pastor actually has with your god.
> It is not a diversion.
> If your pastor talks to god and gets the contents of the envelope right, then you will have won me over. I will believe he also talked to god to know your situation.
> If you are uneasy doing it because you might fail and then "we" will just have more ammunition to use just say it.
> If your pastor has the power, the talent, the connection  this is your chance to convert a non believer. I have faith that this is your calling.


No, its a diversion. You don’t have any ammo, you already said you were being completely honest and you did not know (via pm) That was an admirable answer.

The problem with your what if envelope is there is nothing spiritual about it. It’s a joke and a mockery and I won’t entertain the ignorance of it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, its a diversion. You don’t have any ammo, you already said you were being completely honest and you did not know (via pm) That was an admirable answer.
> 
> The problem with your what if envelope is there is nothing spiritual about it. It’s a joke and a mockery and I won’t entertain the ignorance of it.


Oh so now YOU are telling me my thoughts.
After our PM conversation this seems like a good way for me to turn I Dont Know into I Know.
If involving your pastor and your god is not spiritual then once again...IDK what is...
Unless you and Atlas are in it together to scam me out of $ or convert me...I couldn't think of anything more God-Like than for God to tell your Pastor the answer.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, its a diversion. You don’t have any ammo, you already said you were being completely honest and you did not know (via pm) That was an admirable answer.
> 
> The problem with your what if envelope is there is nothing spiritual about it. It’s a joke and a mockery and I won’t entertain the ignorance of it.



Prayers rendered in faith are not spiritual? The communication between god and man is spiritual is it not? Jesus read minds in Mark chapter 2. This doesn’t even require that since the words would be written down. Besides, since when is that even a requirement for the answering of prayer? You gonna try and tell us transforming water into wine is spiritual? Just stop with the goofy excuses. There is no invisible friend talking to you or your preacher.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Oh so now YOU are telling me my thoughts.
> After our PM conversation this seems like a good way for me to turn I Dont Know into I Know.
> If involving your pastor and your god is not spiritual then once again...IDK what is...
> Unless you and Atlas are in it together to scam me out of $ or convert me...I couldn't think of anything more God-Like than for God to tell your Pastor the answer.



It’s my money on the line.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok gotcha. The fact that you ask thus question is evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about.



That’s why I asked you to explain why. Enlighten me. Explain why you think prayer is not testable or it’s outcomes detectable.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It’s my money on the line.


Oh I know.
But if you are "in on it" I could easily be persuaded to ante up also.

I am just trying to show Spotlite that things are not always as they seem.
I have no reason to doubt his story except that I have every reason to doubt the accuracy of his story.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Oh I know.
> But if you are "in on it" I could easily be persuaded to ante up also.
> 
> I am just trying to show Spotlite that things are not always as they seem.
> I have no reason to doubt his story except that I have every reason to doubt the accuracy of his story.


And I’m trying to show you the same 

But apparently, you have everything figured out lol


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That’s why I asked you to explain why. Enlighten me. Explain why you think prayer is not testable or it’s outcomes detectable.


Not this time. You’re good at throwing a conclusion out there and asking others to explain to you........ 

 I will even take a neutral position for now and go with the entire Bible as a fictional story. 

Based on this fictional story that’s full of scripture about prayer - you were saying “prayer doesn’t work”???  I want you to explain to me everything this fictional story has to say about prayer (answered and unanswered) in order for me to agree with you. 

If you’re asking me to enlighten you, you don’t know enough about the story to dispute it.....so why are you making a predetermined conclusion, and hanging your hat on it as anything solid, let alone, intellectual??


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> And I’m trying to show you the same
> 
> But apparently, you have everything figured out lol


I have a good grasp of what is more likely than not.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not this time. You’re good at throwing a conclusion out there and asking others to explain to you........
> 
> I will even take a neutral position for now and go with the entire Bible as a fictional story.
> 
> ...


Watch what you ask for...


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not this time. You’re good at throwing a conclusion out there and asking others to explain to you........
> 
> I will even take a neutral position for now and go with the entire Bible as a fictional story.
> 
> ...



I’m asking about your conclusion that prayer cannot be tested. That’s your conclusion. Not mine. Explain what leads you to that conclusion.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

Am I setting the bar too high by testing prayer with something unlikely to happen on its own? Would it be better if we test it with a coin flip? Or maybe even this guys test? Is this the level of efficacy one should expect of prayer based on scripture?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I have a good grasp of what is more likely than not.


Good, me too.


bullethead said:


> Watch what you ask for...


lol not worried, based on history........another cow trail diversion from you two


atlashunter said:


> I’m asking about your conclusion that prayer cannot be tested. That’s your conclusion. Not mine. Explain what leads you to that conclusion.


 it answers itself when you use all scripture, but I will work on it.

In the meantime, you work on your conclusion and let’s stay focused on your claim as well???? (YouTube videos don’t answer it)


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Good, me too.
> 
> lol not worried, based on history........another cow trail diversion from you two
> it answers itself when you use all scripture, but I will work on it.
> ...



You’re working on it? What is there to work on? Don’t you know why you said what you did? I’ve already shown multiple scriptures that cite Jesus saying whoever believes will receive whatever they ask in prayer. He also says believers will be able to perform the same miracles as him and even greater miracles. Both of those claims are testable hypotheses. Even you have made claims of observable real world results of prayer. If you can observe and measure an outcome then you can test claims of altering the probability of an outcome. Especially when the claim sets the standard of saying prayer “will” or “shall” work.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

If you get cancer will you go to a doctor for treatment or would you rely solely on faith?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You’re working on it? What is there to work on? Don’t you know why you said what you did? I’ve already shown multiple scriptures that cite Jesus saying whoever believes will receive whatever they ask in prayer. He also says believers will be able to perform the same miracles as him and even greater miracles. Both of those claims are testable hypotheses. Even you have made claims of observable real world results of prayer. If you can observe and measure an outcome then you can test claims of altering the probability of an outcome. Especially when the claim sets the standard of saying prayer “will” or “shall” work.


Yes I’m working on it slowly, I already know, and if you did, you’d know how silly you sound. It’s really worth looking at prior to baking such statements as the above.

The problem with debating with you and bullet is the continuous diversions. I’m going to keep answering your questions and you’ll never end up producing anything. 

Here’s an example, someone will tell me I should jump at the opportunity to give my testimony. Me knowing better, I do, and I simply ask about my situation only. Rather than giving the only honest answer that the two of you can give, you want to test something else in an experiment, bullet wants to know what’s in your envelope. And from there.......neither of you never end up answering my question with anything other than your biased opinion of what it can’t be.

As of now, I will just assume that you two don’t know, and leave it there. Looking at anything objectively is not something you’re familiar with.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yes I’m working on it slowly, I already know, and if you did, you’d know how silly you sound. It’s really worth looking at prior to baking such statements as the above.
> 
> The problem with debating with you and bullet is the continuous diversions. I’m going to keep answering your questions and you’ll never end up producing anything.
> 
> ...



An objective analysis of prayer is what we are trying to get to and what you seem to be avoiding. Go back and see again posts 542 and 546. I only asked to explore the underpinnings of your claim that prayer can’t be tested because you made it and it matters. If that is a diversion it’s one of your own making.

I’ve offered an objective test of the efficacy of prayer and put a good bit of money as well as my own position on Christianity on the line. It’s a serious offer. Your response? Trite and dismissive. Exactly what I would expect of a charlatan who knows the jig is up. Not what I would expect of a true believer.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yes I’m working on it slowly, I already know, and if you did, you’d know how silly you sound. It’s really worth looking at prior to baking such statements as the above.
> 
> The problem with debating with you and bullet is the continuous diversions. I’m going to keep answering your questions and you’ll never end up producing anything.
> 
> ...


We try to eliminate the variables before we can give a truly honest answer. Using you and your description as our only source is a good basis to start with and if that was the only way available the odds seem to be in your favor. But, there are others ways...testable ways for us to confirm or deny your claims.
You are willing to take an outcome and automatically link it to your god.
We would like to test it and then make a decision on why or why not it holds up.
You should jump at the chance to literally show us an example of what you believe in. You have the opportunity to showcase the powers at work. Instead you wrongly claim that we are diverting the truth when in fact we are giving you, your pastor and every other religious person a means and a way to accomplish an act of god in a testable way that we as non believers and skeptics can not only understand but accept.
How could the envelope test possibly be a bad thing for you and all the other believers in God? According to many your God is more than capable,  according to you your Pastor talks to your God, and you talk to us.

Either you are confident this WILL Work or you are not.
One will have you accept
The other will have you make excuses and dodge.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 27, 2019)

The efficacy of prayer is not rationally provable because: if supplicatory prayer is not an act of submission it is then a demand.  Therefore, determination of efficacy requires knowledge of the heart of the prayer; such knowledge is not within the power of men.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 27, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> The efficacy of prayer is not rationally provable because: if supplicatory prayer is not an act of submission it is then a demand.  Therefore, determination of efficacy requires knowledge of the heart of the prayer; such knowledge is not within the power of men.


I think you can get some pretty strong clues though.
"Oh please God let my loved one survive this car crash however I will live with your decision and worship you regardless of what you decide in your infinite wisdom"
vs.
"God let my loved one survive or Im gonna drop you like a hot potato".
Pretty strong clues of whats in their heart.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If you get cancer will you go to a doctor for treatment or would you rely solely on faith?


This is actually a real struggle that usually results in grief because as a Christian, with the biblical mandate of faith, we realize our faith is 'less" than a mustard seed. I can't put into words the extent that our faith becomes a crisis, not faith in God exists but rather faith that the bible healing stories are there for us.  We battle in the mind that the treatments that we elect to take because we don't have the faith not to, is a result of a lack of faith that we fail to muster up. When my wife was going through cancer, cancer free now probably over 15 years, thank God, I was struggling over this. In the end, looking backwards, I would not have that same struggle. However, it was a bridge I crossed. My point in this is that you brought up a point that you may not have realized was a BIG point.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> The efficacy of prayer is not rationally provable because: if supplicatory prayer is not an act of submission it is then a demand.  Therefore, determination of efficacy requires knowledge of the heart of the prayer; such knowledge is not within the power of men.


The contents of the pastor's heart should qualify. And it is but a small task to gain more followers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is actually a real struggle that usually results in grief because as a Christian, with the biblical mandate of faith, we realize our faith is 'less" than a mustard seed. I can't put into words the extent that our faith becomes a crisis, not faith in God exists but rather faith that the bible healing stories are there for us.  We battle in the mind that the treatments that we elect to take because we don't have the faith not to, is a result of a lack of faith that we fail to muster up. When my wife was going through cancer, cancer free now probably over 15 years, thank God, I was struggling over this. In the end, looking backwards, I would not have that same struggle. However, it was a bridge I crossed. My point in this is that you brought up a point that you may not have realized was a BIG point.


1st -
Glad to hear your wife is/has been cancer free.
2nd-
Glad to hear the decision was made to get medical help.
3rd -
Not sure Ive ever fully considered the internal strife that kind of decision might cause a Christian.
Easy for us (A/As) to say "well only an idiot wouldn't get medical help".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st -
> Glad to hear your wife is/has been cancer free.
> 2nd-
> Glad to hear the decision was made to get medical help.
> ...



If prayer works as advertised whence the internal strife?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> The efficacy of prayer is not rationally provable because: if supplicatory prayer is not an act of submission it is then a demand.  Therefore, determination of efficacy requires knowledge of the heart of the prayer; such knowledge is not within the power of men.




Does it? If a believer prays for something against massive odds and the prayer is answered do I need to know their heart to observe the answered prayer? Now if it repeatedly fails to beat the odds I suppose you could just claim that the problem wasn't the prayer but their heart and who can tell you otherwise? The problem with that position is we are chock full of people who claim their prayers do achieve real world results so whatever criteria you want to claim for the prayer to work, they are claiming they have met that criteria and do it with great enough frequency to keep them praying and recommending prayer.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2019)

Prayer is ALWAYS answered.  It's answered "Yes", "No", or "Not right now".  That mind numbness?  That's how you know it's working.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is actually a real struggle that usually results in grief because as a Christian, with the biblical mandate of faith, we realize our faith is 'less" than a mustard seed. I can't put into words the extent that our faith becomes a crisis, not faith in God exists but rather faith that the bible healing stories are there for us.  We battle in the mind that the treatments that we elect to take because we don't have the faith not to, is a result of a lack of faith that we fail to muster up. When my wife was going through cancer, cancer free now probably over 15 years, thank God, I was struggling over this. In the end, looking backwards, I would not have that same struggle. However, it was a bridge I crossed. My point in this is that you brought up a point that you may not have realized was a BIG point.




I'm sure it is a big point for many. But why should it be? Why should a believer have faith less than a mustard seed? It's easy to proclaim the benefits of prayer and the power of it when little or nothing is at stake. But how many hold the belief so strongly they would bet their life on it? Some do. In my experience they are a very small minority. Are the rest being irrational or rational in their doubt?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I'm sure it is a big point for many. But why should it be? Why should a believer have faith less than a mustard seed? It's easy to proclaim the benefits of prayer and the power of it when little or nothing is at stake. But how many hold the belief so strongly they would bet their life on it? Some do. In my experience they are a very small minority. Are the rest being irrational or rational in their doubt?



Boilerplate answer #8:

"The Lord helps those who help themselves".

There's the joke about the pious man adrift at sea and a boat comes to rescue him and he denies their help and says "I'm waiting for the Lord to save me".  Then a plane comes and he says "I'm waithing for the Lord to save me".  Then a helicopter comes and he says the same thing.  Eventually he dies at sea and when he gets to Heaven he asks the Lord "Why didn't you save me?" and the Lord says "What do you mean? I sent a boat and a plane and a helicopter."


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Boilerplate answer #8:
> 
> "The Lord helps those who help themselves".
> 
> There's the joke about the pious man adrift at sea and a boat comes to rescue him and he denies their help and says "I'm waiting for the Lord to save me".  Then a plane comes and he says "I'm waithing for the Lord to save me".  Then a helicopter comes and he says the same thing.  Eventually he dies at sea and when he gets to Heaven he asks the Lord "Why didn't you save me?" and the Lord says "What do you mean? I sent a boat and a plane and a helicopter."



Yeah I think we've all heard that apologetic. Don't expect faith to do all the heavy lifting. Just use real world means to help yourself or get help from others and then give god the credit. I wonder how many Jesus prayed for that hedged their bets with a visit to the doctor? How many Christians now living would still go to a doctor if Jesus himself prayed over them? Yet Jesus himself proclaimed believers would have the same miracle working powers he had. How many believers really believe that to the extent they would stake their life on it? How many should based on the real world results of prayer?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah I think we've all heard that apologetic. Don't expect faith to do all the heavy lifting. Just use real world means to help yourself or get help from others and then give god the credit. I wonder how many Jesus prayed for that hedged their bets with a visit to the doctor? How many Christians now living would still go to a doctor if Jesus himself prayed over them? Yet Jesus himself proclaimed believers would have the same miracle working powers he had. How many believers really believe that to the extent they would stake their life on it? How many should based on the real world results of prayer?



Sometimes Jesus lays his hands on you and takes you home.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Sometimes Jesus lays his hands on you and takes you home.



Sure don't want a doc disrupting that plan do we?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Sure don't want a doc disrupting that plan do we?



The doc is a tool to affect the Lord's plan.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If prayer works as advertised whence the internal strife?


You are asking the wrong guy.
But I can certainly understand the internal battle a believer might go through in a life or death type situation of this type.
Maybe Im not militant enough but in this case Im putting empathy over driving a point home.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I'm sure it is a big point for many. But why should it be? Why should a believer have faith less than a mustard seed? It's easy to proclaim the benefits of prayer and the power of it when little or nothing is at stake. But how many hold the belief so strongly they would bet their life on it? Some do. In my experience they are a very small minority. Are the rest being irrational or rational in their doubt?


At that point in my life, i had not yet fully grasped the extent of embellishments in the bible. No one can argue that not one person has ever moved a mountain just by saying for it to move.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 27, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You are asking the wrong guy.
> But I can certainly understand the internal battle a believer might go through in a life or death type situation of this type.
> Maybe Im not militant enough but in this case Im putting empathy over driving a point home.



I meant just from a logical perspective, why would it even be an issue if someone was genuinely convinced they could put their trust in prayer? The only way there is a battle at all is if there is doubt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 27, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I meant just from a logical perspective, why would it even be an issue if someone was genuinely convinced they could put their trust in prayer? The only way there is a battle at all is if there is doubt.


Oh I certainly understand and agree with your point.
I guess I kind of look at it like this -
We value and try to live our lives based on logic and reason. Especially when it comes to God/gods/religion.
If some psycho thug had a gun and was forcing you to choose who's brain he was going to scramble, your wife or your child's, Im going to assume it would be a painful decision to logically and reasonably decide which to choose. The fact that you chose logically and reasonably wouldnt be of much comfort to you and I would feel empathy for you that you had to choose at all.
Maybe not a great example but hopefully Im getting my point across.
Or maybe Im trying to say, to turn your above question around a bit, we put our trust in logic and reason but its also quite possible you might choose strictly off of emotion.
I wouldnt make the point that you didnt choose what you believe in - logic.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 28, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you can get some pretty strong clues though.
> "Oh please God let my loved one survive this car crash however I will live with your decision and worship you regardless of what you decide in your infinite wisdom"
> vs.
> "God let my loved one survive or Im gonna drop you like a hot potato".
> Pretty strong clues of whats in their heart.


 Good illustration, with "pretty strong clues" vs. "rationally provable" and "knowledge of the heart" being noted (although I would prefer just "clues").


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The contents of the pastor's heart should qualify. And it is but a small task to gain more followers.


Sorry, I haven't gone back far enough to recognize the preacher, but I would assume he is a man.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 28, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Does it? If a believer prays for something against massive odds and the prayer is answered do I need to know their heart to observe the answered prayer? Now if it repeatedly fails to beat the odds I suppose you could just claim that the problem wasn't the prayer but their heart and who can tell you otherwise? The problem with that position is we are chock full of people who claim their prayers do achieve real world results so whatever criteria you want to claim for the prayer to work, they are claiming they have met that criteria and do it with great enough frequency to keep them praying and recommending prayer.


*"Therefore,"*———nonresponsive.
I'm to old to chase chickens.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Oneness. Most trinity aren’t real trinity. They narrow it back to the one God and embedded within their argument they’re saying the same thing - God is Jesus, Jesus is God, Jesus the son of God, i in him, him in me, the Father and I are one, etc. Manifest meaning God revealing himself as human. Get a “trinitarian” to explain John 1 and see how trinity they are when they’re finished.


To clarify... Not looking to debate, just to see where your coming from, you don't believe the HS is a coequal 3rd person of the God head but rather believe that the HS is the spirit of God/Jesus? So that  you know where I am coming from, I believe the HS is a NT word for the spirit of God "God is Spirit".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 28, 2019)

Not sure how Jesus could be God when God is supposed to be omniscient and Jesus isn’t.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> To clarify... Not looking to debate, just to see where your coming from, you don't believe the HS is a coequal 3rd person of the God head but rather believe that the HS is the spirit of God/Jesus? So that  you know where I am coming from, I believe the HS is a NT word for the spirit of God "God is Spirit".


I’m with you on God is Spirit. I don’t believe there’s an individual / 3rd or 2nd person(s)

My belief or understanding and the way I approach it is “one” with different functions / manifestations. 

I’m not saying you’re wrong, it’s the way I understand it when reading - Word was God, made flesh, Comforter which is the HS, I in he, he in me, etc. 

Trinitarians that I’m familiar with might say 3rd person, but when getting in depth with them, they ultimately go back to oneness. One reason I don’t make a big deal over it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m with you on God is Spirit. I don’t believe there’s an individual / 3rd or 2nd person(s)
> 
> My belief or understanding and the way I approach it is “one” with different functions / manifestations.
> 
> ...


So instead of the eternal Son(Christ) becoming human, you see the one God becoming His human Son? Also known as  "incarnational _sonship_."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m with you on God is Spirit. I don’t believe there’s an individual / 3rd or 2nd person(s)
> 
> My belief or understanding and the way I approach it is “one” with different functions / manifestations.
> 
> ...


It is hard to grasp, I would agree it always does come back to Oneness and Unity more than the Trinity. Neither method explains it better than the other. I've never met a single person who can explain it, even though they believe it. I've about decided to "let the mystery be."


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 28, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> So instead of the eternal Son(Christ) becoming human, you see the one God becoming His human Son? Also known as  "incarnational _sonship_."


I see it as the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh......


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I see it as the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh......


But the Word was with God. How could the Word be God, if he was "with" God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 28, 2019)

Sounds like in some manner, the Word as with God.  Perhaps in the "mind" of God or in an out of time way. Maybe to God, everything is eternal, with no beginning or end.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 28, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> But the Word was with God. How could the Word be God, if he was "with" God?


John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

Verse 14 - the Word was made flesh.....

That’s why I think the way I do about the oneness......


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 28, 2019)

Mark 13:32
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Matthew 24:36
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

^ This indicates separate entities with unequal knowledge.


----------

