# Odd



## earl (Dec 18, 2009)

Does any one besides me find it odd that one of the supposedly greatest Christians of our time died this week and the only mention of it on Woody's was by one of our most vocal atheists. And that was in a passing comment that wasn't picked up. Dio , I think the boys let one slip by them.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 18, 2009)

earl said:


> Does any one besides me find it odd that one of the supposedly greatest Christians of our time died this week and the only mention of it on Woody's was by one of our most vocal atheists. And that was in a passing comment that wasn't picked up. Dio , I think the boys let one slip by them.



I read it...   I was impressed with his age.   It would be superfluous to discuss him.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 18, 2009)

Sorry,earl.I'm apparently not quite as well-informed as you are!I watch Fox News a lot,but I never saw anything about it.Do you mind telling me who it was? Not Billy Graham!
My apologies,Bandy - I don't want to be thought of as superfluous.What does that _mean,_ anyway?

P.S. : I got a lil' chuckle when I first saw this thread - there was the word "Odd" with your name right under it! JK,earl - you know I love you.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 18, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Sorry,earl.I'm apparently not quite as well-informed as you are!I watch Fox News a lot,but I never saw anything about it.Do you mind telling me who it was? Not Billy Graham!
> My apologies,Bandy - I don't want to be thought of as superfluous.What does that _mean,_ anyway?
> 
> P.S. : I got a lil' chuckle when I first saw this thread - there was the word "Odd" with your name right under it! JK,earl - you know I love you.



It was Oral Roberts.   

Superfluous....  exceeding what is sufficient or necessary

To talk about how great he was would be a waste...since it's already known!


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 18, 2009)

I didn't know he died.  First I have heard about it.  Been busy dealing with the living.  Plus, I never really followed him.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 18, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It was Oral Roberts.
> 
> Superfluous....  exceeding what is sufficient or necessary
> 
> To talk about how great he was would be a waste...since it's already known!



I _did_ see that - I guess I'm a bad Christian. I don't know much about him,other than the fact that he built a university and was a multi - multi millionaire.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 18, 2009)

Dont know much about the man... I will read up on him some.


----------



## redneckcamo (Dec 18, 2009)

We wuttin buddies or nuthin so .....ummmmm i guess earl has  gotten 1 over on us  ......


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 18, 2009)

redneckcamo said:


> We wuttin buddies or nuthin so .....ummmmm i guess earl has  gotten 1 over on us  ......



Yup.Score one for ol' earl!


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 18, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Yup.Score one for ol' earl!



He's always beating us up.


----------



## Randy (Dec 18, 2009)

I will not question the man's faith but he lost me back when he said if I did not give him money to build a building God was going to call him home.  My God just does not work that way.  He does not give me more than I can handle and He certainly is not going to punish me by death for something I can not do.


----------



## tell sackett (Dec 18, 2009)

I guess this is what I get for scrolling by Dio's posts.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 18, 2009)

tell sackett said:


> I guess this is what I get for scrolling by Dio's posts.



Don't feel like the Lone Ranger - I often "speed read" the long-winded cut 'n' paste specials.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 18, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Don't feel like the Lone Ranger - I often "speed read" the long-winded cut 'n' paste specials.



I'll be honest with you guys....I rarely read a post if it's over a paragraph or two long.    I may scan it and look for my name  but that's about it...

stay short and to the point is my motto!


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 18, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'll be honest with you guys....I rarely read a post if it's over a paragraph or two long.    I may scan it and look for my name  but that's about it...
> 
> stay short and to the point is my motto!



A large AMEN to that!
Takes up less of them kibblebytes on the website,too.I read where they were having to slim things down some on the "On Topic" forum.


----------



## earl (Dec 18, 2009)

Yeah ,I know . It's over a paragreph. But he was a pioneer. Just think . Without him televangelists may not have become a word. And fun to watch if your attitude was right.

Evangelist Oral Roberts dies in Calif. at age 91
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS
Associated Press Writer

TULSA, Okla. — Oral Roberts, who helped pioneer TV evangelism in the 1950s and used the power of the new medium — and his message of God's healing power — to build a multimillion-dollar ministry and a university that bears his name, died Tuesday. He was 91.

Roberts died of complications from pneumonia in Newport Beach, Calif., according to his spokesman, A. Larry Ross. The evangelist was hospitalized after a fall on Saturday.


Roberts rose from humble tent revivals to become one of the nation's most famous and influential preachers. Along with Billy Graham, he pioneered religious TV, and he played a major role in bringing American Pentecostalism into the mainstream.

He also laid the foundation for the "prosperity gospel," the doctrine that has come to dominate televangelism. It holds that God rewards the faithful with material success. Its critics say it is used by preachers to enrich themselves at the expense of their followers.

"In conservative Protestant culture, he's second only to Billy Graham," said Grant Wacker, a professor at Duke University's divinity school. "Jerry Falwell is important, too, but I think in the long run we'll see that Oral Roberts had more impact."

Roberts overcame tuberculosis at age 17, when his brother carried him to a revival meeting where a evangelist was praying for the sick. Roberts said he was healed of the illness and his stuttering.

He said that it was then that he heard God tell him he should build a university based on the Lord's authority — a promise fulfilled in 1963, with the founding of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa.

He gave up a pastorate in Enid in 1947 to pursue a strain of evangelism in which he called for prayer to heal the whole person — body, mind and spirit. The philosophy led many to call him a "faith healer," a label he rejected with the comment: "God heals — I don't."

By the 1960s and '70s, he was reaching millions around the world through radio, television, publications and personal appearances. He remained on TV into the new century, co-hosting the program "Miracles Now" with his son, Richard. He published dozens of books and conducted hundreds of crusades.

He credited his oratorical skills to his faith, saying: "I become anointed with God's word, and the spirit of the Lord builds up in me like a coiled spring. By the time I'm ready to go on, my mind is razor-sharp. I know exactly what I'm going to say and I'm feeling like a lion."

While many of colleagues in healing evangelism were flamboyant in their preaching, Roberts was subdued in his delivery. His long sermons were filled with stories and anecdotes, and at the end of a service, the faithful would form a long healing line. Roberts would clasp his hands on each person's head, shutting his eyes while he prayed.

David Edwin Harrell, a Roberts biographer and retired Auburn University history professor, said Roberts played a significant role in the rapid growth of charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity — an exuberant faith that exploded globally during the 20th century.

"Oral was a pioneer in opening this whole message up to the mainstream churches and leading a generation of Pentecostals into easier connection with the evangelical world," Harrell said. "They had been completely estranged prior to that."

Roberts also espoused his "Seed-Faith" theology, which held that those who give to God will get things in return.

The generation of "prosperity preachers" who followed Roberts point to their own luxury homes and private jets as evidence of God's favor. In 2007, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa launched an investigation of six prosperity preachers, including three who sat on the Oral Roberts University board of regents at the time. The inquiry is still under way.

The campus of Oral Roberts University is a Tulsa landmark, with its 200-foot prayer tower and a 60-foot bronze sculpture of praying hands, modeled on Roberts' hands.

Roberts' ministry hit rocky times in the 1980s. There was controversy over his City of Faith medical center, a $250 million investment that eventually folded. And Roberts was widely ridiculed when he retreated to his prayer tower and proclaimed that God would "call me home" if he failed to meet a fundraising goal of $8 million.

"This conviction that God speaks to me, and that I have no choice but to obey when He does, has led me into a life of controversy," Roberts wrote in his 1995 autobiography. "But had I not had this conviction, I don't believe I could have ever scaled the mountain of my calling."

His organization also suffered from the effects of sex-and-money scandals involving other televangelists including Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart in the 1980s.

Roberts was semiretired in recent years and living in California when scandal roiled Oral Roberts University.

His son, who succeeded him as president, resigned in 2007 after being accused of spending university money on shopping sprees and other luxuries at a time the institution was more than $50 million in debt. It was the first time in the university's history that a member of the family was not in charge.

The rocky period was eased when billionaire Oklahoma City businessman Mart Green donated $70 million and helped run the school. Earlier this fall, things were looking up, with officials saying tens of millions in debt had been paid off and enrollment was up slightly.

"He was not only my earthly father; he was my spiritual father and mentor," Richard Roberts said in a statement.

Graham said: "Oral Roberts was a man of God and a great friend in ministry. I loved him as a brother."

___

AP Religion writers Eric Gorski in Denver and Rachel Zoll in New York contributed to this report.


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 18, 2009)

earl said:


> And fun to watch if your attitude was right.



For sheer entertainment value, Dr. Gene Scott was hard to beat.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 18, 2009)

What about Benny Hinn?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 18, 2009)

I didn't know anything of his passing. Have been busy with the family and church. 

He claimed to have salvation, so Praise the Lord!


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 18, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> What about Benny Hinn?



You'd have to strap me in a chair and retract my eyelids (just like in _A Clockwork Orange_) to get me to watch Hinn.

Scott was interesting _and_ entertaining.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 18, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> What about Benny Hinn?



Benny and the Jets was a great song


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 18, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> Benny and the Jets was a great song


 
Wisdom speaketh !


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 18, 2009)

My great uncle gave Mr. Roberts a few hundred dollars for a healing many years ago.  The healing didn't takerofl but the Roberts Investment Group wouldn't give him a refund.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Dec 18, 2009)

Well now if he's a great Christain he ain't really dead.


----------



## jneil (Dec 18, 2009)

Was an 800 foot Jesus seen in the area at the time he died?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 19, 2009)

Randy said:


> I will not question the man's faith but he lost me back when he said if I did not give him money to build a building God was going to call him home.  My God just does not work that way.  He does not give me more than I can handle and He certainly is not going to punish me by death for something I can not do.



Ah, but it was something Oral Roberts could handle.  The bail money of sorts was only $8 million and he cleared $9 million.  So maybe your god does work that way.  According to many on here, God speaks to people every day.  Who's to say what he did or did not say?  Also, according to the bible, God killed a lot of people for a lot of things.  I'd say it's entirely reasonable to believe he'd kill you for not doing as commanded (see also Onan). 



> 38:10  And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.


----------



## Israel (Dec 19, 2009)

Yeah, Onan is a warning to us all.


----------



## formula1 (Dec 19, 2009)

*Re:*

I thought what many think of him, reading the newspapers accounts, which if you haven't noticed are always slanted.

But I saw him in person one time in my life and my view of him was changed.  He was indeed a man with a true heart for Jesus and a sensitivity to following the Holy Spirit and now he rests with the Lord.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 19, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> Benny and the Jets was a great song



I could never understand the words!
Was it about Mr.Hinn?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 19, 2009)

My take: If there is such a thing as a "great Christian" (and I am not sure that there is), it would be as a servant. The Master knows His servants and their hearts. That is enough for me.


----------



## earl (Dec 19, 2009)

cd ,if you are watching ole Benny Hinn ,it's no wonder you have nightmares. I would suggest you switch to Benny Hill reruns.


----------



## tell sackett (Dec 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> My take: If there is such a thing as a "great Christian" (and I am not sure that there is), it would be as a servant. The Master knows His servants and their hearts. That is enough for me.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 19, 2009)

earl said:


> cd ,if you are watching ole Benny Hinn ,it's no wonder you have nightmares. I would suggest you switch to Benny Hill reruns.



Nah - I've only seen him a couple times.Fairly comical.


----------



## pileit (Dec 19, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> My great uncle gave Mr. Roberts a few hundred dollars for a healing many years ago.  The healing didn't takerofl but the Roberts Investment Group wouldn't give him a refund.



Say it ain't so.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 19, 2009)

pileit said:


> Say it ain't so.



It is so.


----------



## pileit (Dec 20, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> It is so.


----------



## christianhunter (Dec 20, 2009)

gtparts said:


> My take: If there is such a thing as a "great Christian" (and I am not sure that there is), it would be as a servant. The Master knows His servants and their hearts. That is enough for me.



Amen to that one Brother.I will only add one thing, Brother Roberts lived to be 91 years old,he did something right.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 21, 2009)

Well, Earl, here you have it in a nutshell – “I'll be honest with you guys....I rarely read a post if it's over a paragraph or two long.”

Explains a lot.  That pesky Book just has too darned many paragraphs in it . . . 

I mean, what is this – “I will only add one thing, Brother Roberts lived to be 91 years old,he did something right.”  ????   Not 900 years, like proper Christians who did things right back in the old days?  Sigh.  Pretty disappointing, the way the rules keep changing . . .


----------



## gtparts (Dec 21, 2009)

Dio,

You crack me up, throwing out this junk. You seem to have trouble grasping a simple sentence.

“I'll be honest with you guys....I rarely read a post if it's over a paragraph or two long.”is in regards to "a post", not "that pesky Book" as you call it.

On the matter of longevity, no Christian has ever been credited with having lived 900 years. 

Sigh. Pretty disappointing, the way you keep pulling things out of context, making false attributions, offering frivolous and spurious comments, drawing erroneous conclusions.....but, at least you are consistent.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 22, 2009)

Well, thank goodness you cleared that up – your attention span is conditional then – good to know, since you seem to have neglected reading that pesky Book as well -- 

Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969.  

Sigh.  Anything to add about the passing of one of your Leaders?  Or did you gloss over the OP the same way you seem to neglect to read anything at all?


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Dec 22, 2009)

> Does any one besides me find it odd that one of the supposedly greatest Christians of our time died this week and the only mention of it on Woody's was by one of our most vocal atheists. And that was in a passing comment that wasn't picked up. Dio , I think the boys let one slip by them.



Perhaps no one mentioned him because he was no christian rather a false prophet....just a thought


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 22, 2009)

“Perhaps no one mentioned him because he was no christian rather a false prophet....just a thought “

And a decent thought at that.  Yet, within at least a portion of the Christian community Mr. Roberts was a revered, respected, and very influential man.  

One can hardly occupy the position he held and wield the throw-weight that held the attention of everyone from Presidents to Popes to Talking Heads without having a certain appeal to a large portion of the public.  Granted, the money was also a pretty large factor, but that was also a reflection of the donations he was able to amass from his followers.

Would one be willing to say that his many followers were also not Christians, if one can say that he was not?  And if that thought is too cynical, suggesting that innocents can be taken in by slick, media-friendly charlatans, then what does the naivete of the many followers say of them?  How is it possible that so many True Christians could be led astray by a ‘false prophet’?  

And that leads to the next question – I see the term ‘false prophet’ bandied about quite blithely, without an ounce of demonstration that there has ever been a ‘true prophet.’  Anybody?  Bueller?  Did Nostradamus, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or the Psychic Hotline ever actually get anything right?  Or do we wish for an actual ‘prophet’ so strongly that we will go to any lengths to interpret vague adages to fit current realities?  

As a Leader of men, Mr. Roberts was one of the most prominent in modern times, and purported to speak for a vast portion of the Christian community.  In practice, he was also supported by a vast portion of that community, both politically and financially.  So, if it is now judged that he was a fraud, and actually was not a True Christian, and actually spoke for nobody at all, then I fear that I do not understand.  Is ‘Christianity’ that conditional? Do you see your Leaders as frauds with feet of clay, and only wait until they have passed to dare say so?  Is the ‘religion’ so fatally factionalized that even ‘Christians’ can’t agree on what ‘Christianity’ actually is?

C’mon folks.  I’ve yet to see even two of you ‘believers’ stand in total agreement on a single point – and yet you seek to be taken seriously?  

Yeah, it is probably just me – “pulling things out of context, making false attributions, offering frivolous and spurious comments, (and) drawing erroneous conclusions....”   Couldn’t be that most of y’all are talking out of the wrong end, and making this stuff up as you go along . . .

I’ll take “Oral Roberts Wasn’t a Christian” for $600, Alex . . .


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 22, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> C’mon folks.  I’ve yet to see even two of you ‘believers’ stand in total agreement on a single point – and yet you seek to be taken seriously?



Oh really?   Let's give that a shot....

All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?


----------



## tell sackett (Dec 22, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh really?   Let's give that a shot....
> 
> All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?


Amen and Amen; and He's coming back!!!


----------



## gtparts (Dec 22, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh really?   Let's give that a shot....
> 
> All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?



Absolutely! Conceived by the Holy Spirit; sits on the right hand of the Father; will reign forever.

Gotta say, Dio is still clueless on the matters of faith.

All glory, honor, and praise to the Cornerstone, Jesus, the Christ!

Have a joyous Christmas y'all.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969.
> 
> the same way you seem to neglect to read anything at all?



He said "Christian." Did you read anything at all?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 22, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Absolutely! Conceived by the Holy Spirit; sits on the right hand of the Father; will reign forever.
> 
> Gotta say, Dio is still clueless on the matters of faith.
> 
> ...




GT, no need to lay out an extensive list of things we all agree on!   lol   There's lots that Christians agree on.   DIO's been proven wrong already!


----------



## 1john4:4 (Dec 22, 2009)

bandersnatch said:


> oh really?   Let's give that a shot....
> 
> All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that jesus christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?




amen!!!!!!!!!!!!! Glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gtparts (Dec 22, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Well, Earl, here you have it in a nutshell – “I'll be honest with you guys....I rarely read a post if it's over a paragraph or two long.”
> 
> Explains a lot.  That pesky Book just has too darned many paragraphs in it . . .
> 
> I mean, what is this – “I will only add one thing, Brother Roberts lived to be 91 years old,he did something right.”  ????   Not 900 years, like proper Christians who did things right back in the old days?  Sigh.  Pretty disappointing, the way the rules keep changing . . .





gtparts said:


> Dio,
> 
> You crack me up, throwing out this junk. You seem to have trouble grasping a simple sentence.
> 
> ...





Diogenes said:


> Well, thank goodness you cleared that up – your attention span is conditional then – good to know, since you seem to have neglected reading that pesky Book as well --
> 
> Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969.
> 
> Sigh.  Anything to add about the passing of one of your Leaders?  Or did you gloss over the OP the same way you seem to neglect to read anything at all?





ddd-shooter said:


> He said "Christian." Did you read anything at all?



Actually, Dio included the "Christian" qualifier in the first quote attached to this post. Then follows up with Adam and Methuselah. Seems he is the one with reading comprehension issues. Thanks,ddd.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 22, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh really?   Let's give that a shot....
> 
> All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?



Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner folks!


----------



## formula1 (Dec 22, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh really?   Let's give that a shot....
> 
> All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?



An absolute truth!


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 22, 2009)

WOW! I can't believe I read every post here.


----------



## earl (Dec 22, 2009)

And now for the follow up ''trick'' question...
 What do you have to do to join him ?


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 22, 2009)

“He said "Christian." Did you read anything at all?”   

Boy do I have egg on my face.  So what you’re saying is that Adam, and Noah, and Moses, and Methuselah, and all those folks who lived anywhere from 400 to 600 to 900 years and more were only CREATED by the eternal tri-partite God, and that technically doesn’t count as part of your interpretation of the mythology because they couldn’t have know that the all-knowing all-seeing deity was actually only a duality back then – the Father and the Holy Spirit – and in Their dualistic omnipotence they hadn’t thought up Jesus (the third part of their plan for a perfect Trinity) yet?

So they couldn’t have been Christians, technically, because Christ wasn’t a God yet?  Really?  How could God not have known that He wasn’t divided into three parts yet?  One might think a couple of fellas with all that going for them might have planned ahead.  Or was God not even a duality yet?  This is tough to keep up with – when, exactly, did the One True God become two?  Then choose to impregnate a virgin so as to make three?  (God have sperm?  Who knew?) 

Beware of the attempt to use semantic technicalities as ‘proof’ – that knife cuts both ways.

And? “. . . believe that Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose again after three days?”   Niggling point here fellas, but huge numbers of quite prominent ‘Christians’ see that bit as little more than an allegorical story, meant to make a point, rather than as a literal truth, since, y’know, it is impossible and all . . .

Now, I realize that avoiding questions is the stock-in-trade, and that quoting ancient books is usually employed as a substitute for actual, personal thought, but the original thought here was still an interesting one – how is it that the passing of one of the most influential religious leaders of modern times was so universally ignored by so many vociferously vocal followers of doctrine?  And suddenly, now that he is gone, how did he become so quickly vilified as a ‘false prophet.”  

I think, in so many words, Earl asked – “What will happen to all of the Lost Sheep?”  Perhaps now we know.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “He said "Christian." Did you read anything at all?”
> 
> Boy do I have egg on my face.  So what you’re saying is that Adam, and Noah, and Moses, and Methuselah, and all those folks who lived anywhere from 400 to 600 to 900 years and more were only CREATED by the eternal tri-partite God, and that technically doesn’t count as part of your interpretation of the mythology because they couldn’t have know that the all-knowing all-seeing deity was actually only a duality back then – the Father and the Holy Spirit – and in Their dualistic omnipotence they hadn’t thought up Jesus (the third part of their plan for a perfect Trinity) yet?
> 
> ...




They lived before the flood. Same Creation in a different environment.  A topic for a whole other thread. 
But no, they could not have been "Christians", as Christ came a few thousand years later. 

As I said, he claimed to be saved, so Praise the Lord he has passed on. 
BUT, his passing should be no more celebrated than that of any other person on earth. 
No person living today is any more important in the eyes of God than another. In God's kingdom, all that pass on to the other side are celebrated. Even those laborers who answer the call at the ninth hour.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 23, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “He said "Christian." Did you read anything at all?”
> 
> Boy do I have egg on my face.  So what you’re saying is that Adam, and Noah, and Moses, and Methuselah, and all those folks who lived anywhere from 400 to 600 to 900 years and more were only CREATED by the eternal tri-partite God, and that technically doesn’t count as part of your interpretation of the mythology because they couldn’t have know that the all-knowing all-seeing deity was actually only a duality back then – the Father and the Holy Spirit – and in Their dualistic omnipotence they hadn’t thought up Jesus (the third part of their plan for a perfect Trinity) yet?
> 
> ...




Silly conclusions born of bitter ignorance do not deserve a response. Dio, just because Jesus was not known to these individuals in their lifetime does not mean that Jesus did not exist. You have a particularly difficult time understanding the nature of I AM and His eternal triune nature. Your antagonism blinds you to the truth. You are greatly to be pitied....and prayed for. 

Christians are well aware of what will happen to all of the Lost Sheep. It is for that reason the Found Sheep have been sent to witness to the Lost Sheep concerning the truth of God's Word.

As to the contention that " ..huge numbers of quite prominent ‘Christians’ see that bit as little more than an allegorical story, meant to make a point, rather than as a literal truth,...", if, it is merely allegorical to them, they are greatly deceived and just as lost as you are. They would not be Christians, as you suggest. They identify themselves nominally, but they do not believe in the redemptive work of Christ. They are goats among sheep, tares among wheat.


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 23, 2009)

I do believe that folks like Billy Graham - who has led literally _thousands,_ if not millions,to a relationship with Christ - will receive a greater reward in heaven than me,for instance.But I'd take a pup-tent in heaven over a swim in the lake of fire _any_ day!


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

ddd and gt, The title of this thread is ODD so no need to start a new one. If I read ya'll's posts correctly it seems there is a difference of opinion about Christ. I believe that was part and parcel of the statement about Christians not agreeing.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

earl, I was speaking to the semantics of the title Dio gave Adam and Methuselah. 
For one so learned, it would seem important to make a distinction between those who are considered "Christian" and those who lived under the promise before Christ walked the earth and the title was given. 

I agree with everything gt posted...


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

No offense ,but it sounds like we are entering a debate over word games. If the crucifixion covered those that lived prior to Jesus ,then that makes them Christian in my book. If you have to resort to semantics to make your point valid , your point was weak to start with.
I guess it begs the question. Folks in heaven going to be made up of two groups ,one pre Christ and one post Christ ? That would make at least three ways to get into heaven that I have seen put forward and defended on this forum. Kind of makes a joke out of ''one way only ''.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Well, Earl, here you have it in a nutshell – “I'll be honest with you guys....I rarely read a post if it's over a paragraph or two long.”
> 
> Explains a lot.  That pesky Book just has too darned many paragraphs in it . . .
> 
> I mean, what is this – “I will only add one thing, Brother Roberts lived to be 91 years old,he did something right.”  ????   Not 900 years, like proper Christians who did things right back in the old days?  Sigh.  Pretty disappointing, the way the rules keep changing . . .





gtparts said:


> Dio,
> 
> You crack me up, throwing out this junk. You seem to have trouble grasping a simple sentence.
> 
> ...





Diogenes said:


> Well, thank goodness you cleared that up – your attention span is conditional then – good to know, since you seem to have neglected reading that pesky Book as well --
> 
> Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969.
> 
> Sigh.  Anything to add about the passing of one of your Leaders?  Or did you gloss over the OP the same way you seem to neglect to read anything at all?




Semantics? Yes. 
We did not bring this point up, Dio did. 
He credited people who lived before the flood as being "proper Christians." 
I just pointed out that one cannot be labeled a "Christian" in this life without knowing Christ.

No groups in heaven. All have believed and were found faithful to God.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> And? “. . . believe that Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose again after three days?”   Niggling point here fellas, but huge numbers of quite prominent ‘Christians’ see that bit as little more than an allegorical story, meant to make a point, rather than as a literal truth, since, y’know, it is impossible and all . . .



"Huge numbers"!!!  LOL   Now you're grasping!  You won't find the "huge numbers" in this forum.   I'd be surprised if even ONE Christian on this forum thinks Jesus' resurrection was figurative...or an allegory.  Personally, I'd like to know who these 'prominent' Christians are?  Just a few examples will suffice.   Sounds like an extensive list you must have...   

All Christians on here agree that you have to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead to be a Christian.   It just shows that you were wrong in believing that two of us couldn't agree on anything.   Glad I could correct that for you.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 23, 2009)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Perhaps no one mentioned him because he was no christian rather a false prophet....just a thought



I'm Glad Yeshua will be the one Judging me and not you.


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Semantics? Yes.
> We did not bring this point up, Dio did.
> He credited people who lived before the flood as being "proper Christians."
> I just pointed out that one cannot be labeled a "Christian" in this life without knowing Christ.
> ...



You seem to be dancing around my question. Let me try a different way. Is Adam a Christian ? Moses ?
Faithful to God or Jesus Christ ? 
If God and Jesus are one and the same ,before and after the flood would ALL be proper Christians .


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2009)

I think Abraham was the best example of someone who found favor with God before Christ.   He was even pre-Law...and found favor with God 'through faith'....

Galatians 3:6 - Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

James 2:23 - And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 

He was pre-Jew....pre-Law...pre-Christ....


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> You seem to be dancing around my question. Let me try a different way. Is Adam a Christian ? Moses ?
> Faithful to God or Jesus Christ ?
> If God and Jesus are one and the same ,before and after the flood would ALL be proper Christians .



I am sure they are now...
You cannot be faithful to Christ without being faithful to God. 
These people just died waiting on the promise of the Messiah. They were faithful to God that he would fulfill the promise someday.
After they went to paradise and met Jesus, I am sure they are now "proper Christians."


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 23, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I think Abraham was the best example of someone who found favor with God before Christ.   He was even pre-Law...and found favor with God 'through faith'....
> 
> Galatians 3:6 - Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
> 
> ...



Yes you are Correct, even the 12 Patriarchs of Israel will in the Kingdom be the Judges for the 12 tribes, they were not Jews and were Pre Law.
That has always being my argument with so called Christians, they think they can tell God who can be saved.

The Blood of Christ Covers everyone who existed before he died and those after his death, that is why he is called the Lamb slayed before the foundation of the The World"
Praise be Abba for his loving Kindness!


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> And now for the follow up ''trick'' question...
> What do you have to do to join him ?





No takers ? Surely this is also agreed on by one and all .


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> No takers ? Surely this is also agreed on by one and all .



Very simple,brief,and to the point: Faith in Jesus.

This has gotten _way_ off your original topic,earl - that it's "odd" that nobody made a big fuss over Oral Roberts' passing. Only the political forum beats this one for going astray!


----------



## Inthegarge (Dec 23, 2009)

Believers in the Bible refers to all who believe in the Messiah...Past, present and future..... Oh yea..that's ALL of us........RW


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Yes you are Correct, even the 12 Patriarchs of Israel will in the Kingdom be the Judges for the 12 tribes, they were not Jews and were Pre Law.
> That has always being my argument with so called Christians, they think they can tell God who can be saved.
> 
> The Blood of Christ Covers everyone who existed before he died and those after his death, that is why he is called the Lamb slayed before the foundation of the The World"
> Praise be Abba for his loving Kindness!






12 Patriarchs of Israel are going to do the judging instead of God ?


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Very simple,brief,and to the point: Faith in Jesus.
> 
> This has gotten _way_ off your original topic,earl - that it's "odd" that nobody made a big fuss over Oral Roberts' passing. Only the political forum beats this one for going astray!





You should have known when you saw earl and Odd, that things would get screwy in a hurry .


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> You should have known when you saw earl and Odd, that things would get screwy in a hurry .



I _did!_


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> No takers ? Surely this is also agreed on by one and all .



I don't understand the question 



earl said:


> 12 Patriarchs of Israel are going to do the judging instead of God ?



Think book of Judges, not Great White Throne Judgement


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I don't understand the question
> 
> 
> ''And now for the follow up ''trick'' question...
> ...





Unfortunately I look at Lj's posts with prejudice. If his views on salvation are correct , then every thing that I have been taught and every Christian I have seen posting on this forum are dead wrong.  I tend to read his posts literally. Surely a man of God such as his self would not word something in such a manner as to give another a false impression.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> Unfortunately I look at Lj's posts with prejudice. If his views on salvation are correct , then every thing that I have been taught and every Christian I have seen posting on this forum are dead wrong.  I tend to read his posts literally. Surely a man of God such as his self would not word something in such a manner as to give another a false impression.



If you have read Revelation, you will know exactly what LJ is talking about...


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

I have read it . When you ,or any one else can satisfactorily explain Revelation , it will cause a world wide stir. 

 Do you believe there is more than one way to salvation ?


----------



## formula1 (Dec 23, 2009)

*Re:*

Though I cannot say that I agree with LJ's posts all the time, in many ways we see things similarly.  I respect his knowledge in many areas. But that is not my point.  

This is my point:  God is not going to judge me based on if I agree with LJ or any other poster, but rather he's going to read the Book of Life and find me there, because I have believed and followed Christ and His Supreme Sacrifice is applied to me, as it is applied to LJ, and as it is applied to Oral Roberts as well.  The simple victory in God's plan of redemption remains so hard for some, yet it is so real and so easy to grasp.  Praise be to God for His victory in Christ Jesus.

Probably my last post before Christmas, so Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> I have read it . When you ,or any one else can satisfactorily explain Revelation , it will cause a world wide stir.
> 
> Do you believe there is more than one way to salvation ?



I was only referring to the Patriarchal judging you were confused about. 

Revelation 4:
4And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. 

24 elders; 12 patriarchs, 12 disciples. 
As I said, if you read it you can understand where LJ is coming from.


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

Please allow me.

Revelation
Chapter 4

1
    1 After this I had a vision of an open door 2 to heaven, and I heard the trumpetlike voice that had spoken to me before, saying, "Come up here and I will show you what must happen afterwards."
2
    3 At once I was caught up in spirit. A throne was there in heaven, and on the throne sat
3
    one whose appearance sparkled like jasper and carnelian. Around the throne was a halo as brilliant as an emerald.
4
    Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which twenty-four elders 4 sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads.
5
    From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. 5 Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God.
6
    In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal. 6 In the center and around the throne, there were four living creatures covered with eyes in front and in back.
7
    The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle 7 in flight.
8
    The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, 8 were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come."
9
    Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever,
10
    the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming:
11
    "Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created."

Care to explain the 7 spirits of God  verse 5

Care to explain the 4 living creatures with eyes front and back verse 6,7 and 8 ?

In verse 10 they fall down...

Would you point out to me where they are to be judges as post 67 claims ?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> No offense ,but it sounds like we are entering a debate over word games. If the crucifixion covered those that lived prior to Jesus ,then that makes them Christian in my book. If you have to resort to semantics to make your point valid , your point was weak to start with.
> I guess it begs the question. Folks in heaven going to be made up of two groups ,one pre Christ and one post Christ ? That would make at least three ways to get into heaven that I have seen put forward and defended on this forum. Kind of makes a joke out of ''one way only ''.



1) ".....in my book." Sorry, earl, but on this subject there is only one book that counts and it isn't mine or yours.
2) Without knowing about Jesus specifically, those saints of the OT placed their faith in God for the redemption He promised. Their faith is accounted by God for their righteousness. There will be no divisions of people in heaven based on time period of earthly existence.....it is by faith, regardless of living before, during, or after the earthly life of Christ. 

However you account for the "three" methods of salvation, it all comes down to faith in God. And that, sir, is the one and only way!


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

gtparts said:


> 1) ".....in my book." Sorry, earl, but on this subject there is only one book that counts and it isn't mine or yours.
> 2) Without knowing about Jesus specifically, those saints of the OT placed their faith in God for the redemption He promised. Their faith is accounted by God for their righteousness. There will be no divisions of people in heaven based on time period of earthly existence.....it is by faith, regardless of living before, during, or after the earthly life of Christ.
> 
> However you account for the "three" methods of salvation, it all comes down to faith in God. And that, sir, is the one and only way!





I was using the bible as my reference. I agree it says what your last sentence says .

Your #2 Reguardless of whether they knew hin by name, Didn't they believe in Christ due to him being the same as God ? According to Lj ,and by agreement with Lj, ddd evidently believe because the bible says ''all Israel will be saved'' that it means irregardless of their belief in Christ.  My contention was that is not biblical.


----------



## earl (Dec 23, 2009)

Are you saying they are not Christians ?


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 23, 2009)

formula1 said:


> Though I cannot say that I agree with LJ's posts all the time, in many ways we see things similarly.  I respect his knowledge in many areas. But that is not my point.
> 
> This is my point:  God is not going to judge me based on if I agree with LJ or any other poster, but rather he's going to read the Book of Life and find me there, because I have believed and followed Christ and His Supreme Sacrifice is applied to me, as it is applied to LJ, and as it is applied to Oral Roberts as well.  The simple victory in God's plan of redemption remains so hard for some, yet it is so real and so easy to grasp.  Praise be to God for His victory in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Probably my last post before Christmas, so Merry Christmas to all!



AMEN ! Merry Christmas to you as well.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> I was using the bible as my reference. I agree it says what your last sentence says .
> 
> Your #2 Reguardless of whether they knew hin by name, Didn't they believe in Christ due to him being the same as God ? According to Lj ,and by agreement with Lj, ddd evidently believe because the bible says ''all Israel will be saved'' that it means irregardless of their belief in Christ.  My contention was that is not biblical.



THat is because you were never taught the true meaning of The Levitical Sacrifice.
I'll make simple so you don't get bore with a long explanation.

Every Passover and Yom Kippur (Day Of atonement) The priest on the 9th Hour would sacrifice a perfect Goat on behalf of all the people of Israel, whether they believed or not , whether they were present or not, their sins would be covered by the sheding of the lamb's Blood.

Yeshua's Sacrifice was alike in which he shed his blood ,not only for Israel but for teh WHOLE WORLD ,for those who were present on that date on earth, for those who had lived since Adam to that day and for those who would come after.
His Blood was shed once and for all and forever and was a superior sacrifice if the blood of a goat could cover sin , what more can the blood of the son of God do ?
But with this new covenant a condition was added " A person must believe he has being atoned for " If you believe your sins were atoned for by the Blood of Yeshua you have received forgiveness for your sins, now those who died without seeing Yeshua or knowing him were forgiven by Grace alone, as it was in the passed before sacrifices or Yeshua.
Might do you well this Holiday to read Hebrews , specially chapter 9 and 10.
Shalom


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2009)

I have never claimed ANYone could lack faith in God and enter heaven.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 23, 2009)

earl said:


> I was using the bible as my reference. I agree it says what your last sentence says .
> 
> Your #2 Reguardless of whether they knew hin by name, Didn't they believe in Christ due to him being the same as God ? According to Lj ,and by agreement with Lj, ddd evidently believe because the bible says ''all Israel will be saved'' that it means irregardless of their belief in Christ.  My contention was that is not biblical.



In a sense, you are correct. There is only one method of salvation. The simple fact that those that predate Jesus did not know the exact method by which God would bring redemption to the world does not alter the fact that they believed and trusted God to keep His promise. It is, however, a fact that the term _Christian_ was not used until several decades after Jesus' resurrection and originally in Asia Minor (present day Turkey) to denote those who were "followers of Christ". Those that predated Christ do not technically qualify as Christians. 

By the same token, I would not consider Johnny Unitas an Indianapolis Colt, but if one is considering the history of the Colts of the NFL, he would certainly appear in the part covering the Baltimore Colts. I am not sure that that is a real good analogy, but it is the best I could manage on such short notice.

As to "all Israel being saved", I would agree based on my understanding of "all Israel". Of course, my understanding is that the particular promise is made to Israel (Jacob) and his "spiritual" descendants, natural and grafted in. It is still a faith-based salvation.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 23, 2009)

gtparts said:


> In a sense, you are correct. There is only one method of salvation. The simple fact that those that predate Jesus did not know the exact method by which God would bring redemption to the world does not alter the fact that they believed and trusted God to keep His promise. It is, however, a fact that the term _Christian_ was not used until several decades after Jesus' resurrection and originally in Asia Minor (present day Turkey) to denote those who were "followers of Christ". Those that predated Christ do not technically qualify as Christians.
> 
> By the same token, I would not consider Johnny Unitas an Indianapolis Colt, but if one is considering the history of the Colts of the NFL, he would certainly appear in the part covering the Baltimore Colts. I am not sure that that is a real good analogy, but it is the best I could manage on such short notice.
> 
> As to "all Israel being saved", I would agree based on my understanding of "all Israel". Of course, my understanding is that the particular promise is made to Israel (Jacob) and his "spiritual" descendants, natural and grafted in. It is still a faith-based salvation.



Amen, It all boils down to , That the Father is the savior and can save whom he will, he did not give up his sovereignty to the Church or any religion. He will apply The Blood of Messiah as he sees fit and when he sees fit and to whom he thinks he should.

Perhaps we should discuss why some Churches accept Jesus and hardly worship the Father. ?


----------



## earl (Dec 24, 2009)

Lowjack , I can make it even easier . You accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are in.  You don't accept him, you don't get in. 
No passover, no Yom Kipper ,NO GOAT. You don't even need Christmas ,a church ,a temple ,or a mosque. 

When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret. Even I can understand the concept.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 24, 2009)

earl said:


> Lowjack , I can make it even easier . You accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are in.  You don't accept him, you don't get in.
> No passover, no Yom Kipper ,NO GOAT. You don't even need Christmas ,a church ,a temple ,or a mosque.
> 
> When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret. Even I can understand the concept.


Understanding it and accepting it are two different things, have you accept it, Earl ?


----------



## earl (Dec 24, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Understanding it and accepting it are two different things, have you accept it, Earl ?





No. If you understand it and try to make it something mysterious ,secret  , or beyond comprehension, then you obviously do not understand it.  Or you are simply misleading people.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 24, 2009)

earl said:


> No. If you understand it and try to make it something mysterious ,secret  , or beyond comprehension, then you obviously do not understand it.  Or you are simply misleading people.



Earl, I think the point is, if one over simplifies this, they may not pursue the less simple things. (_Oh, piece of cake. No, I am quite satisfied with where I am now. I'm really not interested in the finer details._) There are some things about salvation through Christ that are ABC simple and there are some aspects of following through with ones commitment that are quite difficult, in part because we resist that which we don't fully comprehend. The process of sanctification is really tough on some folks, but it is a goal worth pursuing. The thing that propels Christians to go "deeper" is a love that causes us to seek a better understanding and a stronger relationship with God.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 24, 2009)

"When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret. Even I can understand the concept."

I agree with gt. 
Say I am a mechanic. I can say to a client "All you need to do is put the key in the ignition and turn it. Do not worry about starters, plugs, wires, batteries, fuel, air, or any of that mess. Just turn the key and start it."

Yes, that will get them down the road, but what happens when they want to learn more about what they are in? 


Bad analogy.


----------



## earl (Dec 24, 2009)

Agreed to a certain degree. If I may parallel it  to hunting. A beginner only needs a few things . Gun safety ,hunting regs,and a place to hunt. An intermediate  hunter may add, camo ,scents ,calls, and a stand. A seasoned hunter may be looking for a trophy that takes hours of studying it's habits. At each stage that hunter can try to make it mystical and incomprehensible. That only deters nonhunters from starting. It can all be learned !

The posts I see here from some Christians and supposed men of God that try to make God into something that can not be understood is beyond me.  The posts that get my goat [pun intended ] are the ones espousing the superiority of the Jews ,simply because Jesus was a Jew.  To believe that God is going to let some in due to their ethnicity is outrageous. For the bible to have any credence ,there can only be one way. I may not be a Christian , but my reading and comprehension skills are actually quite good. Where we part ways is where you may not comprehend and take it on faith alone and I say I don't accept it. Revelation has quite a bit I do not accept.


----------



## earl (Dec 24, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> "When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret. Even I can understand the concept."
> 
> I agree with gt.
> Say I am a mechanic. I can say to a client "All you need to do is put the key in the ignition and turn it. Do not worry about starters, plugs, wires, batteries, fuel, air, or any of that mess. Just turn the key and start it."
> ...






 No , that is a better one than I came up with. If a person wants to know more ,they can read a car ''bible''. If they want to know even more ,they can disassemble and reassemble a car. If they want to do it right , they find a master mechanic to help. If that master tells them they can't comprehend the car or it's just a mystery, or you have to be able to read the signs in the transmission fluid,he is wrong. And then to tell you a foreign mechanic is the only one who can truly work on cars, well you get my drift.
Doubtless there are areas that will give you trouble. Auto trannys are my Achilles heel . But with a little perseverance and a little help , I can understand them.

If yop want a really bad analogy... Lj's posts sound like a slick mechanic telling the little lady she needs to change the beams in her headlights. On special this week for $99.99 plus parts.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 25, 2009)

“When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret.”  Honest?

Then, by all means, tell us.   End a few thousand years of discussion, debate, interpretation, persecutions, purges, wars, divisiveness, plotting, planning, and all the rest . . . C’mon—spill it!

Your metaphor is that I am in the car, but you know how it works.  If it is that simple, and you actually do know, then why has it taken you so long to tell us?  

Much of the present and future of Western Civilization hinges on your enlightenment of us poor ignorant lesser-lights, and we have been awaiting your definitive explanation for thousands of years, so please be gentle with us – it isn’t our fault that we didn’t realize that you knew all along.  Please don’t get mad and turn us all into pillars of salt, okay?  I hated that the last time . . . 

How does the (Christian) car work?  For real.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 25, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret.”  Honest?
> 
> Then, by all means, tell us.   End a few thousand years of discussion, debate, interpretation, persecutions, purges, wars, divisiveness, plotting, planning, and all the rest . . . C’mon—spill it!
> 
> ...




The entire point earl was making is that it is simple, but we have also admitted that it is very complex at the same time. Hence the car analogy. 

The answer is in the Bible. In fact, it is so easily discovered that "even earl understands." 
Does that mean you will be like God and have all the knowledge? No. 
Does that mean you will have a perfect theology? No. 
But you will begin a journey that will take you to a place of better understanding and one day you will know.


----------



## tell sackett (Dec 25, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> The entire point earl was making is that it is simple, but we have also admitted that it is very complex at the same time. Hence the car analogy.
> 
> The answer is in the Bible. In fact, it is so easily discovered that "even earl understands."
> Does that mean you will be like God and have all the knowledge? No.
> ...


I really like that last sentence.


----------



## telco guy (Dec 25, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh really?   Let's give that a shot....
> 
> All you 'believers' out there....do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified,  buried and rose again after three days?


I Believe!


----------



## pileit (Dec 25, 2009)

earl said:


> Lowjack , I can make it even easier . You accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are in.  You don't accept him, you don't get in.
> No passover, no Yom Kipper ,NO GOAT. You don't even need Christmas ,a church ,a temple ,or a mosque.
> 
> When you boil it down to it's simplest component, it's not even mystical or secret. Even I can understand the concept.




Earl you do some mighty good preaching.  It would be nice if some of these scholars would take some pointers from you.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 25, 2009)

earl said:


> No. If you understand it and try to make it something mysterious ,secret  , or beyond comprehension, then you obviously do not understand it.  Or you are simply misleading people.


What Mystery is there in understanding and accepting that God accepted the Blood of his Human Son as payment for your sins ?, claiming his blood atonement opens the door to eternity, that is no mystery or hidden thing.

It is beyond comprehension only to those God has not called, after all who can understand God accepts only Blood( Life) as payment of trangression ?


----------



## earl (Dec 25, 2009)

''It is beyond comprehension only to those God has not called, after all who can understand God accepts only Blood( Life) as payment of trangression ?''

Another fine bit of snake oil salesmanship.

I am going to make Universal Health Care mandatory because ya'll just don't understand . Yep ,sounds familiar all right.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 26, 2009)

earl said:


> ''It is beyond comprehension only to those God has not called, after all who can understand God accepts only Blood( Life) as payment of trangression ?''
> 
> Another fine bit of snake oil salesmanship.
> 
> I am going to make Universal Health Care mandatory because ya'll just don't understand . Yep ,sounds familiar all right.



Yep you don't, you are a son of A preacher but you are a Rebel,LOL


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 27, 2009)

“The answer is in the Bible. In fact, it is so easily discovered that "even earl understands." 
Does that mean you will be like God and have all the knowledge? No. 
Does that mean you will have a perfect theology? No. 
But you will begin a journey that will take you to a place of better understanding and one day you will know.”

Wait.  If it is so easily discovered, then how come I have to wait and, “ . . . begin a journey that will take [me] to a place of better understanding and one day _ will know”?   You guys say that you already know, because it is simple, but the rest of us have to wait until ‘one day,’ while obeying you now?  Bosh.  What?  Did you guys sign some sort of confidentiality agreement?  Is this stuff Top Secret, and For Your Eyes Only?  

“What Mystery is there in understanding and accepting that God accepted the Blood of his Human Son as payment for your sins ?,”

You’re kidding, right?  Um?   Er?   Ah?   Well?  Let’s see – No Mystery at all in the idea of God as a premise.  The world is positively lousy with Gods, and always has been, so if only by the sheer number of Gods that there are, let us assume that God is not a mystery at all (except for when you guys can’t explain Him, which is always, then he is a ‘Mystery,’ but, geez, let’s go forward here and not nit-pick about fatally flawed premises --).  

And there can hardly be a Mystery concerning how a God could have a Human Son – that sort of thing happens in my neighborhood all the time – we’ve got baby Thors swinging hammers, little Freyas being carried off all the time, and let’s don’t even talk about that poor guy pushing that rock up the hill or the Vishnu fella with the nine different faces – tragic stuff, I’m telling you.  Gods are raping our poor little Virgin sisters all the time, and having Sons.  Not too tasteful, if you ask me, but heck, it is hardly a Mystery . . . 

And the Sons of these Gods, who are actually Gods themselves?  Well, it goes without saying that they would have Blood.  How could a God live without it?  I mean, geez, even simple fish have blood.  Gods are not fish, are they?  No, I tell you!  They Bleed!  How could that be a Mystery to any thinking person?  

Plus, just look at the Sacred Writings!  Gods like it when things bleed for them.  You can hardly turn around without some God or another demanding the blood of one critter or another, and sometimes of all of the First-Born of the Land, as some sort of tribute or another.  Gods just like to watch stuff bleed.  So there is no Mystery there.  

And, even though you weren’t even born yet, and had not a single chance to commit even a single sin, it is hardly Mysterious that watching another God bleed a hundred generations ago was quite enough for one particular God to compensate for the sins you might someday commit.  Gods demand payment in advance, you see, and that is hardly a new concept, and holds no Mystery.

So, I agree wholeheartedly.  There is no real possibility of not, “. . . understanding and accepting that God accepted the Blood of his Human Son as payment for [our] sins .”   In fact, the whole thought is so self-evident and obvious that I can’t believe it took me so long to grasp it . . ._


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 27, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “The answer is in the Bible. In fact, it is so easily discovered that "even earl understands."
> Does that mean you will be like God and have all the knowledge? No.
> Does that mean you will have a perfect theology? No.
> But you will begin a journey that will take you to a place of better understanding and one day you will know.”
> ...


_

Perhaps it should have read, "One day you will know the complexities, and when you die, you will know everything" 

Again, you start with a basic knowledge and then you move to a place of more understanding..._


----------



## earl (Dec 27, 2009)

You start with what the bible gave you by grace . Then you are on a ''works based '' course for the rest of your life here on earth . Should you fail in your works based journey ,you will be told that you never were a Christian. Or worse ,you lose your salvation. so ,while Christians claim a faith based salvation once you dig through the semantics ,you will find that it ''depends on your works as a christian to keep you saved.  See it really is easy .


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 27, 2009)

Salvation can not be lost - otherwise it wouldn't be salvation,now would it?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 27, 2009)

earl said:


> You start with what the bible gave you by grace . Then you are on a ''works based '' course for the rest of your life here on earth . Should you fail in your works based journey ,you will be told that you never were a Christian. Or worse ,you lose your salvation. so ,while Christians claim a faith based salvation once you dig through the semantics ,you will find that it ''depends on your works as a christian to keep you saved.  See it really is easy .



Totally false. 

You walk by grace ALL the time. It is when you get out of grace and think you can do it on your own that you fall. But as long as you stay faithful to God, you will overcome. Many Christians are hard on others. But God is faithful and patient. As long as you are doing your best and seeking God and HIS kingdom, you will continue on the path that leads to salvation. 


The whole point of asking Jesus to be Lord of your life is to realize that you really can do nothing on your own. If you could work your way to heaven, there would be no need for Jesus.


----------



## earl (Dec 27, 2009)

Well the only complicated thing I see about salvation is every thing that comes after acceptance of and by Christ. Afterwords you , Lj ,and most of the others here make it real complicated ,mysterious ,or a long journey. Show me where it gets complicated or mysterious.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 27, 2009)

earl said:


> Well the only complicated thing I see about salvation is every thing that comes after acceptance of and by Christ. Afterwords you , Lj ,and most of the others here make it real complicated ,mysterious ,or a long journey. Show me where it gets complicated or mysterious.



Let's go back to the car analogy. 
Once you start the car, the complex things start to become evident or important if you like. 
I agree. You accept Christ as your king and things must be overturned and will be changed. 
You have to learn to become a new creature and live in a new society. 
It is not hard, difficult, mysterious or complicated; but everything is not going to be fully understood from the get-go and certainly not going to be understood from a perspective of someone who has never been under the hood of a car...


----------



## earl (Dec 28, 2009)

I.m going to let this one go except to say that IMO there is nothing difficult or mysterious about Christianity other than when man makes it so.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 28, 2009)

earl said:


> I.m going to let this one go except to say that IMO there is nothing difficult or mysterious about Christianity other than when man makes it so.



I agree with what I think you are saying.


----------



## Lowjack (Dec 28, 2009)

earl said:


> I.m going to let this one go except to say that IMO there is nothing difficult or mysterious about Christianity other than when man makes it so.



We are saved By The Works of Christ , we are maintained in Faith By The Works of The Holy Spirit, so I don't see where you misunderstood or twisted what I teach as being works you do save you ?
Or is it you want it to be a mystery or you are playing the self righteous card ? LOL

"My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One"
1 John 2;1 .


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 28, 2009)

The proverbial "nail" has been hit dead on th' head! 
It's _people_ and their un-biblical opinions that make being a Christian seem complicated.

This sure has wandered a long ways from our failure to recognize the death of Mr.Roberts.Odd!


----------



## Diogenes (Jan 4, 2010)

Nice. 

“We are saved By The Works of Christ ,” . . . Undocumented ‘works,’ unprovable ‘works,’ described by dozens of different ‘witnesses,’ but none contemporaneous, and ‘works’ that are so far lost in antiquity that even the most generous historian allows anywhere between fifty and a hundred years before the first story was written down.         

And – “ . . . we are maintained in Faith By The Works of The Holy Spirit,”  which abstract being, one might notice, accomplished no “Works” at all, except by implication.  What exactly is this ‘Holy Spirit’?  And where do we find a written history of the ‘Works’ attributed? 

“ . . . so I don't see where you misunderstood or twisted what I teach as being works you do save you ?”   Um?   Makes no sense as a statement, but still, allow us to press on regardless – I’ve been under the hood of this analogous ‘car,’ and the darned thing is patched together from junkyard parts, wishes, hopes, and dreams.  Won’t start, won’t run, lacks fuel, is missing a drive-train, has no tires, no wheels, and no suspension – but the darned thing is full of seats.

“Believing” that such a construct as you have imagined, which runs entirely on assumptions and rationalizations, will somehow deliver you to a glorious, imaginary eternity at the expense of all others is akin to waiting to be beamed up by aliens.  But hey, since nothing of the sort has ever actually happened in the long history of humanity, it makes perfect sense that you ‘believe’ it will happen to you.  

Who could argue with a ‘Belief’ like that one?  It can’t be definitively ‘disproven,’ after all, and anything that cannot be refuted without a shadow of a doubt is wholly and completely true.  Right?

Pardon me, the darned Yeti is at my door again begging for the address of the Unicorn, and the little gray fella from the UFO said I should open the door and hand him a pamphlet  . . . I’ll be right back . . .


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 6, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Nice.
> 
> “We are saved By The Works of Christ ,” . . . Undocumented ‘works,’ unprovable ‘works,’ described by dozens of different ‘witnesses,’ but none contemporaneous, and ‘works’ that are so far lost in antiquity that even the most generous historian allows anywhere between fifty and a hundred years before the first story was written down.



Don't know where you're getting your facts from there Di, but you are way off base with that comment.   *No other documents from antiquity have the support that the bible has.*   There are over 20000 copies of new testament manuscripts in existence today.  Most historians believe that every book of the NT was written sometime between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70. (as supported by internal and external evidence)  Second in manuscript authority is the Illiad, with 643 manuscripts.    Laughable in comparison don't you think?   All  the copies same the same thing....which leads anyone (most anyway) with a brain to believe that they accurately reflect the original.     


"so far lost in antiquity"!!!!        Some of your comments are seriously laughable...and unsupported by facts.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2010)

Here's you Oral Roberts piece.

http://www.christianindex.org/6079.article.print

Are we back on track, now?


----------



## Diogenes (Jan 7, 2010)

“Most historians believe that every book of the NT was written sometime between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70. (as supported by internal and external evidence)”

Um . . . ?   Er . . . ?  And how do you count years, exactly?  Is ‘between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70’ somehow NOT somewhere between fifty and a hundred years later?  I’m afraid I have no idea how your argument is contrary by agreement, or how I am ‘unsupported by facts,’ when you quote the very same fact as a counter-argument.  Did you start counting somewhere other than everyone else did?

And as concerns veracity in antiquarian writings, you’ll have a rough time finding a serious academic who considers the Iliad to be anything other than a fanciful illustration, much as ‘The Wreck of The Hesperus’ or the Pieta or the ‘Last Supper’  or the Bible are considered – works of imagination.  

So, as a thought exercise, try this out – take out your quill pen and your papyrus (rare commodities at the time), and employ your ability to read and write (even rarer commodities at the time), and write down a definitive, authoritative, indisputable eyewitness account of something that happened fifty years ago (or even 37 years ago, if you wish to take the minority view of how to count).  

If you want to be entirely authentic, assume that you weren’t actually there, might not have even been alive at the time, and even if you were you were actually a simple illiterate fisherman and need to rely on someone else to write your account for you, and will never know what it actually says because you can’t read it anyway.  Then ask someone a few thousand years later to vouch for the accuracy and ‘authenticity’ of your Gospel.

I’m convinced you can do it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 7, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “Most historians believe that every book of the NT was written sometime between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70. (as supported by internal and external evidence)”
> 
> Um . . . ?   Er . . . ?  And how do you count years, exactly?  Is ‘between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70’ somehow NOT somewhere between fifty and a hundred years later?  I’m afraid I have no idea how your argument is contrary by agreement, or how I am ‘unsupported by facts,’ when you quote the very same fact as a counter-argument.  Did you start counting somewhere other than everyone else did?
> 
> ...



Diogenes Misconception #1   You said "50-100 years later"...I said 50AD-70AD...which is actually 20-40 years after the EVENTS of 35-40AD.      Very much contrary to your argument.

Diogenes Misconception #2    "Illiterate fisherman"      Luke, as I suspect you know, was a physician, and a "historian of the first rank" as one historian stated.   If you read Luke you'll see it abounds with historical information....dates....rulers....etc.    Historians have long taken for granted Luke's work as historical and accurate.	

Luke 3

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.  

You go, Luke!!!!    Pinpoint accuracy!

Paul, who wrote most of the NT, and himself a witness of the resurrected Christ, was as educated as one could get at the time.   

Eyewitnesses with degrees....    Far cry from 'illiterate' wouldn't you say?


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 7, 2010)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Diogenes Misconception #1   You said "50-100 years later"...I said 50AD-70AD...which is actually 20-40 years after the EVENTS of 35-40AD.      Very much contrary to your argument.
> 
> Diogenes Misconception #2    "Illiterate fisherman"      Luke, as I suspect you know, was a physician, and a "historian of the first rank" as one historian stated.   If you read Luke you'll see it abounds with historical information....dates....rulers....etc.    Historians have long taken for granted Luke's work as historical and accurate.
> 
> ...



You go,Bandy!!!


----------

