# Who launched Christianity



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2015)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8386580?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
From the article:
"If Jesus didn't launch Christianity, if Paul didn't, who did? More puzzling, how did Christianity get away from Judaism? Interesting questions that beg for fresh thinking. Questions that psychologists, sociologists, and historians may be more suited to investigate than theologians or biblical scholars, who are mired in traditional frames of reference. "


----------



## lagrangedave (Nov 2, 2015)

Hebrew plot to control money lending and investment?


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2015)

Got as far as I did in the article. Some interesting points. But the points seem lost to some extent on the writer. He seemingly sees only in terms of "a" new(er) vs old(er) religion.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2015)

lagrangedave said:


> Hebrew plot to control money lending and investment?



What the ... ?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8386580?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
> From the article:
> "If Jesus didn't launch Christianity, if Paul didn't, who did? More puzzling, how did Christianity get away from Judaism? Interesting questions that beg for fresh thinking. Questions that psychologists, sociologists, and historians may be more suited to investigate than theologians or biblical scholars, who are mired in traditional frames of reference. "




We know with certainty that Christianity arose from Judaism, but what may not be common knowledge is that religions have been morphing and branching since long before the jewish tradition. I'm not a religious anthropologist, but from the reading I have done it seems the very general trend of the evolution of religions in the west has been:

Paganism -> Astrozorianism -> Judaism -> Christianity/Islam

Note other than Astrozorianism all of these still exist, so there is significant overlap between all of these.

To answer the question directly, I don't know exactly _who_ may have started Christianity. Maybe it was a carpenter named Jesus, or maybe it was john the baptist and his followers. We know for certain Christianity started as an offshoot of the Essenes (liberal jewish sect) who taught that a man named Jesus Christ (probably John the Baptist's cousin) was the messiah the Jews had been waiting for. Assuming we can safely dispense with notions of religious claims being true here, The rise of Christianity was largely a rebellion against the Pharisees, who the essenes believed were corrupt and had an entirely too authoritarian and strict interpretation of the Torah. This seems increasingly likely when you consider how hostile the Jesus depicted in the new testament is to the Pharisees.

A book I have been reading "d*mn*d good company" suggests that christianity likely would have been one of many cults that have flared up and then quickly disappeared throughout history, except that during the 66-70 A.D. war Jews were being persecuted in the Roman Empire, and it became convenient for Jews to jump ship to Christianity to escape that persecution.

Another interesting tidbit, many of the current incarnations of Christianity are heavily influenced by Paul. Early christians regarded Paul as a heretic for his disdain of old-testament dietary laws and circumcision among other things. What we have today (especially catholocism) would probably be regarded as an abomination by the earliest founders of Christianity.

If you are really interested in learning about it, as well as other religious conflicts throughout history, you really should check out "D*mn*d Good Company" by Luis Granados. It is principally about the times throughout history that skeptics have 'bucked the God experts', and the results of those events, but it gets into a lot of history in the process.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 3, 2015)

lagrangedave said:


> Hebrew plot to control money lending and investment?



Probably the most accurate answer.


----------



## RNC (Nov 3, 2015)

Christ-ianity was started by Jesus of Nazareth .


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 3, 2015)

RNC said:


> Christ-ianity was started by Jesus of Nazareth .



Maybe,  but that is far from a historical certainty. And if he did exist, many of the claims put forth about him in the New Testament are nearly certainly fabrications of the early adopters of Christianity.


----------



## bigreddwon (Nov 6, 2015)

I was watching a special on 'books banned from the bible' and they went on to say that some theologians speculate that the siblings of Jesus played a huge part in early Christianity. They became big wigs in the church after his death. Who knows?


----------



## Madman (Nov 10, 2015)

Christian/Jew/ people of the way, what was the difference.

We read in Acts 2 that some accepted Peter's message and were baptized. At least some of those were Jews.  Did they cease being Jews?


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 10, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8386580?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
> From the article:
> "If Jesus didn't launch Christianity, if Paul didn't, who did? More puzzling, how did Christianity get away from Judaism? Interesting questions that beg for fresh thinking. Questions that psychologists, sociologists, and historians may be more suited to investigate than theologians or biblical scholars, who are mired in traditional frames of reference. "



Answers to be found in Acts. Well worth the read.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 10, 2015)

God founded Christianity. Genesis 3:15


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 11, 2015)

"





bullethead said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8386580?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
> From the article:
> "If Jesus didn't launch Christianity, if Paul didn't, who did? More puzzling, how did Christianity get away from Judaism? Interesting questions that beg for fresh thinking. Questions that psychologists, sociologists, and historians may be more suited to investigate than theologians or biblical scholars, who are mired in traditional frames of reference. "



Luke was/is a historian. And regarded as being accurate by historians. 

For doctrines apposed to those of the Jews, Christians were charged with inciting people to "worship in violation of the law, both Roman and Jewish law." That simple. I would suggest same goes for Jesus.

Christians were first called such in Antioch. They were viewed here as different from Jews, thus the name. 

 The church here was a mix of gentiles and jews--- therefore no longer ethnically jewish. That simple.



So the church "started" Christianity--ie Peter and the disciples.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> "
> 
> Luke was/is a historian. And regarded as being accurate by historians.
> 
> ...


Luke's accounts of the trial,crucifixion and resurrection differ from the others so is he so accurate that his should be considered the correct version?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Answers to be
> found in Acts. Well worth the read.



I am trying to find sources outside of the Bible to confirm what is written in the Bible.  Using Acts is not exactly an unbiased source.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

I have read where the writings of Luke are less historically accurate and thought more to be a Theological Composition.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I am trying to find sources outside of the Bible to confirm what is written in the Bible.  Using Acts is not exactly an unbiased source.



Have you considered the Holy Spirit?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Have you considered the Holy Spirit?


Yes. His number is unlisted.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

"The author of Acts, whom Haenchen places in a generation far removed from the time of the apostles, gives an image of early Christianity more as he thought it was, than as it actually was. Luke wrote more in order to do his own preaching than to reproduce the preaching of the apostles. Furthermore by telling the story of early Christianity in this way, he not only twisted the historical facts, but also added his own material as it suited his interests.

Consequently very little in the Book of Acts gives a historically reliable picture of early Christianity."


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> "The author of Acts, whom Haenchen places in a generation far removed from the time of the apostles, gives an image of early Christianity more as he thought it was, than as it actually was. Luke wrote more in order to do his own preaching than to reproduce the preaching of the apostles. Furthermore by telling the story of early Christianity in this way, he not only twisted the historical facts, but also added his own material as it suited his interests.
> 
> Consequently very little in the Book of Acts gives a historically reliable picture of early Christianity."



I certainly disagree with a later writing of Acts. The internal evidence places the writing before ad70.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I certainly disagree with a later writing of Acts. The internal evidence places the writing before ad70.


A generation is roughly 25 years. So "a generation far removed" is well within the pre ad70 timeline you are using. The writing may very well be before ad70 but it's historical accuracy is in question.
Hopefully the internal evidence is more than the Holy Spirit


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> A generation is roughly 25 years. So "a generation far removed" is well within the pre ad70 timeline you are using. The writing may very well be before ad70 but it's historical accuracy is in question.
> Hopefully the internal evidence is more than the Holy Spirit



Biblically a generation is 40 years. The time of the apostles was 30 ad to John's death..96 ad to 100 ad? Or within the first century.

Far removed from the first century cannot be.

 The internal evidence of pre 70 ad is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem as a present or past event. That fall was prophecied by Christ Himself in Matthew 24 and is one of the most accurate prophecies made by Him that we can look back on, and recorded by Josephus <-- which could be the very outside source you are looking for.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Biblically a generation is 40 years. The time of the apostles was 30 ad to John's death..96 ad to 100 ad? Or within the first century.
> 
> Far removed from the first century cannot be.
> 
> The internal evidence of pre 70 ad is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem as a present or past event. That fall was prophecied by Christ Himself in Matthew 24 and is one of the most accurate prophecies made by Him that we can look back on, and recorded by Josephus <-- which could be the very outside source you are looking for.


Are those the same 40 year generations that you refer to in your sig line? 

Some historians, due to thier research, are convinced that Luke used Josephus as a source and some of those same historians show many discrepancies in the accuracy of Josephus ' dates, numbers and names.
Remember that many parts of Josephus' Antiquities have been shown to be forgeries.

One homerun like getting the fall of Jerusalem right doesn't win the ball game. Its all the errors elsewhere that lose it.
I'd be more worried why only one of Christ's prophesies is more accurate instead of ALL of Christ's prophesies being 100% dead on accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Biblically a generation is 40 years. The time of the apostles was 30 ad to John's death..96 ad to 100 ad? Or within the first century.
> 
> Far removed from the first century cannot be.
> 
> The internal evidence of pre 70 ad is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem as a present or past event. That fall was prophecied by Christ Himself in Matthew 24 and is one of the most accurate prophecies made by Him that we can look back on, and recorded by Josephus <-- which could be the very outside source you are looking for.


Bart Ehrman does a masterful job at addressing all the issues.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Are those the same 40 year generations that you refer to in your sig line?
> 
> Some historians, due to thier research, are convinced that Luke used Josephus as a source and some of those same historians show many discrepancies in the accuracy of Josephus ' dates, numbers and names.
> Remember that many parts of Josephus' Antiquities have been shown to be forgeries.
> ...



There's no one more accurate, but it is one that most Christians agree is past, and we can look back on it.
 I would say its more of a grand slam when all the consequences of the end of Jerusalem are considered , but that puts me in the minority of Christianity... Some even putting me outside Christianity... Ha.


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Luke's accounts of the trial,crucifixion and resurrection differ from the others so is he so accurate that his should be considered the correct version?[/QUOTEt
> 
> He was not a witness. He is a historian. Historians edit. The news on NBC is not the same as on  FOX.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > Luke's accounts of the trial,crucifixion and resurrection differ from the others so is he so accurate that his should be considered the correct version?[/QUOTEt
> ...


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 12, 2015)

Not a witness to the death, burial, and resurrection, as happened in the Gospel of Luke. But was a witness to many of the miracles in Acts. Agree?

Also, he is the only Gentile to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luke and Acts are the only books of the bible written by a Gentile.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Not a witness to the death, burial, and resurrection, as happened in the Gospel of Luke. But was a witness to many of the miracles in Acts. Agree?
> 
> Also, he is the only Gentile to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luke and Acts are the only books of the bible written by a Gentile.


No I do not agree.
His inspiration seems to differ from the other inspirations. In-SPIN-ration seems more like it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> No I do not agree.
> His inspirationseems to differ from the other inspirations. In-SPIN-ration seems more like it.



Anything in particular, or just a hunch you have?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Anything in particular, or just a hunch you have?


His particulars.
His details.
And all the errors in them.
Ehrman does quite a thorough job of going through the details and points out what and why is wrong.


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 13, 2015)

bullethead said:


> gordon 2 said:
> 
> 
> > I see what you are saying now. Like the news outlets Luke puts his spin on it to show what he wants shown instead of telling all the facts and letting the readers decide.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > Gee. Get a coffee. lol
> ...


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 13, 2015)

bullethead said:


> His particulars.
> His details.
> And all the errors in them.
> Ehrman does quite a thorough job of going through the details and points out what and why is wrong.



I would much rather you point out particulars, what's your beef with the writing's of Luke?

I've found the Bible is perfectly consistent with itself, and the differences in the Gospels compliment one another, not contradict.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2015)

http://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Book_of_Acts

Many examples are right in here.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 13, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Book_of_Acts
> 
> Many examples are right in here.



I read some of it. I'm sure these guys are very educated, and unless they elude to it in the latter half of the link, I see nowhere that they make the connection of Peter and Pauls miracles to the prophecies in the old testament. Those were the days spoken of by Joel...It wasn't coincidence or Luke forcing the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, it was prophecy being fulfilled before the eyes of the people that were in the last days.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I read some of it. I'm sure these guys are very educated, and unless they elude to it in the latter half of the link, I see nowhere that they make the connection of Peter and Pauls miracles to the prophecies in the old testament. Those were the days spoken of by Joel...It wasn't coincidence or Luke forcing the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, it was prophecy being fulfilled before the eyes of the people that were in the last days.


How many years were between the OT and the NT?
How easy would it be for a writer to make a new story to fit old prophesy?
It is extremely important to note that these miracles exist nowhere but in these biblical writings. Of Course the prophesy is going to come true in the stories. It was written so it HAS to.


What you read in the link is a small snippet of examples that these scholars have volumes on. They not only make the argument but then they back it up with facts. You ignored the examples given,which are spot on accurate, to point out something that was not mentioned in an attempt to discredit the given examples which prove Luke was not as accurate as you want us to believe.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> How many years were between the OT and the NT?
> How easy would it be for a writer to make a new story to fit old prophesy?
> It is extremely important to note that these miracles exist nowhere but in these biblical writings. Of Course the prophesy is going to come true in the stories. It was written so it HAS to.
> 
> ...



Oh scholar's ? Forgive me, I didn't realize I was disagreeing with men of such prestige.

I wish you would enter the discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Oh scholar's ? Forgive me, I didn't realize I was disagreeing with men of such prestige.
> 
> I wish you would enter the discussion.



You wanted examples and I gave them to you via reading material by people that have spent their lives researching these things.
It gave you examples.
It gave you reasons.
Then it gave the resources used in order to make factual conclusions.

There is nothing to discuss when I give you all these examples and you fast foward past them, I am guessing because you couldn't refute them, and continue on something they didnt say. I asked you questions above and I get a reply that has nothing to do with any of them.

I wont be around today to continue this as I have pheasants to hunt.
Take the time spent not conversing with me and research what the two authors I have given have to say about the historical accuracy of Luke.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 14, 2015)

Matt.15:14 came to mind when I read this.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Matt.15:14 came to mind when I read this.



After spending an inordinate amount of time today considering lower criticism, higher criticism, redaction criticism, textual criticism, form criticism, etc., etc.; and having finally recalled, what was the result of previous such considerations: that the practitioners of such have a propensity for losing sight of the obvious ▬like similarity of result being attributable to singularity of source▬ I have decided that yours is still the best response … at least for now.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Matt.15:14 came to mind when I read this.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2015)

Nothing propels a man like Jesus Christ.
Whether seen as outrage or outrageously good, this One moves things.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2015)

Israel said:


> Nothing propels a man like Jesus Christ.
> Whether seen as outrage or outrageously good, this One moves things.



Absolute lie.  Whatever you get from Jesus Christ can be had without.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Absolute lie.  Whatever you get from Jesus Christ can be had without.


It's all claims without proof because the conversation is turning into a praise jamboree.
They ignore the facts and counter with a bible verse then pile on the hallelujahs and totally unprovable claims.
Thats why I bowed out earlier.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Absolute lie.  Whatever you get from Jesus Christ can be had without.



You have initiated a list of dispensables to yourself.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2015)

Israel said:


> You have initiated a list of dispensables to yourself.



They're a free gift.  All you have to do is accept.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Absolute lie.  Whatever you get from Jesus Christ can be had without.



You won't have eternal life without Jesus.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You won't have eternal life without Jesus.



And if I say I do can you prove me wrong?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> And if I say I do can you prove me wrong?



No.why would I want to?
I would only ask you to try to explain your hope that you have in it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No.why would I want to?
> I would only ask you to try to explain your hope that you have in it.


Reincarnation
Energy transferring into another form and another and another etc.
Soul lives on forever with one of the other dozens of gods that allow that to happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No.why would I want to?
> I would only ask you to try to explain your hope that you have in it.



You shouldn't want me (or anyone) making truth claims about things that I can't prove and worse, acting on them.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Interesting.Which of those gods do you serve?


Serve none.
I Exist because of energy


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You shouldn't want me (or anyone) making truth claims about things that I can't prove and worse, acting on them.



Depends on if you are acting with love.If a person loves others as much as himself,why would they be a threat to anyone?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Serve none.
> I Exist because of energy



Who created the energy?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Who created the energy?


Nothing.
Energy is neither created or destroyed it just constantly changes forms. 


Please be smarter than trying the rookie question of who created who nonsense.
If you want to get it over with then it is the same thing that created the god you worship and the same thing that created the other thousands of gods.
If your god is eternal then the all the other gods are eternal and so is energy.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Nothing.
> Energy is neither created or destroyed it just constantly changes forms



In a way,I kinda agree with you here because since God has always existed,there has always been "energy".

But,energy could not exist apart from Him.
Before He created light on the earth,He was light,and in Him is no darkness.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In a way,I kinda agree with you here because since God has always existed,there has always been "energy".
> 
> But,energy could not exist apart from Him.
> Before He created light on the earth,He was light,and in Him is no darkness.



I thought we were past these claims without a shred of proof.

I am done with this direction it is headed. Take care.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I thought we were past these claims without a shred of proof.
> 
> I am done with this direction it is headed. Take care.



I was just following your lead.After all,you came in with the unproveable claim of re-incarnation.
How you gonna prove that?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I was just following your lead.After all,you came in with the unproveable claim of re-incarnation.
> How you gonna prove that?



My point was those things are as unprovable as your god and all your claims attached to it.
I used them to show you how you will apply logic and ask for me to prove them yet not hold yourself to the same standards.

Now, when I tell you to look around, look at your family, look at yourself and THAT is proof of reincarnation will it satisfy you? Look at the days and times someone or something dies and compare those days and times that someone or something else is born. Cant you see that when one thing dies another is born. Re-Born!!!

Truth is I dont buy it either. I just want to show you how silly your logic is and show you how your proof is not proof at all.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> My point was those things are as unprovable as your god and all your claims attached to it.
> I used them to show you how you will apply logic and ask for me to prove them yet not hold yourself to the same standards.
> 
> Now, when I tell you to look around, look at your family, look at yourself and THAT is proof of reincarnation will it satisfy you? Look at the days and times someone or something dies and compare those days and times that someone or something else is born. Cant you see that when one thing dies another is born. Re-Born!!!
> ...



I have never once claimed that I can prove to another human being that God is real,although I do claim that there's proof living in me.I just can not make you see it.I don't have that power.

You guys are the ones caught up on proof of everything.The things of God require belief where theres no outward proof,only inward.I know you guys think thats absurd,and I totally get that because I once thought things of God were absurd also...until He put the proof in me.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Absolute lie.  Whatever you get from Jesus Christ can be had without.


Not when Christ is what you get.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I just want to show you how silly your logic is and show you how your proof is not proof at all.


Apply that to empiricism(science) and see where it takes you.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Not when Christ is what you get.



Different dog same fleas.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Not when Christ is what you get.


yes...and amen.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Apply that to empiricism(science) and see where it takes you.


It has reliably taken me this far because I am not naive enough to overlook all of the scientific advancements that impact my every day life and instead owe it all to a non existent being.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Apply that to empiricism(science) and see where it takes you.



It will get you to "nobody knows for sure".  What I place my trust in is the METHOD by which science makes its guesses; its inferences.  Some of the things scientists and mathematicians come up with are really a stretch.  I take comfort in the fact that they don't claim any of it as absolutely true, but one can follow the steps they took to get to their conclusions and decide for themselves if they're valid.

I don't value revelation at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I have never once claimed that I can prove to another human being that God is real,although I do claim that there's proof living in me.I just can not make you see it.I don't have that power.
> 
> You guys are the ones caught up on proof of everything.The things of God require belief where theres no outward proof,only inward.I know you guys think thats absurd,and I totally get that because I once thought things of God were absurd also...until He put the proof in me.



You claim that you get revelation directly from God.  That's frightening.  What if He tells you to kill your firstborn?


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> They're a free gift.  All you have to do is accept.


All flesh is as grass...


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Different dog same fleas.


Really?
On levels you don't know, each flea is as different from the other as an elephant is to any particular...flea.
And also, precisely the same.
In origin and being.
Any one flea, and even many may be killed with seeming impunity.
But foolish is the man who says "the maker of fleas shouldn't have"
His list will then begin...but also end...in a very painful spot.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Apply that to empiricism(science) and see where it takes you.


Here we are, both in the same place at the same time, conversing on the internet.
Each of us similar in family and success and on many other levels in life. 
Science is used by both of us every minute while only one of us uses religion and yet we are in the same place in every tangible way. 
I accept it for what it is.
You throw in an extra invisible being.
If there is an outside source it has smiled upon me in every tangible way just the same as it has you.
If there is no outside source we are where we are regardless of beliefs.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Here we are, both in the same place at the same time, conversing on the internet.
> Each of us similar in family and success and on many other levels in life.
> Science is used by both of us every minute while only one of us uses religion and yet we are in the same place in every tangible way.
> I accept it for what it is.
> ...



Yes. That.
And more.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2015)

Israel said:


> Yes. That.
> And more.


Spare us the more.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You claim that you get revelation directly from God.  That's frightening.  What if He tells you to kill your firstborn?



Love taketh away all fear.
I'm not afraid that He will tell me to kill my firstborn,but if He did,I'm pretty sure He would provide a ram or some other alternative...like He did before.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2015)

At best the tangible is simply a sign, a representation, a path if one cares to follow it. Men living in the shadows are welcome to live in the light. 
Somebody called me by name; no, not Israel, nor Gregory, but broken, hungry, thirsty, confused wretched one...I know you.

A man on here not too long ago said "maybe I am (or wasn't) not bad enough". 

Yeah, I knew a man like that, once, too.


----------



## Madman (Nov 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Are those the same 40 year generations that you refer to in your sig line?



If a very reasonable solution to this question were presented would it help you on your journey to belief?


----------



## Madman (Nov 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> material by people that have spent their lives researching these things.



Hobbs,

You don't understand.  Non of your scholars have spent "their lives researching these things" and only anti Christians are capable of research.

BH believes his researchers are bigger and smarter than yours.  

When someone doesn't want to understand, all they want is to throw the same rocks that have been thrown and deflected for years, and VERY rational explanations have been provided, then they only want to argue.  

There is only one reason not to believe in a creator and the adolescent uses it almost daily, "no one is the boss of me".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2015)

Madman said:


> Hobbs,
> 
> You don't understand.  Non of your scholars have spent "their lives researching these things" and only anti Christians are capable of research.
> 
> ...


Hobbs,
Like above, you will find that some supposed adults are very one track minded( unable to see that it is the conclusions based on facts and NOT anything to do with being bigger or smarter) and quick to think that there is only one solution (a god)
to the things they cannot understand. These supposed adults are also quick to call names when they cannot provide any facts to back up their claims and get frustrated when their rational explanations get refuted by actual facts. 
There are more than one reason to not believe in a creator and it is expressed in here by intelligent, well thought and well spoken adults in here daily. 

The inability of some people in here to refute the work (provided in the links) given by these "bigger" and "smarter" scholars is enough to drive a man mad.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It will get you to "nobody knows for sure".  What I place my trust in is the METHOD by which science makes its guesses; its inferences.  Some of the things scientists and mathematicians come up with are really a stretch.  I take comfort in the fact that they don't claim any of it as absolutely true, but one can follow the steps they took to get to their conclusions and decide for themselves if they're valid.
> 
> I don't value revelation at all.



Yes.  It's the method.  We all can produce stories of scientists that have a belief and then bend science to that belief.  Bad scientist.  Science should follow where the proof leads, but ego often derails the effort.

My question is how could a Christian scientist do anything but the above?  They MUST try to fit science into a preconceived notion.  They CANNOT allow science to lead them anywhere other than God.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Yes.  It's the method.  We all can produce stories of scientists that have a belief and then bend science to that belief.  Bad scientist.  Science should follow where the proof leads, but ego often derails the effort.
> 
> My question is how could a Christian scientist do anything but the above?  They MUST try to fit science into a preconceived notion.  They CANNOT allow science to lead them anywhere other than God.



Then they get a job as paleontologist for the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

There are neurosurgeons that believe the Universe is 6,000 years old.  It's mind boggling.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Then they get a job as paleontologist for the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
> 
> There are neurosurgeons that believe the Universe is 6,000 years old.  It's mind boggling.



I've been thinking about that too. While Doctors are intelligent, they often have their head buried in their specific discipline, and never come up for air, much less have their world views challenged. They are highly specialized mechanics.  Not Scientists.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 17, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I've been thinking about that too. While Doctors are intelligent, they often have their head buried in their specific discipline, and never come up for air, much less have their world views challenged. They are highly specialized mechanics.  Not Scientists.



 The same can be said of anthropologists, or astrophysicists, or evolutionary Biologists; any scientific discipline you wish to single-out is filled with people who know a lot about their field, but little outside of that. I present the fact that these 'doctors' of which you speak, do not pander to your chosen view and that's why you demote them from your priestly class. You have been taught well by the more main-stream scientific community: push those that disagree back into the closet... they're idiots.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The same can be said of anthropologists, or astrophysicists, or evolutionary Biologists; any scientific discipline you wish to single-out is filled with people who know a lot about their field, but little outside of that. I present the fact that these 'doctors' of which you speak, do not pander to your chosen view and that's why you demotes them from your priestly class. You have been taught well by the more main-stream scientific community: push those that disagree back into the closet... they're idiots.



"Pander" to the view that the universe is older than 6,000 years?  

No one should still believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old.  Anyone that does might be better off (for themselves and the rest of us) in a closet.  They are idiots.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> "Pander" to the view that the universe is older than 6,000 years?
> 
> No one should still believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old.  Anyone that does might be better off (for themselves and the rest of us) in a closet.  They are idiots.



Why?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> "Pander" to the view that the universe is older than 6,000 years?
> 
> No one should still believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old.  Anyone that does might be better off (for themselves and the rest of us) in a closet.  They are idiots.



The creation of the world took 6 literal days(evening and morning x6).
Then the bible gives the entire lineage,including ages,from Adam all the way to Jesus.Then add 2015 more years and there you have it.simple math.Call me an idiot if you want,but at least I can do simple math.

Sorry but those dating methods are flawed.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The creation of the world took 6 literal days(evening and morning x6).
> Then the bible gives the entire lineage,including ages,from Adam all the way to Jesus.Then add 2015 more years and there you have it.simple math.Call me an idiot if you want,but at least I can do simple math.
> 
> Sorry but those dating methods are flawed.



Can you explain to me which dating methods you are referring to and why you think they're flawed?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can you explain to me which dating methods you are referring to and why you think they're flawed?



Before Einstein, and even after for a while, Physicists thought the universe was ageless. They Had good reason, based upon evidence and observation, why they thought this was so. But those crazies in the bible belt still taught of a created universe. How dare they express dissent against such towering intellects?  Those poor idiots, they don't know up from down.

And then, a guy with a telescope blew all that 'ageless' stuff out the window. As it turns out, the universe was made. The Bible is right... go figure. 

Science will catch up to the truth eventually, that's what makes it beautiful. Until then, I got six days over here .


----------



## 660griz (Nov 17, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The Bible is right... go figure.



That's funny right there.

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Does a sphere have ends?


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Hobbs,
> Like above, you will find that some supposed adults are very one track minded( unable to see that it is the conclusions based on facts and NOT anything to do with being bigger or smarter) and quick to think that there is only one solution (a god)
> to the things they cannot understand. These supposed adults are also quick to call names when they cannot provide any facts to back up their claims and get frustrated when their rational explanations get refuted by actual facts.
> There are more than one reason to not believe in a creator and it is expressed in here by intelligent, well thought and well spoken adults in here daily.
> ...



BH,

I have read the majority of the articles you have posted and many others over the years, and it still comes down to your scholars vs. my scholars.  You have shown No facts, you have shown opinions.

You must side with yours because you believe there is no god,  I side with my scholars because I believe there is a God.


I believe there is a God because there are many things that cannot be explained except by a self existent being.  I look at creation and realize there is no other explanation.  A couple of examples would be the informational sciences, the existence of matter, the order of everything. Then I pursue what is the best and most logical answer.  when I arrive at an answer I have to ask myself if it fits my wold view, if it doesn't then I have to rethink my solution and my worldview.

Believers here have laid out innumerable reasons to believe in God and the atheist answer is "I don't know the answer but it is not God,  he is just a crutch for the lazy and weak minded".  I have laid out many questions that got nothing more than that a backhanded answer, a rude response or "I don't know but it isn't GOD".

The truth is, it is the Christian that is constantly searching for reasons, it is the Christian that has pursued science, logic and philosophy in search of truth.

I did not call you name I simply stated a fact, and if you fit the atheistic norm then you believe you are a good person and you want to be your own boss. 

I had no intention of "name calling" it was simply a comparison.

I would like to hear some arguments from you on the subject rather than just "posting links".  What do you believe and why do you believe it?  I believe in God because of life experiences.  I believe in God because of the study of science, logic, philosophy, and engineering.  I believe in God because of the order I see in nature and the natural laws that allow me to do my job everyday.

Some of us tire of the same old accusation that only atheists are intelligent, the condescending remarks that the Christian God is as believable as a spaghetti monster.   

I'd like to know your history, what formed your belief system, what are your prejudices and biases.  That is where our opinions come from, just like the scholars we read, who we chose to accept and those we discount.

Everyone has an agenda.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman said:


> BH,
> 
> I have read the majority of the articles you have posted and many others over the years, and it still comes down to your scholars vs. my scholars.  You have shown No facts, you have shown opinions.
> 
> ...



Opinions are what is offered here by most believers in religion based off of their unknown. It can't be known and will never be known.
What I offer (in my own words or links)are facts based off of what is known, what can be checked for accuracy, what can be and is researchable and when all of these are put together a conclusion can be made based off of as much facts are known.
The argument was/is that Luke was an accurate historian. The facts show he is not.
It is not my opinion he just plain got things wrong. It is not the opinion of the links I provided that he got things wrong. We both showed where he got things wrong, some things that he obviously had no clue about but in his writings he substituted his thoughts or guesses as to what would happen instead of using facts. He got people wrong, numbers wrong, dates wrong and quotes wrong and he had no knowledge of the Roman army. None of that is opinion. His own writing proves it when his own writing is fact checked.

I have told my story dozens of times in here, so much it should be a sticky by now. My beliefs, my history and all of that info is in there. If you missed it every time, my posts are searchable but it may require some time to complete the research. This is why I post links.....I have said darn near everything I needed to say and now I leave it to other more credible sources because no matter what I say I show people that they shouldn't just take my word for it, here are sources that can back it up with facts. Me posting it twice, my version and then theirs, just wastes bandwith so I skip my version and go straight to source. I let their credentials do the talking.


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

Now to answer the OP.

These are my thoughts so I will not begin every sentence with "I believe".

God created heaven and earth and desired His creation to live in harmony with Him.  He gave His creation everything necessary to know him but not everything.

In pretty short order mankind destroyed that.  After some amount of time God decided man was not going to turn back to Him without further instruction and chose a group of people to show the world who He was and how to live in right relationship with Him and each other.

That group was one of the "ites"  the Israelites a.k.a. Jews.     I suppose He could have chosen any "ite" but He didn't.

After another period of time it became evident that many of the chosen "ites" were not getting the job done. So He came to earth in the person of Christ to show people "the way" himself.

He grew to a young man and at the age of 30 started teaching a small group himself, those that followed him were called people of "the way" and later became known as Christians because they followed Christ.

Very abbreviated but I believe God started Christianity.
I believe the Christian religion started with a walk in the garden with God. 

Hence my earlier response;

Jew, people of the way, Christian, what is the difference?


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I have told my story dozens of times in here, so much it should be a sticky by now. My beliefs, my history and all of that info is in there. If you missed it every time, my posts are searchable but it may require some time to complete the research. This is why I post links.....I have said darn near everything I needed to say and now I leave it to other more credible sources because no matter what I say I show people that they shouldn't just take my word for it, here are sources that can back it up with facts. Me posting it twice, my version and then theirs, just wastes bandwith so I skip my version and go straight to source.



I understand that.  I'll go looking.  I don't get in here often anymore because of work, family, etc.,  I don't get to woods as much as I would like anymore either.  I really don't intend to offend, sometimes it slips out.  I apologize.

I believe you noted you were going pheasant hunting.

did you get any?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 17, 2015)

Earth 4.3 billions years old.
Evolved form of humans about 200,000 years ago.
Civilization about 6000 years old. 
Christianity about 2000 years old. One of the younger religions.
Hmmmm
Yet, God started Christianity. Something doesn't add up.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman said:


> I understand that.  I'll go looking.  I don't get in here often anymore because of work, family, etc.,  I don't get to woods as much as I would like anymore either.  I really don't intend to offend, sometimes it slips out.  I apologize.
> 
> I believe you noted you were going pheasant hunting.
> 
> did you get any?


I added more to my initial reply above.

We were fortunate enough to kill some pheasants. On Friday 5 guys limited out with 2 pheasants a piece plus my Son shot a rabbit. On Saturday my Son, his buddy and myself each killed one pheasant.
Lots of homemade potpie Sunday.
Thanks for asking.


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yet, God started Christianity. Something doesn't add up.



Is that in response to my explanation?  If it is please 'splain' what I missed in my statement.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman,

Are you a young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist and why?


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Madman,
> 
> Are you a young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist and why?



For the sake of the OP what does that matter?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman said:


> For the sake of the OP what does that matter?




In a round about way it establishes how you judge the credibility of your information.  What sources do you exclude and why?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman said:


> For the sake of the OP what does that matter?



If you're a Young Earther there are many, many methods of dating that you don't agree with.  If you are an Old Earther, you accept the validity of those dating methods and probably have to do some gymnastics with metaphor to make it jive with the Biblical account.


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> In a round about way it establishes how you judge the credibility of your information.  What sources do you exclude and why?



Start another thread.  let's not highjack this one.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Earth 4.3 billions years old.
> Evolved form of humans about 200,000 years ago.
> Civilization about 6000 years old.
> Christianity about 2000 years old. One of the younger religions.
> ...



Let's be honest. Christianity is a continuation of the Covenants between man and God which began in the garden, making it just as old as Judaism.


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What I offer (in my own words or links)are facts based off of what is known, what can be checked for accuracy, what can be and is researchable and when all of these are put together a conclusion can be made based off of as much facts are known.
> The argument was/is that Luke was an accurate historian. The facts show he is not.
> It is not my opinion he just plain got things wrong. It is not the opinion of the links I provided that he got things wrong. We both showed where he got things wrong, some things that he obviously had no clue about but in his writings he substituted his thoughts or guesses as to what would happen instead of using facts. He got people wrong, numbers wrong, dates wrong and quotes wrong and he had no knowledge of the Roman army. None of that is opinion. His own writing proves it when his own writing is fact checked.



BH,

I am just going by your article 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/berna...s-th_b_8386580.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

so if there is more in other threads I've missed them.

He starts the article with: "I'm a psychologist, so when I explored the New Testament to gain a better understanding of Jewish-Christian relations,"  so I see no reason to believe he is attempting to set the historical record straight.  I see no evidence of historical inaccuracy other than claims that artists have a personal perspective of the way they paint and he disagrees with the Biblical accounts of the trial of Jesus and Paul.  His "mock trial" is 2000 years removed from the event, that I believe there is much historical writings in favor of, yet he interjects his views of how things should be just as he accuses the artists of interjecting their bias.  I might add he doesn't deny the trials he simply believes they did not happen the way Luke portrays them.  I can accept that.

Some of his observations may be accurate but how does he know numbers of people?  What constitutes a crowd?  He argues the Jewish leaders would not have gone in certain places so as not to become defiled, the Bible makes the same arguments in places.

Starr does not claim historical accuracy is the purpose of his book, he claims, it is to provide healing and closure to the divide between Christians and Jews.

I have yet to see valid historical, provable, discrepancies in the Bible, I believe there are some that have not been verified pro or con.

Based on what I have read about Starr he is not a fan of Christ, fairly liberal in his politics.  I'd expect no less from him.

I agree that Jesus did not start Christianity but that is just a paper tiger.

Jew/people of the way/Christian what is the difference?


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I am trying to find sources outside of the Bible to confirm what is written in the Bible.  Using Acts is not exactly an unbiased source.



I do know there are extra biblical writers that mention Jesus.

     Josephus, Origen, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others.   

I don't believe that just because a letter was canonized it should be excluded from usage.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman said:


> BH,
> 
> I am just going by your article
> 
> ...


The OP brought Luke into this conversation. HOBBS said Luke was an accurate historian (you obviously disagree) and I said Luke was not accurate and may not have been a historian at all.
I posted this in response to Hobbs post #13 where he brings Luke the historian into the conversation.
http://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Book_of_Acts
That is where I found the information against the accuracy of Luke and it addresses some of your concerns above.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2015)

Madman said:


> I do know there are extra biblical writers that mention Jesus.
> 
> Josephus, Origen, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others.
> 
> I don't believe that just because a letter was canonized it should be excluded from usage.


I don't think the conversation was about a man named Jesus existing but since you brought it up we have quite a few pages of conversation in threads that shows where there were blatant forgeries regarding the  additions of Jesus which were added later in the works of the authors you mentioned and not in their original and early copies.

Again, they are available to search in here as we have discussed it numerous times.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can you explain to me which dating methods you are referring to and why you think they're flawed?



Carbon14 and radiometric dating methods

Carbon 14 is very unreliable because it can only be used to attempt to date previously living matter, which have so many erratic variables as to atmosphere,sun conditions,magnetic fields,volcanic activity,and not the least of which,a catastrophic world-wide flood.

Radiometric dating is also flawed because,although rocks can be measured very accurately for isotope concentrations,there must be numerous assumptions made as to the "age",based on said isotopes.

Archaelogical excavations with known historical dates have proven both dating methods to be flawed.These findings are always swept under the rug and said to have been "contaminated".Go figure.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Carbon14 and radiometric dating methods
> 
> Carbon 14 is very unreliable because it can only be used to attempt to date previously living matter, which have so many erratic variables as to atmosphere,sun conditions,magnetic fields,volcanic activity,and not the least of which,a catastrophic world-wide flood.
> 
> ...



You need to do a little more research on how dating of materials work.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Let's be honest. Christianity is a continuation of the Covenants between man and God which began in the garden, making it just as old as Judaism.



Shouldn't it be the oldest?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

Madman said:


> Is that in response to my explanation?  If it is please 'splain' what I missed in my statement.



Yes. You said you believe God started Christianity.
After you explained how Jesus started Christianity.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes. You said you believe God started Christianity.
> After you explained how Jesus started Christianity.



Well, if you subscribe to the trinity then both are accurate.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Shouldn't it be the oldest?



I assume it is, were there any religions before the garden that are still around today? What's older than Judaism?


----------



## Madman (Nov 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes. You said you believe God started Christianity.
> After you explained how Jesus started Christianity.



_"Very abbreviated but I believe God started Christianity."  Madman_

I never said Jesus started Christianity.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

Madman said:


> _"Very abbreviated but I believe God started Christianity."  Madman_
> 
> I never said Jesus started Christianity.






> He grew to a young man and at the age of 30 started teaching a small group himself, those that followed him were called people of "the way" and later became known as Christians because they followed Christ.


Was there Christians before Christ?


----------



## Madman (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Book_of_Acts
> That is where I found the information against the accuracy of Luke and it addresses some of your concerns above.




BH,

Even though I would not put Colby in the category of a "scholar", it would appear he is an undergraduate, I will take the time to respond to some of his assertions.   It was an interesting read because it made me do some digging, deconstructing, reconstructing, etc.  A few thoughts below.


_“First, the author of Acts wrote with the intent of showing the acts of God in primitive Christian history,”_

Luke 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


_“Jesus is baptized in the gospel of Luke and given the Holy Spirit; when new believers are also baptized they receive the Holy Spirit.”_

This is not true. 

Acts 8 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

_“When Jesus preaches and performs miracles in the gospel he does them by the Spirit; the Spirit also empowers the apostles to do the same. In the gospel Jesus “heals the sick, casts out demons, and raises the dead; in Acts, the apostles heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.”_

So what? This assertion  may or may not be true.  Jesus came to show men the way, he lived a life and did the things he wanted them to do. Miracles were performed so that men would believe who he was; 

“John 16:37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

 Jesus tells his disciples in John 16:7 that they will do greater works than he did.  We see in Acts 5 how some were healed by Peter’s shadow falling on them.  We see Jesus heal a cripple and forgive his sin with no implication of the Holy Spirit.  What we do know is that Jesus says in John 14 “the Father who dwells in me does the works.”  That is true for every Christian too.

_“Jesus is imprisoned, condemned, and executed in Luke; some of the disciples are also later imprisoned, condemned, and executed in Acts. As Ehrman states, “These parallels are not simply interesting coincidences.”_

I agree it is not a coincidence it had already been prophesied.  John 15:18-20, 


_“Both Peter and Paul preach sermons to Jewish crowds, and what they have to say is in many respects remarkably similar”_

Christian sermons are remarkably similar today; it is called the Gospel of God.

I am not sure where this paper was going other than to simply cast doubt.

The writer states: 
“In conclusion it should be apparent that asking if the book of Acts is historically reliable is very difficult to answer.”

As I said before, and this paper agrees, some argue for the historicity of the Book of Acts others argue against it.
I think his choice of "resources" are interesting.

Who do you believe has the best argument?  I have seen much better arguments on the subject from other "scholars".


----------



## Madman (Nov 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Was there Christians before Christ?



Were there people of "the way" before Christ?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

Christianity:
 the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

Or, it has always been here. Since God is eternal, Christianity was eternal. One day, God said, I need some folks to join my religion and worship me,  'poof' all mankind was created. 'Cept, some didn't listen and formed their own religions or none at all. Chaos across the land. God lost control of his flock, killed them all and tried again. Same result. Became a human to try and get folks on board and was crucified. Finally it started catching on. 
Still more recruits needed.  The 'Inquisition' helped.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

And the Sumerians had religion and all of its tales a thousand years before the OT.
Hinduism is the worlds oldest organized religion.


----------



## Madman (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And the Sumerians had religion and all of its tales a thousand years before the OT.
> Hinduism is the worlds oldest organized religion.




Or just written?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

Madman said:


> Or just written?



Nope


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

There were many more cultures around during and before Abraham. The bible even mentions that Abraham visited these cultures.The Persians and Egyptians had religions established already.
Judiasm is old but there were many people on Earth that were already worshiping in organized religions before Judiasm got it's start. It is no coincidence the influences these other religions had on the writers of the OT as many things in the OT stories have been borrowed and incorporated from earlier religions.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> There were many more cultures around during and before Abraham. The bible even mentions that Abraham visited these cultures.The Persians and Egyptians had religions established already.
> Judiasm is old but there were many people on Earth that were already worshiping in organized religions before Judiasm got it's start. It is no coincidence the influences these other religions had on the writers of the OT as many things in the OT stories have been borrowed and incorporated from earlier religions.



Judaism is a continuation of the Covenants given to man from God, Christianity is a continuation of the Covenants given to the Jews.
 Gods first covenant was with Adam, not sure what name that " organized religion" would go by if any.
 Was there organized religions before Adam? Maybe, but from Adam to Moses to Christ is how old Christianity is.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Judaism is a continuation of the Covenants given to man from God, Christianity is a continuation of the Covenants given to the Jews.
> Gods first covenant was with Adam, not sure what name that " organized religion" would go by if any.
> Was there organized religions before Adam? Maybe, but from Adam to Moses to Christ is how old Christianity is.


In the story that you believe that may very well be the case. In the world of the bible, yes, that is the lineage and progression.
In the real world there was no "Adam". It did not start in a garden. Man did not whip into existence and in the form we are in now. This where the bible loses me and where the people that argue in favor of this stuff lose me. The young earth creationists now are the same people in biblical times that took things and twisted them to fit their views.
If you are convinced the Adam of the bible was the first person on the planet then we have nothing further to discuss.
I will agree that your argument is 100% Exactly Correct as far as the story in the bible is concerned.
I will say with 100% certainty that outside of the bible that story is pure folklore with no truth to it at all.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If you are convinced the Adam of the bible was the first person on the planet then we have nothing further to discuss.



I do not believe Adam was the first man on earth and the Bible does not teach that he was. The Bible teaches us that he was the first man in covenant with God.

 If your understanding of Christianity is based on young earthers I can understand your disbelief in that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I do not believe Adam was the first man on earth and the Bible does not teach that he was. The Bible teaches us that he was the first man in covenant with God.
> 
> If your understanding of Christianity is based on young earthers I can understand your disbelief in that.



My understanding of Christianity is not based off of young earthers ,I am just eliminating the loose ends and trying to get to specifics.

Can you explain who else was on earth, how long they most likely had been on earth, and did these humans evolve over time to get to the final product of where God whipped up Adam into a fully developed "modern" form of human?
Are you saying there were millions of years of human ancestors that eventually evolved into modern humans but God decided to make one special man and one special woman in order to make a covenant with?


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> My understanding of Christianity is not based off of young earthers ,I am just eliminating the loose ends and trying to get to specifics.
> 
> Can you explain who else was on earth, how long they most likely had been on earth, and did these humans evolve over time to get to the final product of where God whipped up Adam into a fully developed "modern" form of human?
> Are you saying there were millions of years of human ancestors that eventually evolved into modern humans but God decided to make one special man and one special woman in order to make a covenant with?



There were many more Homo Sapiens on earth at the time God chose Adam. I don't know how many and I don't know for how long.

God brought Adam in out of darkness ( a place of no communion with God) and placed him in the garden where he could have (spiritual life) or be in communion with God.

When Adam sinned, he died spiritually and was cast out of the garden..but God covered him with animal skins... Animal sacrifice, covered the interest due on the debt of sin, so to speak.

 That system lasted till Christ came and made the ultimate sacrifice and sin debt was paid in full. Now man is saved by the blood of Christ, and that blood covers our sin that we may once again have communion with God and life eternal.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> There were many more Homo Sapiens on earth at the time God chose Adam. I don't know how many and I don't know for how long.
> 
> God brought Adam in out of darkness ( a place of no communion with God) and placed him in the garden where he could have (spiritual life) or be in communion with God.
> 
> ...



Now wait a minute, I don't want to miss anything here so I want to take it slow. 

When you say there were many more homo sapiens on earth and God brought Adam in out of the darkness What EXACTLY do you mean?


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Now wait a minute, I don't want to miss anything here so I want to take it slow.
> 
> When you say there were many more homo sapiens on earth and God brought Adam in out of the darkness What EXACTLY do you mean?



He brought Adam into direct relationship with Him.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> He brought Adam into direct relationship with Him.


How?
Was Adam alive and living his life and God brought him into the garden to have this direct relationship? 
OR
Did God whip him up from scratch out of the dust and make him a grown modern man so he could have an adult to work with?


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> How?
> Was Adam alive and living his life and God brought him into the garden to have this direct relationship?
> OR
> Did God whip him up from scratch out of the dust and make him a grown modern man so he could have an adult to work with?



Option #1


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Option #1


Okay
On one hand I am kind of glad you put yourself out on that limb and were able to take the story and put it in a version that makes sense to you.
On the other hand I am interested in you connecting those dots of what is written in the bible and how you have come to your version.

Please take it slow enough that I can follow. I do not think that I have been more interested
in a conversation in here than right now.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm not sure where to begin. I thought we had discussed some of this before.  I can give you my opinion and the logic I use to any specific questions you may have. I'm glad you're interested in this. I came to this conclusion with the help of a man I converse with in a study group I participate in. His name is Jeff Vaughn. He's a mathematician with a PhD from California. He and another man Tim Martin, have a book that covers the whole creation account as a covenant creation, not physical.

Here:http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/
You may want to start here: http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/video/what-is-covenant-creation?xg_source=activity

I will have to answer any further questions tomorrow. I go back to work in the morning after having two weeks off. 
 Look forward to the questioning.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 18, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> There were many more Homo Sapiens on earth at the time God chose Adam.



That would contradict these texts.

Gen.3:20
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve ; because she was the MOTHER OF ALL LIVING."

Mark 10:6
From the BEGINNING of creation,God made them(Adam and Eve)male and female.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That would contradict these texts.
> 
> Gen.3:20
> "And Adam called his wife's name Eve ; because she was the MOTHER OF ALL LIVING."
> ...



Actually it doesn't, unless you take a literal over simplified view of it. Then you have major problems explaining who was Cains wife...and where did the people of Nod come from.


Chapter 1 of Genesis, in my opinion (and JL Vaughn and Tim Martin build an incredible case for this), is all about the "dark" and "void" land being a people without covenant. Consider Jeremiah 4 --

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
    and to the heavens, and they had no light.

This is a description of the covenant people being without relationship, i.e. dead. They are formless (Adam was "formed"). They were void (Adam was empty until he was given the "image of God"). The "heavens" had no light. 

Adam was formless and void. He was an infant in the dust left for dead (Ezekiel 16). God said "Live!" (Ezekiel 16). Adam was taken from the dust (humility and nothingness) and placed in Eden. Adam was formed from the "dust of the earth." After his transgression he was returned to the dust from where he came.

Adam was empty. He had no image. Then he was formed in the "image of God," which simply means given covenant status. No one else had God's image after Adam. Christ was the only one after Adam that came in the "image of God." And only those "in Christ" had God's image.

Darkness was the absence of light. The absence of light, as we see in the New Testament is the absence of covenant with Christ. The "heavens," which Hebrews makes abundantly clear was the Temple. After God left the Old Covenant Temple, He dwelt with His people. The "heavens" became the people and the "light" dwelt within them. They passed from darkness (emptiness, void) to light.

Revelation 21-22 are almost a mirror image of Genesis 1-2 in so many ways.

Once you apply the correct construct (a covenant context) to words like dark, light, void, form, image, etc, then the rest of Scripture makes sense. So it's about redemptive history - not biology or biological history....D.Curlee


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Actually it doesn't, unless you take a literal over simplified view of it. Then you have major problems explaining who was Cains wife...and where did the people of Nod come from.
> 
> 
> Chapter 1 of Genesis, in my opinion (and JL Vaughn and Tim Martin build an incredible case for this), is all about the "dark" and "void" land being a people without covenant. Consider Jeremiah 4 --
> ...


Once you apply "correct" construct to anything you can make it fit however you want.
You can correctly construct that the bible is the script for the Star Wars series, of course if applied properly.

I have a hard time making the connections of what dark, void, light, form, and image meant to civilized people 6000 years ago and what it  can be twisted to mean today.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Once you apply "correct" construct to anything you can make it fit however you want.
> You can correctly construct that the bible is the script for the Star Wars series, of course if applied properly.
> 
> I have a hard time making the connections of what dark, void, light, form, and image meant to civilized people 6000 years ago and what it  can be twisted to mean today.



Yes, but when you apply the " correct" construct everything fits. From Genesis to Revelation without any grey areas or verses to avoid. 

 It's difficult for anyone to understand the civilization of 6,000 years ago. There's cultural considerations, language, and their world view.  They considered the world to be local, as far as they knew it was a small world.

Much of the written language in those times were pictographic and were lost in understanding to later civilizations.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Actually it doesn't, unless you take a literal over simplified view of it. Then you have major problems explaining who was Cains wife...and where did the people of Nod come from.



No problem at all when you consider God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". I believe they did just that. Why would God command this if the world was already inhabited?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No problem at all when you consider God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". I believe they did just that. Why would God command this if the world was already inhabited?



To Hobbs point, did he command to have incest and then later say it is wrong and then cause folks to have incest again after the flood?
Wouldn't the world being already populated solve for this? Not sure how to get around it after the flood.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> To Hobbs point, did he command to have incest and then later say it is wrong and then cause folks to have incest again after the flood?
> Wouldn't the world being already populated solve for this? Not sure how to get around it after the flood.



The flood was a local event and not global.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The flood was a local event and not global.



Well, yea. We know that but...


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The flood was a local event and not global.



Seashells on mountain tops all over the world say different...among all the other evidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Seashells on mountain tops all over the world say different...among all the other evidence.



Do you believe in plate tectonics?


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> Well, yea. We know that but...



After the flood his sons with their wives scattered out to different areas, therefore their children would not have to marry one another, but people of other nations of different languages.

Genesis10 Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3 The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath,and Togarmah. 4 The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

There's a common theme in the bible started with Gods chosen. From Adam, then the descendants of Seth. That lineage is always the people recorded as being very old. I don't think they lived an actual 600- 900 years but that was representative of how obedient a life they lived with God. 1,000 being a perfect number, none of which lived to be.

 None the less, all people that are recorded as living very long lives are Gods chosen from the lineage of Seth.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do you believe in plate tectonics?



Yes.
Do you believe plate tectonics could take place during a global flood?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Seashells on mountain tops all over the world say different...among all the other evidence.



You do know how mountains are formed, right?
If you don't, mountains/mountain ranges are formed by plates, some are under the ocean, smashing together and rising up. 
Of course, there are volcanic 'mountains' but, different lesson.
There are other methods too but, this should suffice. 
Now, you know how seashells got on mountain tops.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Seashells on mountain tops all over the world say different...among all the other evidence.



I personally found a fossilized tree root on a hilltop in eastern KY. This tree was a tropical tree that grew on seashores. 

 Think about that.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.
> Do you believe plate tectonics could take place during a global flood?



Tectonics happen all the time. Could a mountain range be formed in a year by tectonics? Doubtful based on their rate of movement.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.
> Do you believe plate tectonics could take place during a global flood?



Well, I'm skeptical about a truly global flood, but yes, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that plate tectonics have been occurring for the entirety of the earth's life so there's no reason for one to stop because of the other. Especially given that it's still going on miles under the ocean right now.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, I'm skeptical about a truly global flood, but yes, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that plate tectonics have been occurring for the entirety of the earth's life so there's no reason for one to stop because of the other. Especially given that it's still going on miles under the ocean right now.



Gen.7:11 says in one day the fountains of the deep were broken up and the waters prevailed upon the earth.
Sounds alot like something may have been doing some sudden shifting to allow all that water to come to the surface.Think some mountains could have been formed?Think a few million seashells could have been scattered?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The flood was a local event and not global.



Gen.7:19
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth;and ALL the high hills,that were under the WHOLE heaven were covered."

If all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered,how is this only a local flood?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Gen.7:11 says in one day the fountains of the deep were broken up and the waters prevailed upon the earth.
> Sounds alot like something may have been doing some sudden shifting to allow all that water to come to the surface.Think some mountains could have been formed?Think a few million seashells could have been scattered?



Yeah, I think, because we can observe it, that mountains are formed in tectoniic movement. Shells can be transported in some cases to the tops of mountains. 

But there's nothing to suggest that any of this happened "suddenly," outside of your source. Which reminds me of this:


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered,how is this only a local flood?



Did anyone turn on the weather channel and see what it was doing in Kansas? Of course not.
They looked out, it was flooded, it was THEIR entire world.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> Did anyone turn on the weather channel and see what it was doing in Kansas? Of course not.
> They looked out, it was flooded, it was THEIR entire world.



No,Gen.7:19 was inspired by God to be recorded,Who sees all,even Kansas.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No,Gen.7:19 was inspired by God to be recorded,



Good one. 
Who said that it was inspired by God?
Oh yea. The bible. 

Do you see a flaw in that reasoning?



> Who sees all,even Kansas.


 Yet didn't inspire the bible authors to describe the earth as a sphere orbiting around the sun.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

"And it leads me to my proposal: that just as God chose Israel from the rest of humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation."~ N.T. Wright, (excursus from 'The Lost World of Adam and Eve' by John H. Walton, 2015)


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No,Gen.7:19 was inspired by God to be recorded,Who sees all,even Kansas.



Yes the Bible is the inspired word of God, that I agree, but Kansas was not part of the whole world to the knowledge of the people of that time.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Seashells on mountain tops all over the world say different...among all the other evidence.


Nonsense.
Those mountain tops were once sea floors. Plate movements made  them push up.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, but when you apply the " correct" construct everything fits. From Genesis to Revelation without any grey areas or verses to avoid.
> 
> It's difficult for anyone to understand the civilization of 6,000 years ago. There's cultural considerations, language, and their world view.  They considered the world to be local, as far as they knew it was a small world.
> 
> Much of the written language in those times were pictographic and were lost in understanding to later civilizations.


In your case "correct" means the proper spin to allow it to fit.
It is not correct as in factually accurate.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> In your case "correct" means the proper spin to allow it to fit.
> It is not correct as in factually accurate.


That's your opinion.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes the Bible is the inspired word of God, that I agree, but Kansas was not part of the whole world to the knowledge of the people of that time.



Gen.7:19 doesn't just include the "known world",because it says ALL the high hills UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN.

Are you gonna twist it a little more and say it was just the "known whole heaven"?


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Gen.7:19 doesn't just include the "known world",because it says ALL the high hills UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN.
> 
> Are you gonna twist it a little more and say it was just the "known whole heaven"?




I'm not twisting. The heaven here is the ( sky) above them at their location.

Here, there's more than enough info here to prove just how silly the thought of a global flood is:
http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

I wish Bullethead to take a few moments with this link also since he accused me of twisting too.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not twisting. The heaven here is the ( sky) above them at their location.
> 
> Here, there's more than enough info here to prove just how silly the thought of a global flood is:
> http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html
> ...


I will certainly read it.
But I am and have always been against the global flood idea, just to be clear.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I will certainly read it.
> But I am and have always been against the global flood idea, just to be clear.



Thank you, I just wanted to point out there is a biblical reason also to not believe in a global flood. From what I've read the global flood idea is somewhat new to the church coming in by way of false propetess Ellen G White of the SDA and the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the century.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No problem at all when you consider God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". I believe they did just that. Why would God command this if the world was already inhabited?



Eve was the mother of all living. The opposite of living is death. God needed Adam & Eve to multiply for a specific bloodline. This particular bloodline had a covenant with God through Adam. This particular bloodline would be where Noah, Moses, and Abraham would come from.

Now when Adam sinned did it affect all of the men outside of this bloodline? When Adam sinned did it bring sin to every man on the face of the earth?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> Good one.
> Who said that it was inspired by God?
> Oh yea. The bible.
> 
> ...



Nor did he inspire man to understand the "heart" isn't where our emotions, evil, and righteousness come from.

I contend God gives man limited knowledge through the ages or gives us the ability to improve our knowledge through science and education as time progresses.

Therefore it wasn't given by God that the earth was round and orbited the sun. It wasn't given that our brain is where love and hate originate. It wasn't revealed that a rainbow was a prism.

It wasn't revealed to the flood victims that it was a local flood. To them it was the whole world because it was their world. It was their whole sky(heaven). The whole world means different things in scripture as does life, death, light, and darkness.
It mostly has to do with either being a part of God or being separated from God. Light is knowledge. Jesus was the light. The truth is the light.

My world, your world, God's world. Physical death, spiritual death, separation.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not twisting. The heaven here is the ( sky) above them at their location.
> 
> Here, there's more than enough info here to prove just how silly the thought of a global flood is:
> http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html



None of the arguments in your link carry much weight.
There is evidence all over the earth supporting a sudden catastrophic flood.Im not talking about just a lot of rain.Im talking about things happening beneath the earths crust to force water to the surface.Things died suddenly and were fossilized right where they stood as large volumes of sediment avalanched over everything.

Just as God moved things to bring the water up,He moved things to bring it back down.

The sloth in Australia didn't have to walk anywhere.Continental drift took care of that for him(Peleg's day,Gen.10)

As far as the giants,there were giants before the flood and after the flood.What's the point.Its called genetic mutation.

That's physical evidence,but now for the spiritual evidence for global flood:
"Noah found grace in the sight of God"
The flood is a picture of God's grace in the place of great judgement.
The ark represents Jesus our saviour.If you are not in Jesus(ark),you will be destroyed.period.

If the flood was only local,then the picture of grace makes no sense at all,because there would be some who escaped destruction without being saved by the ark(Jesus).


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If the flood was only local,then the picture of grace makes no sense at all,because there would be some who escaped destruction without being saved by the ark(Jesus).



Aren't you a believer in predestination?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Aren't you a believer in predestination?



Yes.Noah was predestined to be saved(not just physically but also spiritually).It says he was justified.

But here's my point: "There is no other name whereby ye may be saved"(Jesus).
If the flood was only local,there were people,not in the ark who were saved by another way. That's not how grace works.I think you would agree?


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.Noah was predestined to be saved(not just physically but also spiritually).It says he was justified.
> 
> But here's my point: "There is no other name whereby ye may be saved"(Jesus).
> If the flood was only local,there were people,not in the ark who were saved by another way. That's not how grace works.I think you would agree?



Before I respond I need to verify your thoughts on something.
 Were there people outside of the realm of Noah's preaching at the time of the flood?


----------



## Madman (Nov 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> Christianity:
> the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies



Griz had the answer all along.  And he let us just stumble around.

Silly boy.


----------



## Madman (Nov 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> To Hobbs point, did he command to have incest and then later say it is wrong and then cause folks to have incest again after the flood?
> Wouldn't the world being already populated solve for this? Not sure how to get around it after the flood.



Why are there current laws against incest?  Did God forbid incest and when?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Before I respond I need to verify your thoughts on something.
> Were there people outside of the realm of Noah's preaching at the time of the flood?



I can only speculate but my guess is yes.
Not sure how thats relevant though because its not preaching at saves,its the grace of God.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I can only speculate but my guess is yes.
> Not sure how thats relevant though because its not preaching at saves,its the grace of God.



Well, there was no spiritual Salvation in the old covenant anyway. That's the hope they were awaiting.

The reason I ask is, if you say all people were in the realm of Noah's preaching then the need for a global flood by your own admission is void.

 The other aspect of this is, if God destroyed people that never heard of God, how can you claim that is grace? Grace is love that comes to us undeserved, its not punishment.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Well, there was no spiritual Salvation in the old covenant anyway. That's the hope they were awaiting.
> 
> The reason I ask is, if you say all people were in the realm of Noah's preaching then the need for a global flood by your own admission is void.
> 
> The other aspect of this is, if God destroyed people that never heard of God, how can you claim that is grace? Grace is love that comes to us undeserved, its not punishment.



Your 1st point: People in the old covenant had salvation,they just had not recieved the promise.But (ie. Abraham),"he saw them afar off".How did he "see"?By the inner working of the Holy Spirit.David "was made to hope on his mother's breast".How? The Holy Spirit.

Your 2nd point: I said I don't know if everyone heard Noah's preaching.but probably not because I'm sure there were unborn babies and such.It's irrelevant anyway.The preaching does not save.

Your 3rd point: Everyone in Noah's time deserved to be destroyed(including Noah),because ALL are guilty,regardless of whether or not we've heard audible preaching. Noah,however found grace,in spite of his guilt.He was said to be just.Who made him just? Jesus...salvation in the old covenant.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 20, 2015)

Madman said:


> Why are there current laws against incest?


 I would assume it has to do with health issues of babies and probably scripture. Nature doesn't like inbreeding.


> Did God forbid incest and when?


Not sure about God but, the bible says:
“‘Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Another:
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. ...


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Your 1st point: People in the old covenant had salvation,they just had not recieved the promise.But (ie. Abraham),"he saw them afar off".How did he "see"?By the inner working of the Holy Spirit.David "was made to hope on his mother's breast".How? The Holy Spirit.
> 
> Your 2nd point: I said I don't know if everyone heard Noah's preaching.but probably not because I'm sure there were unborn babies and such.It's irrelevant anyway.The preaching does not save.
> 
> Your 3rd point: Everyone in Noah's time deserved to be destroyed(including Noah),because ALL are guilty,regardless of whether or not we've heard audible preaching. Noah,however found grace,in spite of his guilt.He was said to be just.Who made him just? Jesus...salvation in the old covenant.



1. The promise was afar off from the days of Abraham..The promise is eternal life.. Eternal life is the gift of Salvation. Abraham was saved and received the promise of eternal life at the resurrection, which was the hope of Israel, not the church.....that's all I'm going to say about that in this thread.

Back to the topic at hand. Your " not knowing" if mankind lived outside the realm of Noah's preaching is a big deal. Whether they were saved by preaching or not makes no difference. If all of mankind lived somewhere close to the ark then all of mankind could have been destroyed by a local flood.

If you believe a global flood took place to kill 
Off a local population of man that's ludicrous. Noah would have to house animals and plants from all over the world just so God could kill off a local population.

Your other option by not knowing, is that there was a global flood to kill man off the entire globe, North America, South America, Asia , Africa, Europe, Australia, and the poor penquins in Antarctica.
 This option is not feasible. The ark was not physically big enough, there wasn't enough family members of Noah to care for that many animals.

 It was a local flood for a local population of man. The strict literal interpretation you demand on the language will not work, the link I provided above proves this in many verses, such as Cain being cast off the face of earth...really? Do you believe he was taken off the planet?


----------



## Madman (Nov 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I would assume it has to do with health issues of babies and probably scripture. Nature doesn't like inbreeding.
> 
> Not sure about God but, the bible says:
> “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
> ...



From a Biblical perspective the problem with inbreeding has to do with genetic problems.

If people were genetically perfect in the beginning the there is no problem with inbreeding. It is later in Leviticus that God forbids it.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> 1. The promise was afar off from the days of Abraham..The promise is eternal life.. Eternal life is the gift of Salvation. Abraham was saved and received the promise of eternal life at the resurrection, which was the hope of Israel, not the church.....that's all I'm going to say about that in this thread.
> 
> Back to the topic at hand. Your " not knowing" if mankind lived outside the realm of Noah's preaching is a big deal. Whether they were saved by preaching or not makes no difference. If all of mankind lived somewhere close to the ark then all of mankind could have been destroyed by a local flood.
> 
> ...



Oh ye of little faith...Is anything too hard for God?

Gen.6:20 says the animals actually came to the ark.Noah did not have to go find them,they came.And yes the ark was exactly the right size.
You ask how they came from North America and Antarctica and Australia? The continents were not separated yet.That happened later in Gen.25:10.
The earth at that time was one big land mass.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Oh ye of little faith...Is anything too hard for God?
> 
> Gen.6:20 says the animals actually came to the ark.Noah did not have to go find them,they came.And yes the ark was exactly the right size.
> You ask how they came from North America and Antarctica and Australia? The continents were not separated yet.That happened later in Gen.25:10.
> The earth at that time was one big land mass.



Genesis 25:10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Genesis 25:10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.



Oops. Sorry
I meant Gen.10:25.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

Two staunch believers in the same god, both using the same bible, and neither believes like the other.
Priceless.
That is why religion is a crock


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Two staunch believers in the same god, both using the same bible, and neither believes like the other.
> Priceless.
> That is why religion is a crock



I knew that was coming.

Like you atheists don't have debates .

So what if we have disagreements.It's not like it's the end of the world....yet.  hehe


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Two staunch believers in the same god, both using the same bible, and neither believes like the other.
> Priceless.
> That is why religion is a crock



 I agree to an extent, but I don't think your observation holds any measure of weight to make a determination about anything...That is until all unbelievers come together in total agreement .


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I knew that was coming.
> 
> Like you atheists don't have debates .
> 
> So what if we have disagreements.It's not like it's the end of the world....yet.  hehe




The end has come already!


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The end has come already!



Yeah. Of the temple sacrifice.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yeah. Of the temple sacrifice.


...


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I knew that was coming.
> 
> Like you atheists don't have debates .
> 
> So what if we have disagreements.It's not like it's the end of the world....yet.  hehe


I will tell you why it is so different. 
Each of you (and the other couple billion) believers try to tell us how capable this god is, how it can design the intricacies of the Universe, how it has thought out the complexities eons before they happen and  yet it cannot write its own handbook. It cannot inspire writers to use words that are clear and concise. It absolutely is unable to get a clear message out to its own believers let alone any sort of universal message to be understood by all. It is helpless against man and I think it is because man is his own version of the god he so wants to worship.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I agree to an extent, but I don't think your observation holds any measure of weight to make a determination about anything...That is until all unbelievers come together in total agreement .


Problem with your post above is the unbelievers do not have to come together in total agreement. We are not making outlandish claims. We are not saying anything is perfect, all mighy, all knowing or all powerful.
We have many reasons that show, using YOUR bible, why those things above  just simply are not true. Your god as portrayed in his own story book is as ungodlike as can be.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I will tell you why it is so different.
> Each of you (and the other couple billion) believers try to tell us how capable this god is, how it can design the intricacies of the Universe, how it has thought out the complexities eons before they happen and  yet it cannot write its own handbook. It cannot inspire writers to use words that are clear and concise. It absolutely is unable to get a clear message out to its own believers let alone any sort of universal message to be understood by all. It is helpless against man and I think it is because man is his own version of the god he so wants to worship.



I don't agree. The more you seek Him,the more He reveals to you.He doesn't give it to you all at once and it doesn't come without effort.Sometimes we have to "wrestle" for it.But He places in His people a certain hunger and thirst for more knowledge and understanding.

But He also said those that are not His will reject it and suppress it.It's by design.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Problem with your post above is the unbelievers do not have to come together in total agreement. We are not making outlandish claims. We are not saying anything is perfect, all mighy, all knowing or all powerful.
> We have many reasons that show, using YOUR bible, why those things above  just simply are not true. Your god as portrayed in his own story book is as ungodlike as can be.



The problem with your point is you put a higher standard on Christians than non believers. Believing is not about bible knowledge. Many believers are at different stages in knowledge of the Bible...some have possibly never read a single verse, but have heard the Gospel preached and had an experience with faith. 
 Part of my desire as a believer is to know scripture. I get great spiritual pleasure out of reading and understanding things that was once foreign to me....I especially enjoy the Eschatology of the Bible. Some have no desire at all, but have another passion.
 God Bless.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't agree. The more you seek Him,the more He reveals to you.He doesn't give it to you all at once and it doesn't come without effort.Sometimes we have to "wrestle" for it.But He places in His people a certain hunger and thirst for more knowledge and understanding.
> 
> But He also said those that are not His will reject it and suppress it.It's by design.


Total make believe right there.
Is seeked. I asked. I begged. 
Don't tell me I did it wrong or was not sincere.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The problem with your point is you put a higher standard on Christians than non believers. Believing is not about bible knowledge. Many believers are at different stages in knowledge of the Bible...some have possibly never read a single verse, but have heard the Gospel preached and had an experience with faith.
> Part of my desire as a believer is to know scripture. I get great spiritual pleasure out of reading and understanding things that was once foreign to me....I especially enjoy the Eschatology of the Bible. Some have no desire at all, but have another passion.
> God Bless.


Well sure I do, non believers are not the ones making wild claims that they absolutely cannot back up.
How can you claim to understand scripture and Welder claim to understand scripture and each tell me two different meanings about the same verse, while each thinking the other obviously isn't as touched by god because they have got the wrong understanding? ?

I seriously doubt you know anything more about an actual god than Welder does, or me, or anyone else currently on this planet, or anyone that has ever lived or ever will live.
I think many people are knowledgeable about scripture as far as being able to recite it but there are as many different interpretations of it as there are believers with each claiming THEY can understand it. THEY are special because god chose them.
It really is one of the things that is proof to me that there is absolutely no god involved in any of it.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Well sure I do, non believers are not the ones making wild claims that they absolutely cannot back up.
> How can you claim to understand scripture and Welder claim to understand scripture and each tell me two different meanings about the same verse, while each thinking the other obviously isn't as touched by god because they have got the wrong understanding? ?
> 
> I seriously doubt you know anything more about an actual god than Welder does, or me, or anyone else currently on this planet, or anyone that has ever lived or ever will live.
> ...



If the Holy Spirit ever comes to you and reveals Himself to you,you will have a complete about-face,I assure you.I may not understand alot of things,but this I know for sure.

It happened to Paul and the thief on the cross and me also.He can just as easily do it for you also if He chooses.It's up to Him.

And that ain't make believe.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If the Holy Spirit ever comes to you and reveals Himself to you,you will have a complete about-face,I assure you.I may not understand alot of things,but this I know for sure.
> 
> It happened to Paul and the thief on the cross and me also.He can just as easily do it for you also if He chooses.It's up to Him.
> 
> And that ain't make believe.


Now wait now wait now wait now wait just a minute.
I cannot take your advice seriously at all.
You told me that if I seek Him he will answer. The bible tells me that also.
The IF was reality.
I did.
I did for many years.

Now you are giving me another different IF scenario. IF he chooses to help me now.

As brash as you are in your claims I will also be as brash.
It didn't happen to Paul and it didn't happen to the theif on the cross.

You say that ain't make believe and I say it is lies.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Now wait now wait now wait now wait just a minute.
> I cannot take your advice seriously at all.
> You told me that if I seek Him he will answer. The bible tells me that also.
> The IF was reality.
> ...



I can't believe welderguy told you that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 20, 2015)

If Election is true then it matters not what me, welderguy, or hobbs believe the bible says. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. 
When God elects, that person is filled with the Holy Spirit and they are fully aware of that filling.
This is why there are scriptures that say "and such were some of you but you were washed."
From that moment on it's all a bunch of formalities if you will. The definition of these formalities or what happens after salvation  is where we all differ.

I do agree that some Christians place more emphasis on these formalities as if they are part of the proof of salvation. They believe one must believe scripture as they believe scripture as proof of salvation. Salvation doesn't work that way.
I believe as welderguy, salvation is from God, not who has heard the preacher.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Oops. Sorry
> I meant Gen.10:25.



Interesting that they are talking about people and lineage and one mention of division and it is related to continental drift.
Could we say the earth is divided by lineage, religions, countries, philosophies, races, oceans, climates, heavens, iron curtains, walls, and on and on?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If Election is true then it matters not what me, welderguy, or hobbs believe the bible says. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
> When God elects, that person is filled with the Holy Spirit and they are fully aware of that filling.
> This is why there are scriptures that say "and such were some of you but you were washed."
> From that moment on it's all a bunch of formalities if you will. The definition of these formalities or what happens after salvation  is where we all differ.
> ...



Well see this is the stuff that I am talking about regarding you believers.
IF election
IF I seek
IF he chooses

It is ALWAYS something else.

Everybody tells me what a complex god it is with an understanding beyond human comprehension then in the next breath they tell me what I need to do because He is this, He wants that,He thinks like this, He will do that....as if he follows a script made by the individual. Then when the multiple scripts are followed to the T and still nothing happens the rules change yet again.

Ive been there and done that and am even less of a beliver because of it.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Now wait now wait now wait now wait just a minute.
> I cannot take your advice seriously at all.
> You told me that if I seek Him he will answer. The bible tells me that also.
> The IF was reality.
> ...



I think you may be getting the order of events mixed up.(cart before the horse)

1)The Holy Spirit must first draw you.(John 6:44)

" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

2)He then gives you a new heart,one that wants to serve Him(Ezek.36:26-27)

" A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

Theres a lot of people out there trying to accomplish #2(of themselves),when #1 has not been done.That is a works salvation,which is no salvation at all.

It must be ALL of grace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Well see this is the stuff that I am talking about regarding you believers.
> IF election
> IF I seek
> IF he chooses
> ...



I can feel your pain but agree with welderguy's response in #199. That being said, there's not much for you to do about it. Just relax and go with the flow. Forget all of those "ifs." Those guys are way off base. 
God definitely isn't following any script made by an individual. Not by me, you, a homosexual, or a Muslim.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what "believers" believe. I wouldn't even put any emphasis on what you believe. 
If it will, it will and if it won't, it won't.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think you may be getting the order of events mixed up.(cart before the horse)
> 
> 1)The Holy Spirit must first draw you.(John 6:44)
> 
> ...


Why would anyone have to seek the holy spirit at all, ever, if the HS must first draw you?
If you are drawn, seeking cannot happen.

If predestination is true none of the above means anything. No order is needed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can feel your pain but agree with welderguy's response in #199. That being said, there's not much for you to do about it. Just relax and go with the flow. Forget all of those "ifs." Those guys are way off base.
> God definitely isn't following any script made by an individual. Not by me, you, a homosexual, or a Muslim.
> I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what "believers" believe. I wouldn't even put any emphasis on what you believe.
> If it will, it will and if it won't, it won't.



Or, it will if its already predestined.
It can never happen if it is not predestined.

Should I not do as the bible commands and suggests? It doesn't say I should sit back and see what happens.

One verse tells me that all I have to do is ask.
Another says I should seek.
Yet another tells me I must first be drawn.

I am beginning to think these writers were not getting their information from the same god or any god at all.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Or, it will if its already predestined.
> It can never happen if it is not predestined.
> 
> Should I not do as the bible commands and suggests? It doesn't say I should sit back and see what happens.
> ...



And you are "without excuse." I don't understand it all myself. Perhaps I am as you. If it hasn't all been revealed to me, do I still have salvation? 
Perhaps just by questioning my salvation means I don't have it. Yet I do feel the dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Yet we are all without excuse to not worship God. Sounds like a catch 22.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> And you are "without excuse." I don't understand it all myself. Perhaps I am as you. If it hasn't all been revealed to me, do I still have salvation?
> Perhaps just by questioning my salvation means I don't have it. Yet I do feel the dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
> Yet we are all without excuse to not worship God. Sounds like a catch 22.


I would love to know how you are certain that what you feel is the Holy Spirit and not another entity that is tricking you or just an emotional feeling you get like when something you say, do or think about makes you happy.
Some people have a song or movie or memory of an event or even a make believe fantasy that is so favorable to them that no matter how bad their day is going will snap them out of it and immediately give them a better mood. Basically even you admit to not understanding it all so when times arise that have you in a bind or in need of a lift something in your brain takes you to your happy place and you think that you now have a Holy Spirit buddy that will help you through the bad times and is there to share the good times too. 
My list of actual close friends would not fill the fingers on one hand but for those friends that I consider my closest I would defend them to beyond the point of embarassment.
I think believers do the same thing, only to a friend that exists only in their minds.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think you may be getting the order of events mixed up.(cart before the horse)
> 
> 1)The Holy Spirit must first draw you.(John 6:44)
> 
> ...


It baffles me that you can believe something like the above and then turn around and justify something like the flood as being "their own fault" 
Of course I don't blame my truck for running out of gas either so maybe it's just a flaw in my reasoning.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It baffles me that you can believe something like the above and then turn around and justify something like the flood as being "their own fault"
> Of course I don't blame my truck for running out of gas either so maybe it's just a flaw in my reasoning.



I don't think people were destroyed in a flood that weren't directly in covenant with God.

The Covenant is a legal binding contract. In scripture its often referred to as a marriage contract. The ( Day of the Lord) or the many destructions of man in the Bible by way of God are referred to as a divorce decree.

 You can't divorce someone you were never married to.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think people were destroyed in a flood that weren't directly in covenant with God.
> 
> The Covenant is a legal binding contract. In scripture its often referred to as a marriage contract. The ( Day of the Lord) or the many destructions of man in the Bible by way of God are referred to as a divorce decree.
> 
> You can't divorce someone you were never married to.


I can say this with all honesty, I can't make the leap from scripture to reality but I really like the way you can explain scripture.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It baffles me that you can believe something like the above and then turn around and justify something like the flood as being "their own fault"
> Of course I don't blame my truck for running out of gas either so maybe it's just a flaw in my reasoning.



At least you don't punish your truck when it runs out of gas.

I do see how the flood was possible if the people had free will and God was punishing just those people locally that were evil.
Now if the flood was orchestrated in God's original plan to be used by God of a shadow or type or whatever, to show us an example of salvation and Jesus, that's a whole different ballgame.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I can say this with all honesty, I can't make the leap from scripture to reality but I really like the way you can explain scripture.



Hobbs does have a good handle on the law.(lawyer commercial) I like the way he is able to abandon his indoctrination. 
We must all walk that lonesome valley for ourselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I would love to know how you are certain that what you feel is the Holy Spirit and not another entity that is tricking you or just an emotional feeling you get like when something you say, do or think about makes you happy.
> Some people have a song or movie or memory of an event or even a make believe fantasy that is so favorable to them that no matter how bad their day is going will snap them out of it and immediately give them a better mood. Basically even you admit to not understanding it all so when times arise that have you in a bind or in need of a lift something in your brain takes you to your happy place and you think that you now have a Holy Spirit buddy that will help you through the bad times and is there to share the good times too.
> My list of actual close friends would not fill the fingers on one hand but for those friends that I consider my closest I would defend them to beyond the point of embarassment.
> I think believers do the same thing, only to a friend that exists only in their minds.



I'm not certain that it is the Holy Spirit. It could be a false spirit. Perhaps not even a spirit but something in me that makes me feel so "alive" that I think it is the Holy Spirit because my indoctrination tells me that is what it is.

But if salvation is of the lord and God will have mercy on whom he wants from the foundation of the world, it matters not what I believe at this point in time.
It might be that I haven't been called yet. Maybe I've been called but everything hasn't been revealed to me yet. Maybe I'll never be called. It's not my choice.

Let's use the drunkard as an example. He will not inherit the Kingdom. Unless he is effectually called by God. If he is he will have salvation. His election was at the foundation.
Nothing he did or will do has anything to do with his election.

After his calling he was washed. Now with the help of the Holy Spirit he will begin his journey to becoming more like Jesus. This journey/change may take a life time or it might only take a week. It's actually up to the Holy spirit to guide this person to make this change happen in the guideline of God's predestined plan for this person.

"and such were some of you, but you were washed."


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not certain that it is the Holy Spirit. It could be a false spirit. Perhaps not even a spirit but something in me that makes me feel so "alive" that I think it is the Holy Spirit because my indoctrination tells me that is what it is.
> 
> But if salvation is of the lord and God will have mercy on whom he wants from the foundation of the world, it matters not what I believe at this point in time.
> It might be that I haven't been called yet. Maybe I've been called but everything hasn't been revealed to me yet. Maybe I'll never be called. It's not my choice.
> ...


Fair enuff. I appreciate your honesty.


----------



## hobbs27 (Nov 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I can say this with all honesty, I can't make the leap from scripture to reality but I really like the way you can explain scripture.



Thank you very much.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 21, 2015)

Yeah that Hobbs is a great guy.I mean that.

And I have to say also,this new turn that bullet has taken has been pleasant too.
I never imagined he would ever show interest in scripture from anyone.


----------



## Madman (Nov 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Or, it will if its already predestined.
> It can never happen if it is not predestined.
> 
> Should I not do as the bible commands and suggests? It doesn't say I should sit back and see what happens.
> ...




Who has the ability or desire to "ask" of their own will?


----------



## welderguy (Jan 1, 2016)

An apple tree does not produce apples to become an apple tree; It produces apples BECAUSE it's an apple tree.

Same with the children of God.They can't do anything to become children of God; but they produce fruit BECAUSE they are the children of God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 1, 2016)

welderguy said:


> An apple tree does not produce apples to become an apple tree; It produces apples BECAUSE it's an apple tree.
> 
> Same with the children of God.They can't do anything to become children of God; but they produce fruit BECAUSE they are the children of God.


That is a good one to remember.


----------

