← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Knute

Christ Will Not Return

Thread ID: 18177 | Posts: 72 | Started: 2005-05-10

Knute [OP]

2005-05-10 09:28 | User Profile

[color=#000080]In 1984 it was announced that Dr. David Jenkins was to be the new Bishop of Durham - number 4 in the Anglo-Catholic hierarchy.[/color]

[color=navy]This honest prelate came under a vicious attack from politicians who had ruthlessly used the Judaic-Christian ladder to obtain all the top positions in a country (England) where the Church and the state were still established.[/color]

[color=navy]In effect, Dr. Jenkins kicked this ladder away. His only "crime" was to do exactly the same as the great free thinking philosophers Thomas Paine and Arthur Findlay. He blew the whistle on the great religious hoax on the human race.[/color]

[size=3]Christ will not return, says Dr Jenkins[/size]

By Damian Thompson - From The Daily Telegraph, December 14, 1993

THE Bishop of Durham, Dr David Jenkins, has ignited a new row in the Church of England by claiming there is no such thing as eternal damnation or the Second Coming of Christ.

It emerged yesterday that Dr Jenkins, speaking at a recent conference for Anglican lay readers, went further than ever before in challenging orthodox Christian doctrines.

[indent]"I am clear that there can be no Hell for eternity - our God could not be so cruel," he said.

"However, I think for some people who have wasted every opportunity for redemption, there may be extinction . . . I do not think it possible to believe any longer in a literal Second Coming or the end of the world."

[/indent]His comments were condemned last night by the Rt Rev Noel Jones, Bishop of Sodor and Man, who accused Dr Jenkins of "undermining one of the central tenets of Christianity". [indent]He said: "Belief in a Second Coming is one of the prime statements of the faith."[/indent]The latest outburst by Dr Jenkins, who retires next year, will ensure that his career ends as controversially as it began. ln 1984, shortly ofter his consecration, [u]he caused outrage by using the phrase "conjuring trick with bones" in a discussion about the Resurrection.[/u]

He also expressed doubts about the Virgin Birth and claimed it was not necessary to believe in the divinity of Christ to be called a Christian. Thousands of traditionalists petitioned against his consecration, and when York Minster was struck by lightning there was much talk of divine intervention.

In a book published last month, the Archbishop of York, Dr Habgood, strongly defended Dr Jenkins.

"He has said nothing which would have surprised or shocked his fellow theologians," he wrote. "In raising questions about the stories in which these fundamental doctrines are expressed, he has done no more than every theological student is required to do." The Rt Rev David Lunn, Bishop of Sheffield, accused Dr Jenkins last night of making "unhelpful" comments. "The Church may not require us to believe in the physical torments associated with Hell, but that is not the same as saying it does not exist," he said.[color=navy]-----------[/color]

[color=blue]The Times of London's website published an interview and an excerpt from Dr. Jenkins book - The Calling of a Cuckoo:[/color]

[color=blue]From the interview:[/color]**

[color=blue]In his exceedingly frank memoirs, [Dr Jenkins] writes repeatedly that being a Church of England bishop brought him nearer to atheism than anything in his life.[/color]

[color=blue]The venom of the traditionalists within the Church affected him deeply.[/color]

Petr

2005-05-10 10:03 | User Profile

Why was this post necessary? Does this liberal blubbering interest anyone?

Petr

Angler

2005-05-10 13:55 | User Profile

Well, God did supposedly say He was "coming soon." 2000 years is hardly "soon." And while some would say that "2000 years is the blink of an eye to God," God wasn't talking to Himself in when He would be coming soon; He was communicating with people. Why would He deceive them by saying something that would certainly be misinterpreted? If 2000 years is the blink of an eye to God, then so is 2,000,000,000 years. So, if we take God's perspective, the word "soon" is meaningless. If we take man's perspective, 2000 years is anything but "soon." Either way, there's a problem.

Happy Hacker

2005-05-10 14:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]Well, God did supposedly say He was "coming soon." 2000 years is hardly "soon." [/QUOTE]

There's the argument that time is different for God (I'd say time doesn't apply to God's perspective). There's also the argument that the "soon" was just to keep Christians ready (that sounds like a lie). I believe the "soon" meant in regards to judgment, not physically [returning, but] especially in regards to the events of 70AD.

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-05-10 15:00 | User Profile

I'm confused. Does this mean that Bush isn't Jesus?

jay

2005-05-10 15:06 | User Profile

This clown is no different than Andrew Sullivan - a "Republican" gay man who does nothing but bach the Republican Party. Or the "Log Cabin Republicans" - gay people who do nothing but embarrass the party from behind the protective cloak of a title.

This guy has no Christianity in his bones, and should not be identified as such when he's quoted. He's a plant, nothing more, and hiding behind titles or positions doesn't change the fact.....

Ponce

2005-05-10 16:47 | User Profile

To a true Christian Christ never left for he is in you heart and what is in your heart can never leave unless you put it out.

Crist is more than a man but a symbol that represents Chistianity at it's best because without Crist you have no religon and that's why the Jews keeps on trying to kill Christ over and over again, but as long as one man remembers and honors his name he will live in the glory of God and in the mind of man.

Petr

2005-05-10 17:36 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Well, God did supposedly say He was "coming soon." 2000 years is hardly "soon.""[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Learn more about [B]preterism[/B]:(the orthodox version of it)

[COLOR=Red][B]"If I had to sum up in everyday language, I would define preterism as a belief that some substantial portion of Biblical prophecy now taken to refer to the "End Times" actually was fulfilled by 70 AD, coincident with the destruction of Jerusalem"[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.html[/url]

The judgment of [U]the nation of Israel[/U] in 70 AD (40 years after the crucifixion, Biblically important number) and the destruction of its temple which was built and understood as [B]a miniature of the universe[/B] was a [I]figura[/I] for the coming judgment of [U]the whole world.[/U]

According to the preterist interpretation, the "Harlot" in the book of Revelation, chapter 17, is [B]not[/B] Rome (Rome is the "Beast"), but [B]Jerusalem[/B], described as a whoring apostate city (for having rejected Jesus Christ) in a manner similar to OT prophets of doom:

[COLOR=DarkRed] "[I]Third[/I], [B]the harlot is arrayed in the Jewish priestly colors of scarlet, purple, and gold described in Exo. 28[/B].[6] These colors were also found in the Temple: Josephus carefully describes JerusalemÃ¢â¬â¢s Temple tapestry as Ã¢â¬Å[I]Babylonian[/I] tapestry in which blue, purple, scarlet and linen were mingledÃ¢â¬Â (Wars 5:5:4). He does so while giving the color decor of the Temple much emphasis and elaboration.

[B]The harlot even has a blasphemous inscription on her forehead that gives a negative portrayal of the holy inscription which the Jewish high priest wore[/B]. On the high priestÃ¢â¬â¢s forehead we read: Ã¢â¬Å[I]Holy to the Lord[/I]Ã¢â¬Â (Exo. 28:36-38). On the harlotÃ¢â¬â¢s forehead we read: Ã¢â¬Å[I]Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth[/I]Ã¢â¬Â (Rev. 17:5). [B]And she has a gold cup in her hand, as did the high priest on the Day of Atonement, according to the Jewish Talmud[/B].[7] [/COLOR]"

[url]http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt552.htm[/url]

Petr

Hilaire Belloc

2005-05-10 18:23 | User Profile

Damn, Petr beat me to it!

Petr

2005-05-10 18:33 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Damn, Petr beat me to it!" [/I][/B]

(evil laugh)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!

:biggrin: :biggrin:

Seriously, if you have something to say that I didn't mention, by all means tell us!

Petr

Hilaire Belloc

2005-05-10 18:36 | User Profile

Well I guess the fact that 666 clearly refers to Emperor Nero. So the anti-christ has already come and has been defeated.

The Book of Revelation clearly shows that the battle between good and evil is already over(contrary to popular view). Christ through his death has defeated Satan. And Satan is not needed in order for sin to exist, but sin's reign over mankind has ended.

And so on.

jay

2005-05-10 19:19 | User Profile

Go on. Give us more.....on this topic.....

Hilaire Belloc

2005-05-10 19:25 | User Profile

Here's perhaps the best site explaining the Preterist doctrine. [url]http://www.preterist.org/[/url]

In particular [url]http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp[/url]

Petr

2005-05-10 19:33 | User Profile

Quick note, Perun: when dealing with preterism, one must be very careful to avoid heresy.

Are these links of yours promoting heretical [I]ultra[/I]-preterism (pantelism) that denies the physical resurrection of the saints and the coming of the [B]final [/B]judgment day?

Dr. Kenneth Gentry, an orthodox preterist whose article on the Harlot of Revelation I posted below, fiercely attacks heretical preterists here:

[url]http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/gentry-ken_ca_02.html[/url]

Petr

friedrich braun

2005-05-10 20:46 | User Profile

Christ [B]will[/B] return because everybody loves a sequel!

Ponce

2005-05-11 00:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Christ [B]will[/B] return because everybody loves a sequel![/QUOTE]

Nine out of ten time the original is a lot better than the sequel.

Angler

2005-05-11 01:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]There's the argument that time is different for God (I'd say time doesn't apply to God's perspective). I actually addressed that argument in the post just before yours. The problem is that even if time is meaningless to God (as it should be), God isn't talking to Himself when He says, "I am coming soon" -- He's communicating with people. Thus, it would only make sense for Him to use the word "soon" as people understand it. In other words, if 2 years, 2000 years, or 2 trillion years can all mean "soon" to God, then why would He even bother to tell human beings that He's "coming soon"? It would serve no purpose other than to confuse or deceive people.

There's also the argument that the "soon" was just to keep Christians ready (that sounds like a lie). Yes, that would be deceit.

I believe the "soon" meant in regards to judgment, not physically [returning, but] especially in regards to the events of 70AD.[/QUOTE]I do agree that most of Revelation is simply a symbolic retelling of events that had already occurred when the book was written. E.g., I agree with Perun that the number 666 referred to Nero; the numerical values of the Hebrew letters that spell "Caesar Nero" (or something very similar) do indeed add up to 666. (I've seen some utterly laughable attempts to make Pope John Paul II's name or some title of his add up to 666.) But when Revelations ends with Christ saying, "I am coming soon," I think it's pretty clear that the reference is to the Second Coming Jesus described in the Gospels: Him arriving with power and glory on the clouds of Heaven, dividing the sheep from the goats according to who helped the poor and sick, etc.

Petr

2005-05-11 10:46 | User Profile

[B][I] - "(I've seen some utterly laughable attempts to make Pope John Paul II's name or some title of his add up to 666.)"[/I][/B]

Not quite so laughable as might think. (Aren't you an ex-Roman Catholic?)

[COLOR=Indigo][B]The association of "Lateinos" with 666 was first suggested by IrenÃÂ¦us[/B] (ca. 130-202 A.D.) who proposed in his Against Heresies that it might be the name of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7:7. [I] Then also Lateinos has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence].[/I]

...

The ancient Greek word for "[B]the Latin speaking man[/B]" is LATEINOS

L = 30 lambda A = 1 alpha T = 300 tau E = 5 epsilon I = 10 iota N = 50 nu O = 70 omicron S = 200 sigma [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/666.htm[/url]

[B][I] - "But when Revelations ends with Christ saying, "I am coming soon," I think it's pretty clear that the reference is to the Second Coming Jesus described in the Gospels"[/I] [/B] [COLOR=Blue][B] Acts 1:7:

"And he said unto them, [U]It is not for you to know the times or the seasons,[/U] which the Father hath put in his own power." [/B][/COLOR]

Petr

Angler

2005-05-11 12:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "(I've seen some utterly laughable attempts to make Pope John Paul II's name or some title of his add up to 666.)"[/I][/B]

Not quite so laughable as might think. (Aren't you an ex-Roman Catholic?) Yes, I am. I still respect the Catholic Church and even admire it to an extent; I just no longer find its teachings (or "revealed religions" in general) plausible.

Regarding the calculation you posted, that is not the "laughable" one I was referring to. No, the one I saw was downright moronic. Not only was the calculation totally contrived, the author presented other "evidence" that the Pope was the antiChrist, such as the statement that "the Pope received a mortal wound (gunshot) that healed." I vaguely remember seeing that site on the Web years ago, but I don't want to try to hunt it down right now. In any case, the idea that John Paul II was some kind of apocalyptic man of evil is just absurd.

My biblical commentary says that while quite a few candidates for the number 666 have been named, the historical context in which Revelation was written makes Nero the most likely candidate. It makes sense to me, anyway.

Robert

2005-05-13 03:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I actually addressed that argument in the post just before yours. The problem is that even if time is meaningless to God (as it should be), God isn't talking to Himself when He says, "I am coming soon" -- He's communicating with people. Thus, it would only make sense for Him to use the word "soon" as people understand it. In other words, if 2 years, 2000 years, or 2 trillion years can all mean "soon" to God, then why would He even bother to tell human beings that He's "coming soon"? It would serve no purpose other than to confuse or deceive people.

Yes, that would be deceit. [/QUOTE] Angler's struggle reminds me of the Lord's words in Matthew 13:10-11:

<sup id="en-KJV-23550">10</sup>And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?     <sup id="en-KJV-23551">11</sup>He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

I have no trouble understanding what Jesus meant when He said "I come quickly" and "this generation shall not pass." It's not because I'm smart and Angler's dumb. It's a matter of God's choice as to whom He will give understanding and to whom He will not.

Angler

2005-05-13 09:12 | User Profile

[quote=Robert]I have no trouble understanding what Jesus meant when He said "I come quickly" and "this generation shall not pass." It's not because I'm smart and Angler's dumb. It's a matter of God's choice as to whom He will give understanding and to whom He will not.

Okay, here's a little test of your God-given understanding:

What tempted the angel Lucifer to rebel against God and become Satan? Where did that evil temptation come from, if God created Lucifer as good? What caused Lucifer to go bad? If you answer "pride" or "envy of God," then please explain how Lucifer acquired those negative characteristics in the first place. Did they appear out of nowhere? Can something exist without being created by God?

The only resolution of this that I can see is that God would have had to ultimately be the source of the first temptation, either by creating a sinful tendency within Lucifer (e.g., a tendency toward pride) or by some other means. This would make God the author of sin, however. That leads to a contradiction with the conception of God as infinitely holy. Therefore, the story about Lucifer's fall cannot be true -- it's illogical. Do you disagree? Please explain.

Robert

2005-05-13 14:13 | User Profile

Angler, it would be a waste of time to reason with you. Let me explain. I was once as blind as you. I was not an atheist as your are (and I know you call yourself an agnostic), but I was a universalist. I worshipped a false Christ who would save all people. I was completely separated from the true Christ, the Christ of the Bible. I based my universalism on my own human reason, and no amount of reasoning from others would change my mind.

But in what one might call a mystical experience, the Lord broke through the barrier of darkness which had enveloped my mind. I did not want to abandon my universalism. I turned to my human reason in an attempt to hold on to my false doctrines, but God would not let me. He drug me kicking and screaming to the truth.

So, Angler, you are likewise trapped in darkness. You will never be able to reason your way out of your lost condition. It will take direct intervention by God as it did with me. Will God choose to reach you? I don't know. I've prayed that He will. But it's possible that you've been turned over to Satan forever.

brite

2005-05-13 22:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]There's the argument that time is different for God (I'd say time doesn't apply to God's perspective). There's also the argument that the "soon" was just to keep Christians ready (that sounds like a lie). I believe the "soon" meant in regards to judgment, not physically [returning, but] especially in regards to the events of 70AD.[/QUOTE]My understanding: God transcends time. Every soul that was created, at the foundation of the world, must be born and make a choice. Then the end will come. God is really being merciful in giving everyone enough time. When Christ returns, there will be people that are not ready and will be crying out for more time...

folkandfaith

2005-05-13 22:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201]Here's perhaps the best site explaining the Preterist doctrine. [url="http://www.preterist.org/"]http://www.preterist.org/[/url]

In particular [url="http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp"]http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp[/url][/QUOTE] Another good brief on the topic is "Can God Tell Time?"

[url="http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/preston-don_p_09.html"]http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/preston-don_p_09.html[/url]

How very refreshing to see Preterist ideas being talked about outside of the "Christian Separatist" organisation.

Ponce

2005-05-14 02:52 | User Profile

Angler, if you were to believe the Bible then you should know that we were made in the "image" of God, now then, we are good and we are bad so if we were made in his image then why can't he be the same?

As far as Chris goes to me he is a "leap of faith" and if you really blieve in him then he will always be with you and cannot be taken away no matter what anyone says.

People search for the one they call "God" and yet he is already in you and all that you have to do is to open up and accept him.

To me using the word God is to give him a personality and that's why I'd rather call it "The Force" that which is everything and everywhere without gender of form.

Am I nuts? no more than anyone else that has a personal opinion in this matter.

Angler

2005-05-14 14:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, it would be a waste of time to reason with you. You have not attempted to reason with me. You have done nothing but repeatedly make assertions and claims that have not one scintilla of evidence or logic backing them up. Basically, you are saying, "[such-and-such religious dogma] is true just because it is." That is simply not rational thinking. Simply insisting that something is true does not make it true and is not convincing.

Let me explain. I was once as blind as you. I was not an atheist as your are (and I know you call yourself an agnostic)... I am not an atheist; I accept the possibility that a God could exist. If a God does exist, I suspect He is of the Deist variety. Disagree? I'm ready to be convinced. All I require are (1) some compelling reasons to believe in Christianity, and (2) explanations for many historical, logical, and moral inconsistencies regarding Christianity. For example: Why did Josephus write that Jesus was not crucified, but stoned to death for "practicing magic" and attempting to lead Jews astray? Why are there so few writings about the great crowds and furor surrounding Jesus from extra-Biblical sources?

...but I was a universalist. I worshipped a false Christ who would save all people. I was completely separated from the true Christ, the Christ of the Bible. I based my universalism on my own human reason, and no amount of reasoning from others would change my mind. You were closer to the truth the first time, I think, when you were thinking for yourself rather than letting a book compiled by agents of Emperor Constantine usurp the role of your brain.

But in what one might call a mystical experience, the Lord broke through the barrier of darkness which had enveloped my mind. I did not want to abandon my universalism. I turned to my human reason in an attempt to hold on to my false doctrines, but God would not let me. He drug me kicking and screaming to the truth. Many would say that this experience did not come from God at all, but was merely a figment of your imagination. Lots of people have such "mystical experiences," including people from non-Christian religions.

Moreover, many Christians would even call you a heretic for not being a member of their "One True Church." How do you know, for example, that your failure to be a member of the Catholic Church isn't the result of deception by Satan? With what method can you test that?

So, Angler, you are likewise trapped in darkness. You will never be able to reason your way out of your lost condition. It will take direct intervention by God as it did with me. Will God choose to reach you? I don't know. I've prayed that He will. But it's possible that you've been turned over to Satan forever.[/QUOTE] I wish you could realize how silly this stuff sounds. It's make-believe for adults. "Satan" is a cartoon character. He doesn't exist. And if he does, then kindly address the questions about Lucifer's fall I asked in my previous post. Did evil exist before Lucifer's fall? If so, where did it come from? If not, then what tempted Lucifer to rebel? Wouldn't God had to have created Lucifer with some evil (pride, envy) already inside him?

Robert

2005-05-14 16:45 | User Profile

Angler, when I prayed that God open your heart, I believe that I received a message: You have in fact been turned over to Satan forever. You are destined to suffer eternal damnation. Your fate has been sealed.

Petr

2005-05-14 19:55 | User Profile

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "(2) explanations for many historical, logical, and moral inconsistencies regarding Christianity. For example: Why did Josephus write that Jesus was not crucified, but stoned to death for "practicing magic" and attempting to lead Jews astray?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

This is a good example that you aren't nearly as well-educated on these subjects as you think. Josephus mentions Jesus [I]twice,[/I] and this is about the death of [U]James[/U], His brother: [I] [B]Antiquities 20.9.[/B]1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it [B]the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James[/B], together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.[/I]

[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "Why are there so few writings about the great crowds and furor surrounding Jesus from extra-Biblical sources?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

"Few writings?" To begin with, Talmud testifies to this furor well enough. For example: [COLOR=Blue] "And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, [B]because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray[/B]. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. [B]And they hung him on the eve of the Passover.[/B] Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), `Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.' But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] [B]for he was near the kingdom.[/B]'''

(Sanhedrin 43a)

"Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and saw [B]that there was a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray[/B]. Therefore God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written, 'God is not a man that he should lie.' [B]And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end.[/B] He saith and he shall not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said, 'Alas, when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live- of what nation which heareth[B] that man who hath made himself God.[/B]"

(Yalkut Shimeon, [Salonica] sec. 725 on wayissa mishalo [Num. 23. 7], according to Midrash Y'lamm'denue) [/COLOR] [url]http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/talmud_jesus.html[/url]

Just what amount of proof do you want? Many famous historical events are much less well-attested.

Petr

Robert

2005-05-14 22:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE] This is a good example that you aren't nearly as well-educated on these subjects as you think. [/QUOTE] Petr, that is definitely the problem with Angler. He is wise in his own eyes. If he were only 1/2 as smart as he thinks he is, he would be one of the truly great geniuses of human history.

Angler

2005-05-15 06:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, when I prayed that God open your heart, I believe that I received a message: You have in fact been turned over to Satan forever. You are destined to suffer eternal damnation. Your fate has been sealed.[/QUOTE]You're mentally ill, Robert. Seek treatment. And put down those snakes!

Angler

2005-05-15 06:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "(2) explanations for many historical, logical, and moral inconsistencies regarding Christianity. For example: Why did Josephus write that Jesus was not crucified, but stoned to death for "practicing magic" and attempting to lead Jews astray?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "Why are there so few writings about the great crowds and furor surrounding Jesus from extra-Biblical sources?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

"Few writings?" To begin with, Talmud testifies to this furor well enough. For example: [COLOR=Blue] "And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, [B]because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray[/B]. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. [B]And they hung him on the eve of the Passover.[/B] Is this what the Bible says happened? And in any case, how does the above passage indicate that Jesus was divine or special in any way?

"Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and saw [B]that there was a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray[/B]. Therefore God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written, 'God is not a man that he should lie.' [B]And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end.[/B] He saith and he shall not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said, 'Alas, when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live- of what nation which heareth[B] that man who hath made himself God.[/B]"

(Yalkut Shimeon, [Salonica] sec. 725 on wayissa mishalo [Num. 23. 7], according to Midrash Y'lamm'denue) [/COLOR] [url]http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/talmud_jesus.html[/url] Same problem: no evidence of divinity.

Just what amount of proof do you want? All these passages do is indicate that someone existed whom the Jews considered a false messiah. And my understanding is that there was more than one such person.

What I'd like to see is some extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' miracles or resurrection, preferably naming specifics (e.g., "Jesus cured a leper"). Certainly enough people saw those miracles, as the Bible claims that they made Jesus famous. For example, did the Romans write anything about them? Not about the Christians, mind you -- everyone knows Jesus had followers -- but about reports of Jesus curing the sick, raising people from the dead, and that sort of thing?

Many famous historical events are much less well-attested. Can you give an example?

Besides, other historical events are of much less concern to people, as (1) God isn't supposedly threatening people with cruel torments if they don't believe those events happened, and (2) belief in other historical events is rarely life-changing. When the stakes are this high -- when the choice is between a life of freedom or a life bound by religious dogma -- it is very reasonable to demand convincing evidence. Otherwise, why shouldn't someone believe in some other religion that makes similar claims, like Islam?

Also: Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions about Lucifer's fall that seem to have stumped the Godly Robert.

Ponce

2005-05-15 11:00 | User Profile

"Christ Will Never Return?????" to the true Christian Christ never left.

As a non religioun person I say to you "fight the freaking Jews who are killing Christmas and everything that has to do with the traditional holidays of the US".

Robert

2005-05-15 14:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]"Christ Will Never Return?????" to the true Christian Christ never left.

As a non religioun person I say to you "fight the freaking Jews who are killing Christmas and everything that has to do with the traditional holidays of the US".[/QUOTE] Ponce, my first loyalty is to Christ. I will fight any enemy of Christ, whether it be the Jew, you, or that devil worshipper Angler.

Petr

2005-05-15 14:41 | User Profile

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "How does this support the events described in the Bible such as the working of miracles? How does this support the claim that Jesus was divine?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

You apparently don't like to admit of having made even a minor mistake with Josephus, and are now "shifting the goalposts."

[COLOR=Sienna][B] [I] - "Is this what the Bible says happened? And in any case, how does the above passage indicate that Jesus was divine or special in any way?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

We can hardly expect a fair treatment on the subject from the heirs of Pharisees who said that Jesus was doing His mighty works with the power of Beelzebub.

This passage indirectly affirms that Jesus demonstrated supernatural powers - they are just attributed them to witchcraft (like pagan philosopher Celsus also did).

[I] [B][COLOR=Sienna] - "Same problem: no evidence of divinity."[/COLOR][/B][/I]

Ah, but at the very least it testifies that Jesus DID claim to be divine and that He would be resurrected - something that very many "higher critics" like "Jesus Seminar" clowns adamantly refuse to believe!

Besides, it dealt with just the subject you complained about - by saying that Jesus had "[I]caused the whole world to go astray[/I]", it confirms that there were indeed "[I]great crowds and furor surrounding Jesus[/I]". [COLOR=Sienna]

[I][B] - "All these passages do is indicate that someone existed whom the Jews considered a false messiah. And my understanding is that there was more than one such person."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Your understanding is wrong. There were actually NO messianic candidates (besides Jesus) until Bar Kokhba (in 130s AD) - and even he did most certainly not claim to be divine! It was specifically this that so outraged Talmudic rabbis. [COLOR=Sienna] [B][I] - "Certainly enough people saw those miracles, as the Bible claims that they made Jesus famous. For example, did the Romans write anything about them?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Use some common sense - there were practically no Romans in the Judean countryside, and the first real contact Romans had with Jesus was when He entered Jerusalem during the Passion week.

[COLOR=Sienna] [I][B] - "Can you give an example?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Well, for example, a huge chunk of everything modern scholars [I]think[/I] they know about the history of the ancient Near East, Greece included. They are tremendously dependent on the list pharaohs supplied by an Egyptian priest Manetho.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Also: Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions about Lucifer's fall that seem to have stumped the Godly Robert."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

It is simply not our business to know what caused Satan to fall. For all we know, God could have created many different worlds, and our business is simply with our own fallen universe.

[COLOR=Red][B][U]The secret things belong to the LORD our God[/U], but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 29:29[/B][/COLOR]

The one thing that we do know is that Hell was originally prepared for Satan and his angels, [B]not[/B] for men.

[COLOR=Blue][B]Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:41[/B][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Therefore, the story about Lucifer's fall cannot be true -- it's illogical."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Only according to the twisted logic of a fallen man. We shouldn't think too highly about our hopelessly limited, three-dimensional mental capacities.

Petr

Robert

2005-05-15 18:02 | User Profile

Petr, my pastor preached a moving sermon today. A member of our church who was both physically and mentally challenged died two days ago. Yet, this man knew Christ. Therefore, he now has glory in heaven. My pastor pointed out the words of Paul who said that not many of the wise and powerful are called.

So here we have a man with a sub-normal IQ who will experience the glory of eternal life. And, then, we have Angler who claims to have a 2000+ IQ, who apparently has not been chosen for eternal life. God just isn't too impressed with how smart we think we are. I believe that Angler said that he holds a masters in Voodoo Physics. But his masters in Voodoo Physics and his 2000+ or even 3000+ IQ will get him nowhere with God.

BTW, I found a picture of Angler.  He is rather impressive.

[url="http://%3Cimg%20src=http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200306/tos-033-palamas-protects-kirk/320x240.jpg%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E%0AAngler%20Confronts%20Kirk"][img]http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200306/tos-033-palamas-protects-kirk/320x240.jpg[/img] Angler Confronts Kirk[/url]

Angler

2005-05-18 11:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Petr, my pastor preached a moving sermon today. A member of our church who was both physically and mentally challenged died two days ago. Yet, this man knew Christ. Therefore, he now has glory in heaven. My pastor pointed out the words of Paul who said that not many of the wise and powerful are called. That's the great thing about Christianity -- it can make even the weak and simpleminded feel special.

So here we have a man with a sub-normal IQ who will experience the glory of eternal life. Much like yourself, eh?

And, then, we have Angler who claims to have a 2000+ IQ, who apparently has not been chosen for eternal life. God just isn't too impressed with how smart we think we are. I believe that Angler said that he holds a masters in Voodoo Physics. But his masters in Voodoo Physics and his 2000+ or even 3000+ IQ will get him nowhere with God. That's "engineering physics." My IQ is in the 150 range (Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and other tests), not "2000+." And I solemnly fart upon your silly threats of hell.

BTW, I found a picture of Angler. He is rather impressive.

I found a picture of you, too, Robert, but I can't say you're that impressive:

[img]http://www.clowning4christ.com/junior%20and%20lala.jpg[/img]

Angler

2005-05-18 11:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "How does this support the events described in the Bible such as the working of miracles? How does this support the claim that Jesus was divine?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

You apparently don't like to admit of having made even a minor mistake with Josephus, and are now "shifting the goalposts." Let's not nitpick -- "minor" is right. And my object is not to beat you in a debate, but to get evidence for your point of view. Hence, I don't think it's fair to say I'm "shifting the goalposts." If truth's on your side, why should further questioning on my part bother you?

[COLOR=Sienna][B] [I] - "Is this what the Bible says happened? And in any case, how does the above passage indicate that Jesus was divine or special in any way?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

We can hardly expect a fair treatment on the subject from the heirs of Pharisees who said that Jesus was doing His mighty works with the power of Beelzebub. But why would they be motivated to lie about the details of Jesus' prosecution? The Bible doesn't say Jesus was arrested 40 days before his execution.

This passage indirectly affirms that Jesus demonstrated supernatural powers - they are just attributed them to witchcraft (like pagan philosopher Celsus also did). Well, lots of people are capable of doing magic tricks. David Copperfield once made a plane disappear, didn't he? Just the fact that a pagan philosopher believed in magic shows how gullible people were in ancient times. If magic were real, don't you think a lot more people would be using it? There's no such thing as magic. If you go to prison, you can summon the devil all you want: you'll never see the iron doors become magically unlocked.

[I] [B][COLOR=Sienna] - "Same problem: no evidence of divinity."[/COLOR][/B][/I]

Besides, it dealt with just the subject you complained about - by saying that Jesus had "[I]caused the whole world to go astray[/I]", it confirms that there were indeed "[I]great crowds and furor surrounding Jesus[/I]". Well, he obviously didn't cause the "whole world" to go astray. Still, you make a pretty good point. The problem, though, is still why the available historical documentation about Jesus is disproportionately scant in comparison with his supposed popularity and wondrous deeds.

[COLOR=Sienna] [I][B] - "All these passages do is indicate that someone existed whom the Jews considered a false messiah. And my understanding is that there was more than one such person."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Your understanding is wrong. There were actually NO messianic candidates (besides Jesus) until Bar Kokhba (in 130s AD) - and even he did most certainly not claim to be divine! It was specifically this that so outraged Talmudic rabbis. I'm not certain you're right about that, but I'll defer the point to you for now, since it's a question I haven't yet investigated in depth.

[COLOR=Sienna] [B][I] - "Certainly enough people saw those miracles, as the Bible claims that they made Jesus famous. For example, did the Romans write anything about them?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Use some common sense - there were practically no Romans in the Judean countryside, and the first real contact Romans had with Jesus was when He entered Jerusalem during the Passion week. You're saying Jews and Romans had little interaction with each other during those times? I find that hard to swallow.

[COLOR=Sienna] [I][B] - "Can you give an example?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Also: Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions about Lucifer's fall that seem to have stumped the Godly Robert."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

It is simply not our business to know what caused Satan to fall. For all we know, God could have created many different worlds, and our business is simply with our own fallen universe. Regardless of what it was that caused Satan's fall, it MUST have originated with God. Nothing can exist without God causing it to exist, right? Thus, if evil (or the cause of evil) exists, then God caused its existence knowing full well what the consequences would be. That makes God responsible for evil.

[COLOR=Red][B][U]The secret things belong to the LORD our God[/U], but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 29:29[/B][/COLOR] Why should I buy this or the premises it's based on?

The one thing that we do know is that Hell was originally prepared for Satan and his angels, [B]not[/B] for men.

[COLOR=Blue][B]Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:41[/B][/COLOR] Yet God knew very well ahead of time that He would send people there. And God set up the conditions that would cause these conscious, feeling beings to suffer eternally.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Therefore, the story about Lucifer's fall cannot be true -- it's illogical."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Only according to the twisted logic of a fallen man. We shouldn't think too highly about our hopelessly limited, three-dimensional mental capacities. How do you know your logic isn't twisted? Aren't you "fallen," too? How do you know everything you believe doesn't come straight from a great, supernatural deceiver who is testing mankind to see who will think for themselves (in spite of threats like hell) and who will submit without question? There is no way to tell. Thus, our admittedly limited mental capacities are all we have to use in determining reality. If you're not relying on your own human brain, then you're relying on someone else's. There's no escaping that fact.

There nothing wrong with believing in Christianity. What's wrong and irrational, though, is believing in it "because the Bible says so" or because you were raised to believe in it (I know the latter doesn't apply to you personally). A person should weigh the evidence and the arguments and come to his own conclusion. That's all I'm really saying.

Robert

2005-05-19 02:27 | User Profile

Angler, the picture I posted of you was funnier than the one you posted of me. But I guess when you have a 2000+ IQ, as you do, it's hard not to take yourself too seriously.

Here's the thing I don't understand. You have a 2000+ IQ, but Petr is outdebating you. Why?

Here's one possibility. Look at the picture I posted. In that episode, Captain Kirk manages to outfox Apollo. Apollo wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was. Could that be the same with you?

Here's what I think, you've been so indoctrinated, that you can't think straight. You and I have been debating thermodynamics in another thread. You have a Masters Degree in Vodoo Physics. I had little interest in science back in my school days. Yet, my arguments are sounder than yours. Why? You keep mouthing the party line. I'm untrained in the party line, so I try to use common sense instead. If you were trained in honest science instead of Vodoo, and could set aside the party line, you would have the edge over me. But you just repeat the same tired old darwinian establishment arguments, the same ones which creationists have totally trounced, and, as such, you come across as totally unconvincing.

Petr

2005-05-19 04:02 | User Profile

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "But why would they be motivated to lie about the details of Jesus' prosecution? The Bible doesn't say Jesus was arrested 40 days before his execution."[/I][/B] [/COLOR]

Little background information takes you a long way.

Talmudic rabbis liked to magnify their system at every turn, so they made it look like Jesus had been condemned, arrested and dispatched [B]by the book[/B], just according to the formal Talmudic procedure for the treatment of heretics. Like Israel Shahak pointed out, they didn't even mention Romans at all but took all the "credit" for themselves, being [B]proud[/B] of what they had done.

[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "Well, lots of people are capable of doing magic tricks. David Copperfield once made a plane disappear, didn't he?" [/B][/I][/COLOR] Irrelevant and anachronistic. What is essential is that the hostile Talmud confirms the gospel claim (denied by many, many liberal scholars) that Jesus was performing some extraordinary things.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Anyone can claim to be divine. Mental wards are full of such people."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

"Jesus Seminar" fanatically insists that Jesus never claimed divinity for Himself.

Anyways, not just anybody could claim to be divine [B]and[/B] be able to propound so (as widely recognized) uplifting and beautiful teachings and behave so coherently with other people. Welcome to the "[B]Lord, Liar or Lunatic[/B]?" -dilemma.

Check this one out; Jesus is really hard to squeeze into any known category of "messiah lunatics".

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html[/url]

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Well, he obviously didn't cause the "whole world" to go astray. "[/I][/B][/COLOR]

You are reading the remarks of ancient people with wooden literalism. (Do you know what Greek term [I]oicumene[/I] exactly means?) For these rabbis, Jews were pretty much the "whole world", Gentiles being irrelevant, and Jesus Christ took a huge chunk of Jewry away from the influence of rabbis.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "The problem, though, is still why the available historical documentation about Jesus is disproportionately scant in comparison with his supposed popularity and wondrous deeds."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

You have a anachronistic and unrealistic expectations on just what Romans of old would have considered important and worthy of recording. They were [B]very[/B] much into social snobbery, and most historians were patricians who emphatically did [B]not[/B] write for the edification of masses but to amuse fellow aristocrats.

Therefore, to most upper-class writers, even mentioning some hick preacher from some distant non-Roman province and with wild teachings, even if you had heard some miraculous-sounding things about him, would have been quite a [I]faux pas[/I]. You didn't want people to know that you knew such people.

[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "You're saying Jews and Romans had little interaction with each other during those times? I find that hard to swallow."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Once again you put your personal feelings as the measure of truth, whether you can "swallow it" has no impact on the issue.

The Roman administration had no real contact to Jesus until the Passion week - notice how ignorant Pontius Pilate seemed to be about Him and His messianic claims?

[COLOR=Sienna][B] [I] - "Why is Manetho not a reliable source for that information?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue][I]"[B]A more or less arbitrary and artificial but convenient[/B] subdivision of these epochs, beginning with the historic age, is furnished by the so-called dynasties of Manetho. This native historian of Egypt, a priest of Sebennytos, who flourished under Ptolemy I (305-285 B.C.), wrote a history of his country in the Greek language. The work has perished, and we only know it in an epitome by Julius Africanus and Eusebius, and extracts by Josephus. The value of the work was slight, as it was built up on folk tales and popular traditions of the early kings. Manetho divided the long succession of Pharaohs as known to him, into thirty royal houses or dynasties, [B]and although we know that many of his divisions are arbitrary, and that there was many a dynastic change where he indicates none, yet his dynasties divide the kings into convenient groups, which have so long been employed in modern study of Egyptian history, that it is now impossible to dispense with them[/B]." [/I]

[B]This quote from "A History of Egypt" by James Henry Breasted (1905) p. 13-14, tells us from the pen of one of the leading authorities on ancient Egypt, that the basis on which the information of ancient Egyptian dynasties rests, is unreliable, yet it continues in use.[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.anchorstone.com/number3a.html[/url]

And James Jordan expressed his opinion on why exactly secular scholars were so strangely uncritical towards Manetho:

[COLOR=Indigo]"The reason for this blindness is not hard to discern. It lies in the presuppositional hostility of secular scholarship for the Bible. [B]If Manetho cannot be trusted, scholarship must rely much more heavily on the Bible, and that is not regarded as acceptable[/B]."[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch6_01.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Nothing can exist without God causing it to exist, right? Thus, if evil (or the cause of evil) exists, then God caused its existence knowing full well what the consequences would be."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

From the very beginning, Christian apologists have insisted that [B]evil has no independent existence[/B], it is utterly parasitical by its very nature, like a self-collapsing spiritual black hole.

(Do you believe in the existence of anti-materia? Then why not believe in the existence of "anti-goodness" aka evil)

Unlike in, say Zoroastrianism, where evil Ahriman is showed creating his own harmful creatures, Satan is incapable to create anything of his own. Like a homosexual, he is incapable of reproducing and therefore only try to seduce other creatures to join his misery.

[COLOR=Sienna][I] [B] - "Why should I buy this or the premises it's based on?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

'Cause the Bible tells you so. Obey this wise advice or pay the price when you meet your Maker, and don't then tell Him that you weren't warned beforehand.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Yet God knew very well ahead of time that He would send people there. And God set up the conditions that would cause these conscious, feeling beings to suffer eternally."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Cry me a river.

[COLOR=Sienna][I] [B] - "How do you know your logic isn't twisted? Aren't you "fallen," too?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Yes, but I am illuminated by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised to send to guide people who believe in Him.

[COLOR=Sienna][B] [I] - "How do you know everything you believe doesn't come straight from a great, supernatural deceiver who is testing mankind to see who will think for themselves (in spite of threats like hell) and who will submit without question?"[/I] [/B][/COLOR] The essence of faith is [B]trust[/B] in God and His promises. The early church already met this demonic doctrine in the form of Gnosticism.

Petr

Angler

2005-05-19 13:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, the picture I posted of you was funnier than the one you posted of me. Of course it was! You're a clown; it's your job to be funny.

Seriously, I actually feel somewhat ashamed that I've stooped to your childish level by posting that picture. But it was tempting.

But I guess when you have a 2000+ IQ, as you do, it's hard not to take yourself too seriously. Lying is un-Christian, yet you seem to take pleasure in it.

Here's the thing I don't understand. You have a 2000+ IQ, but Petr is outdebating you. Why? If I were debating on the side of Christianity against Petr, you'd say the opposite. But that's not important. I freely admit that Petr is more well-read than I am on issues of Biblical history -- I even implied as much in my last post. I, unlike you, am honest enough to admit when I don't know something about a given topic. That doesn't mean Petr's answering my questions to my satisfaction, though he's trying. As I've already indicated, my purpose is not to defeat anyone in debate, but to ask tough questions and see if any answers are forthcoming. I don't care about being right; I care about the truth.

Here's one possibility. Look at the picture I posted. In that episode, Captain Kirk manages to outfox Apollo. Apollo wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was. Could that be the same with you? Again, I freely admit when I don't understand or know something, and there are many areas where my level of knowledge could use substantial improvement. But when it comes to certain areas of science, I am well-schooled, and there is no question that you don't know what you're talking about. You are the one who apparently thinks he understands science better than nearly every results-producting scientist on the planet, and yet you claim I'm the one who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. What a bloody joke!

Here's what I think, you've been so indoctrinated, that you can't think straight. You and I have been debating thermodynamics in another thread. You have a Masters Degree in Vodoo Physics. I had little interest in science back in my school days. Yet, my arguments are sounder than yours. Of course you think that. You just don't know any better.

Why? You keep mouthing the party line. I'm untrained in the party line, so I try to use common sense instead. If you were trained in honest science instead of Vodoo, and could set aside the party line, you would have the edge over me. But you just repeat the same tired old darwinian establishment arguments, the same ones which creationists have totally trounced, and, as such, you come across as totally unconvincing.[/QUOTE]The "party line" is what put man on the moon, creates new drugs for cancer, faster computers, laser surgery, particle accelerators, and all sorts of technological wonders. I wouldn't knock it too much. Without people like me, you wouldn't have the very computer or internet you're using to post your nonsense.

Creation "science" does nothing but try to undermine areas of mainstream science that it finds offensive because they don't agree with the Bible. If creation "scientists" thought that quantum mechanics -- the basis of all modern electronic devices and most of modern science in general -- were in opposition to the Bible, they would do everything in their power to undermine that as well. The strength of the evidence makes no difference to them or to you.

Creationism is nothing but the continuation of the primitive, anti-scientific worldview that led to the persecution of Galileo and kept Copernicus from publishing his heliocentric view of the solar system until the end of his life. It's pure horsesh!t concocted by religious zealots who have unjustifiably made the literal truth of the Bible their fundamental axiom. It's wishful thinking at its worst. Reality and nature don't care what the Bible says.

In conclusion, Robert, you've proven yourself to be little more than a fatuous troll. You also seem rather immature and might even still be a teenager, judging from the tone of your posts. Thus, your opinion means nothing to me.

I come to OD to have sensible, adult discussions with fellow posters on issues that are important to me. Petr and I are having a discussion now that is civil and rather interesting, but you keep butting in with your drivel and petty insults. Either post something relevant to the topic at hand, or have the decency to butt out. I'm tired of bickering with you. This isn't a schoolyard.

Angler

2005-05-19 14:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "But why would they be motivated to lie about the details of Jesus' prosecution? The Bible doesn't say Jesus was arrested 40 days before his execution."[/I][/B] [/COLOR]

Little background information takes you a long way.

[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "Well, lots of people are capable of doing magic tricks. David Copperfield once made a plane disappear, didn't he?" [/B][/I][/COLOR] Irrelevant and anachronistic. What is essential is that the hostile Talmud confirms the gospel claim (denied by many, many liberal scholars) that Jesus was performing some extraordinary things. No, it's very relevant and timeless. The simple point is that people can be deceived. Of course few people if any actually believed that DC had really made the plane disappear. But in ancient times, people were even more superstitious than they are today. They were very, very easily deceived.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Anyone can claim to be divine. Mental wards are full of such people."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

"Jesus Seminar" fanatically insists that Jesus never claimed divinity for Himself. Well, I'm not too concerned about the "Jesus Seminar." I don't even know what that is, to be honest.

Anyways, not just anybody could claim to be divine [B]and[/B] be able to propound so (as widely recognized) uplifting and beautiful teachings and behave so coherently with other people. Some of Jesus' teachings do resonate with me; others I find abhorrent and entirely unlike what a loving, holy God would set forth.

Welcome to the "[B]Lord, Liar or Lunatic[/B]?" -dilemma. There are certainly more choices than those three. Right now, I suspect that Jesus existed as a person but was made into a legend by his early followers.

Check this one out; Jesus is really hard to squeeze into any known category of "messiah lunatics".

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html[/url] When I have more time I'll look at it, though I have a very low opinion of the highly irrational (and rudely combative) J.P. Holding.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Well, he obviously didn't cause the "whole world" to go astray. "[/I][/B][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "The problem, though, is still why the available historical documentation about Jesus is disproportionately scant in comparison with his supposed popularity and wondrous deeds."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Therefore, to most upper-class writers, even mentioning some hick preacher from some distant non-Roman province and with wild teachings, even if you had heard some miraculous-sounding things about him, would have been quite a [I]faux pas[/I]. You didn't want people to know that you knew such people. This sounds fishy to me. First of all, I thought (maybe wrongly) that the Romans were in control of almost all the areas where Jesus ministered. Secondly, Roman historians did see fit to write about Christians once their church began to take root (e.g., Tacitus). Why wasn't it beneath them to write about it then? How is it that Christianity didn't slip under the Romans' radar, but Christ and his miracles did?

[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "You're saying Jews and Romans had little interaction with each other during those times? I find that hard to swallow."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Once again you put your personal feelings as the measure of truth, whether you can "swallow it" has no impact on the issue. I'm afraid it does. If something seems implausible to me, then I'm not going to believe it until I see supporting evidence.

The Roman administration had no real contact to Jesus until the Passion week - notice how ignorant Pontius Pilate seemed to be about Him and His messianic claims? Right, but again -- why not? You'd think word about someone raising the dead to life would tend to get around a little better.

[COLOR=Sienna][B] [I] - "Why is Manetho not a reliable source for that information?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.anchorstone.com/number3a.html[/url]

And James Jordan expressed his opinion on why exactly secular scholars were so strangely uncritical towards Manetho:

[url]http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch6_01.htm[/url] I don't buy that "biased secular historians" line at all. I think it's the believers who are biased, since I've seen unquestionable evidence of that in other areas.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Nothing can exist without God causing it to exist, right? Thus, if evil (or the cause of evil) exists, then God caused its existence knowing full well what the consequences would be."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

From the very beginning, Christian apologists have insisted that [B]evil has no independent existence[/B], it is utterly parasitical by its very nature, like a self-collapsing spiritual black hole. I'm afraid I don't follow.

(Do you believe in the existence of anti-materia? Then why not believe in the existence of "anti-goodness" aka evil) I know that anti-matter exists, but it exists in the very same sense that matter does. Anti-matter doesn't have "negative mass," for example.

In any case, if we take the definition of evil to be "the absence of good" (as I think that's what you're saying), then that still doesn't resolve the question: What made Lucifer lose his goodness (become evil)? It must have been something caused by God, since everything that exists MUST come from the source of all existence, either directly or indirectly. If evil exists, then God willed it to exist. That's inescapable. Nothing can happen without God allowing it. But how does an infinitely holy God allow evil to exist? Especially since God cannot require evil to bring about a higher good (since that would make God dependent on evil)? Don't you see the difficulty?

Unlike in, say Zoroastrianism, where evil Ahriman is showed creating his own harmful creatures, Satan is incapable to create anything of his own. Like a homosexual, he is incapable of reproducing and therefore only try to seduce other creatures to join his misery. I thought Satan was originally conceived of by the Hebrews as an angelic servant of God whose job it was to accuse human beings of wrongdoing. How did he end up becoming God's adversary?

[COLOR=Sienna][I] [B] - "Why should I buy this or the premises it's based on?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

'Cause the Bible tells you so. Obey this wise advice or pay the price when you meet your Maker, and don't then tell Him that you weren't warned beforehand. "Because the Bible tells me so" obviously isn't good enough. I've also been "warned beforehand" about not being a Muslim, not being this, not being that...I have no rational choice but to dismiss all such warnings as bunk until someone coughs up some real evidence. If God exists, then He knows that I have no way of knowing that the Bible is true. If He punishes me for disbelief anyway, then He's just an all-powerful tyrant who isn't worthy of being worshipped, not a God of Love.

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Yet God knew very well ahead of time that He would send people there. And God set up the conditions that would cause these conscious, feeling beings to suffer eternally."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Cry me a river. I'm not crying, since I don't believe in hell. Christians, on the other hand, should be crying about the idea of human beings suffering in hell. Only an extremely callous and heartless person can be unmoved by the thought of even an insect suffering eternal torment. And don't take this as a personal attack, but someone once said: "It takes a cruel man to believe in a cruel God." I expect that if a God of Love exists, that He is wiser and more compassionate than I am. That's why I think much of the Bible might even be blasphemy. It makes God look like a monster.

[COLOR=Sienna][I] [B] - "How do you know your logic isn't twisted? Aren't you "fallen," too?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Yes, but I am illuminated by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised to send to guide people who believe in Him. How do you know this? Some might say, for example, that only the Catholic Church is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, and that Protestants are all wandering sheep. Can you prove them wrong?

Anybody can say, "God is guiding me," Petr. But as you know, words are cheap. Unless you can test such statements, you don't know that they're true.

[COLOR=Sienna][B] [I] - "How do you know everything you believe doesn't come straight from a great, supernatural deceiver who is testing mankind to see who will think for themselves (in spite of threats like hell) and who will submit without question?"[/I] [/B][/COLOR] The essence of faith is [B]trust[/B] in God and His promises. The early church already met this demonic doctrine in the form of Gnosticism. Okay, so that's the essence of faith, but that still doesn't answer the question. How do you know God made those promises in the first place? You can't possibly know that. Of course that doesn't mean you should give up your beliefs, but it does mean that you shouldn't pretend to be so sure they're correct. That's not being honest with yourself.

If I were like Abraham and spoke to God like I speak to a supervisor (mine is probably going to bust me here any moment now), then it would be very, VERY easy to have trust in God. I don't see how Abraham did anything that commendable, actually. Who the hell wouldn't obey a God who was talking to him from out of the sky?!

Robert

2005-05-20 00:23 | User Profile

Angler, I simply see you as one suffering from an exagerated sense of self. You are pompous, rude and beligerent. I don't play up to people such as yourself. Instead, I prefer to poke fun at their inflated egos. The Star Trek Apollo reminded me of you. Your desire to impress by bragging about your IQ, and how much you are paid at your workplace, made me think of this character. I've learned that the best way to enrage an egotistical person is treat them as the pompous fool they truly are.

Angler, you never were able to satisfactorily answer any of my objections to the evolution myth. Instead, you responded with arrogance, name calling, and totally disengenious arguments.

You need to learn humility, Angler. You need to learn that you are a sinner in need of salvation.

I, personally, have little hope for you. If the Lord chooses to teach you humility, it will likely be through totally breaking you. If He chooses to do so, it will hurt like hell. But whether He chooses to give you such a chance, is obviously His decision.

Angler

2005-05-20 00:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, I simply see you as one suffering from an exagerated sense of self. You are pompous, rude and beligerent. I don't play up to people such as yourself. Instead, I prefer to poke fun at their inflated egos. The Star Trek Apollo reminded me of you. Your desire to impress by bragging about your IQ, and how much you are paid at your workplace, made me think of this character. I've learned that the best way to enrage an egotistical person is treat them as the pompous fool they truly are. Are you for real?

(1) I once mentioned my IQ because I was gratuitously called "stupid" first. That's hardly "bragging" that comes from a desire to impress. It was merely stating a fact in my own defense. Yet you continue to obsess over it. I think it reveals an insecurity on your part.

(2) I said I was paid good money to do science. I didn't say how much, and I'm sure that there are plenty of people here who make more than I do. Money isn't that important to me. If I wanted to be rich, I would have gone into law or business. I only brought up my job in the first place to illustrate the absurdity of someone like you, who knows no science at all, trying to argue basic science with someone who gets paid to do it for a living.

(3) Like I said, your opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me. You're just a moron on the Internet who think's he's all-holy and all-wise because he's "on God's team."

Angler, you never were able to satisfactorily answer any of my objections to the evolution myth. Instead, you responded with arrogance, name calling, and totally disengenious arguments. You began the personal attacks, Jack. When people are civil to me, I am always civil in return. But when someone acts obnoxious toward me, I give as I receive, and then some.

Anyway, I utterly demolished your arguments. Any scientist worth his salt would laugh his ass off at your claims. I did fail to make you see that, but that's not really my fault; blame God for not giving you enough brains.

By the way: What the hell does "disengenious" mean? Maybe you should learn the English language before calling other people "fool."

You need to learn humility, Angler. You're not going to teach me humility, you buffoon. I utterly wipe my butt with your sanctimonious sermonizing and laugh uproariously at your sheeplike stupidity!

You need to learn that you are a sinner in need of salvation. And you need to learn that you are a doofus in need of a brain.

I, personally, have little hope for you. If the Lord chooses to teach you humility, it will likely be through totally breaking you. If He chooses to do so, it will hurt like hell. But whether He chooses to give you such a chance, is obviously His decision.[/QUOTE]I couldn't give a rat's anus whether you have hope for me or not. If "the Lord" has a problem with me, then that's between Him and me -- not between Him, me, and you. Worry about your own damn soul. Or are you so holy that you don't have to do what Paul said, i.e., work out your salvation "with fear and trembling"? It would be nice if you wild-eyed fanatics would read your own Bible once in a while and put it into practice.

Let me repeat: I come to this board to have civil, rational discussions with rational people. I don't come here to bicker with self-righteous kooks. Either contribute something substantive to the thread, or don't contribute at all. Your trolling was amusing at first, but now it's becoming tiresome.

Angeleyes

2005-05-20 01:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, it would be a waste of time to reason with you. Let me explain. I was once as blind as you. I was not an atheist as your are (and I know you call yourself an agnostic), but I was a universalist. I worshipped a false Christ who would save all people. I was completely separated from the true Christ, the Christ of the Bible. I based my universalism on my own human reason, and no amount of reasoning from others would change my mind.

Is Reason a gift from God that helps Man understand truth from deceit, which understanding aids in finding the path away from Sin, the destination of which is Faith?

Or, is Reason a gift from Satan? You seem to infer that using reason necessarily foredooms one to be entrapped by Satan.

I may be reading something extraneous into your comments.

Angeleyes

2005-05-20 01:59 | User Profile

Angler:

From the "can you give me examples" of antiquity and short documentation.

Trojan War. Homer. Illiad. Schlieman still found the Troy contemporary to Mycenae.

Sorry, forgot a piece.

[QUOTE] This sounds fishy to me. First of all, I thought (maybe wrongly) that the Romans were in control of almost all the areas where Jesus ministered. Secondly, Roman historians did see fit to write about Christians once their church began to take root (e.g., Tacitus). Why wasn't it beneath them to write about it then? How is it that Christianity didn't slip under the Romans' radar, but Christ and his miracles did?

[/QUOTE] My explanation for your last bit is that while Jesus was around, his movement was a local issue in Judea. After some years of the disciples spreading the Word, you had Christians from Egypt to Greece and even beyond, at the very least the eastern arc of the Mediterranean sea. It had grown into something worthy of more attention.

Angeleyes

2005-05-20 02:12 | User Profile

For Angler and Petr

A contemporary example to shed some light on this issue.

[QUOTE] "You're saying Jews and Romans had little interaction with each other during those times? I find that hard to swallow."

Once again you put your personal feelings as the measure of truth, whether you can "swallow it" has no impact on the issue.

The Roman administration had no real contact to Jesus until the Passion week - notice how ignorant Pontius Pilate seemed to be about Him and His messianic claims? [/QUOTE] Lived in Taiwan as a teenager. American "occupation forces" or "expats" living among the third worlders. It was easy, as the foreigners with a certain "carried from home social structure," in an alien land to NOT associate with the Chinese. Many Americans we know did not bother to learn any of the language, and kept themselves isolated in the little islands of Americana. Others blended in well, learned the language, tried to get to know these strange and exotic people. And most of us fell somewhere in between.

We were not, however, Imperial occupiers.

As an Imperial occupier, some Romans would be, by their job requirement, forced to deal with the locals due to matters of administration. I wonder how many of them wrote journals, and if any of that remains.

Others would put up with their duties, but prefer to insulate themselves among their own kind, being the winners and ultimate rulers due to force of arms and dominant position. The patricians would naturally look down their noses at the conquered. It would be a scholar or a "liberal Roman" who went out to meet these clannish and close people, to try to get to know them.

Josephus may have been somewhat in that latter camp.

Robert

2005-05-21 20:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]OK, you lost me.

Is Reason a gift from God that helps Man understand truth from deceit, which understanding aids in finding the path away from Sin, the destination of which is Faith?

Or, is Reason a gift from Satan? You seem to infer that using reason necessarily foredooms one to be entrapped by Satan.

I may be reading something extraneous into your comments.[/QUOTE] Reason is a gift from God. But we must also realize that the human mind is corrupted by sin. This corruption is known as depravity. The human mind is by nature at war with God and His holiness. God must break through our depravity to reach us. The human mind simply can not reach God through its own reason.

I am not a five-point Calvinist. I believe that Calvinism goes beyond Scripture and presents human conclusions with a Biblical authority they don't deserve. However, the Bible does teach the concepts of election and depravity.

Angler is an example of an individual trapped in sin. He is proud, boastful and arrogant. His language is totally vulgar because his mind is vulgar. Reason simply doesn't work with such an individual. If Angler is ever to be saved, God must break him. It is my feeling, though, that Angler has been destined for God's wrath.

Robert

2005-05-21 21:09 | User Profile

Angler, in response to your post number 54; you show yourself to be both an angry and arrogant individual. I have noticed that the anger of the arrogant is one of the most extreme forms of rage. Satan is the ultimate example of both arrogance and rage. You are simply following in the footsteps of your father the devil.

And, no, you did not satisfactorily answer any of my objections to evolution. You could not prove that water runs up hill, that people grow younger and that perpetual motion machines exist. These three items I mentioned, are in effect, what evolution is all about. Evolution is a total reversal of nature's general slide downward.

As far as disingenous arguments, the argument you keep repeating about snowflakes is totally dishonest. Petr showed you where you were in error, yet, you persisted in using the argument.

Angler, you are an ardent follower of the religion (not science) of evolution. And you don't like having your religion challenged. You are also at war against Christ. Now, you may be enraged when I tell you the truth that you are headed to hell. You may accuse me of being uncivil. But, Angler, you are headed to hell.

Robert

2005-05-21 21:46 | User Profile

--- The Roman administration had no real contact to Jesus until the Passion week - notice how ignorant Pontius Pilate seemed to be about Him and His messianic claims? ---

I generally agree with Petr on this one. As mentioned, Pilate had little knowledge or understanding of Jesus. Now, the Lord was quite familiar with the Romans. Nazareth was home to a Roman garrison. And, there obviously were individual Roman soldiers who knew of Jesus, such as the Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant. But it does appear that the Romans held the Jews in contempt (imagine that, someone not liking the Jews). Ruling Palestine was not a premier assignment. The upper class Romans probably viewed the Jews as so disgusting that they probably did not want to know them in any intimate detail.

"There's a Galilean preacher performing miracles."

"Is he preaching rebellion or starting an armed insurrection?"

"No."

"Then I don't care.  Next issue."

"But the Pharisees hate him."

"So, I hate the Pharisees.  Next issue."

Angler

2005-05-21 22:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, in response to your post number 54; you show yourself to be both an angry and arrogant individual. I have noticed that the anger of the arrogant is one of the most extreme forms of rage. Satan is the ultimate example of both arrogance and rage. You are simply following in the footsteps of your father the devil. Would that I could be as humble as you, oh glorious Servant of God! :rolleyes:

And doan be dissin' my poppa Satan, yo! :lol:

And, no, you did not satisfactorily answer any of my objections to evolution. You could not prove that water runs up hill, that people grow younger and that perpetual motion machines exist. These three items I mentioned, are in effect, what evolution is all about. Evolution is a total reversal of nature's general slide downward. So is the formation of snowflakes. Snowflakes cannot form on their own; they can only melt, right?

Water runs uphill if it is pumped through a pipe.

A machine can remain in motion indefinitely as long as enough energy is continuously supplied to it.

If nature can only suffer breakdown, then how do people build homes, cars, and other such things? Is it your opinion that human beings are capable of violating the laws of thermodynamics? Do you think a law of physics is only a law if people aren't involved? Whenever entropy is decreased in a certain system (as can happen when men create things), entropy must increase elsewhere. THAT is what is required by the laws of thermodynamics.

As far as disingenous arguments, the argument you keep repeating about snowflakes is totally dishonest. Petr showed you where you were in error, yet, you persisted in using the argument. Petr doesn't know much more about science than you do. There is nothing erroneous about the argument. The fact that snowflakes can form into their ordered structure spontaneously proves that items in nature do NOT always run down. Entropy can decrease in an open system as long as it increases somewhere outside that system. I know that statement is WAY over your head, but it's the answer to all your unscientific BS.

Angler, you are an ardent follower of the religion (not science) of evolution. And you don't like having your religion challenged. You are also at war against Christ. Now, you may be enraged when I tell you the truth that you are headed to hell. You may accuse me of being uncivil. But, Angler, you are headed to hell.[/QUOTE]I'm terrified. :yawn:

Robert

2005-05-21 23:20 | User Profile

Angler, you still have not answered any of my questions, and your snowflake argument remains disingenious.

Further, the other examples you gave involve human systems. Humans, are, thus, functioning as mini-creators. However, humans grow old and die. Machines built by humans wear out. Houses built by humans eventually fall apart. The laws of thermodynamics are preserved.

Since evolution violates the laws of nature, it could only work if directed by God i.e. theistic evolution. However, the Bible tells us that God created by means of His spoken word.

Finally, this section of the forum is labeled "Christianity and Christendom". Since you hate Christ and Christianity, why do you even post here?

Sertorius

2005-05-21 23:50 | User Profile

Robert,

I just waded through this thread so I know who started what. Knock off the trolling. Be civil, please.

Angler

2005-05-21 23:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, you still have not answered any of my questions, and your snowflake argument remains disingenious.

Since evolution violates the laws of nature, it could only work if directed by God i.e. theistic evolution. You're confused. Really. I give up trying to explain it to you.

However, the Bible tells us that God created by means of His spoken word. Who cares? Just because someone once wrote a book about something doesn't mean it's true.

Finally, this section of the forum is labeled "Christianity and Christendom". Since you hate Christ and Christianity, why do you even post here?[/QUOTE]Why, because I'm the Son of Satan, of course! You see, my unholy father has charged me with luring as many unsuspecting souls as possible over to him so we can take them to hell with us! I'm trying as hard as possible to make people abandon the One True Faith. I sold my soul to the Devil, and I sold yours, too! Bwahahahahaa! :evil:

Robert

2005-05-22 03:28 | User Profile

Sertorius, I'm not trolling. I'm standing up for the cause of Christ against an anti-Christian pagan. If you've got a problem with that, you're on the wrong side.

Sertorius

2005-05-22 03:37 | User Profile

Robert,

As far as I'm concerned Christ doesn't have anything to do with it. Right now there is only one side that I am on and that is the side of good manners. You went out of your way in an attempt to start a flame war against someone who simply asked a few questions in a civil manner. The others replied in a civil manner in turn. You can do the same. Who knows, you may change his mind.

By the way, you didn't answer his question.

Robert

2005-05-22 03:45 | User Profile

Not true, Sertorius. In various threads, Angler has behaved in a thuggish manner, using vile, vulgar language, insulting Christ and insulting Christians. I've answered Angler's questions, but he only responds with arrogant insults. It is his basic ploy to accuse non-evolutionists of "ignorance".

Sometimes, standing up for Christ may involve what you would call "bad manners," such as telling people the truth that they are committing blasphemy and must repent. I stand behind my every post.

Angler

2005-05-22 09:01 | User Profile

You're lying, Robert.

Sertorius or anyone else can simply do a search on all my posts to see if I've been civil to those who have been civil to me. Sometimes I might get frustrated and wax sarcastic to make a point, but I really don't like to hurt peoples' feelings and am never deliberately rude to people just because I disagree with them. They have to act obnoxious toward me first. You have been obnoxious. While I probably overreacted to your trolling, you did begin the whole thing on this and other threads.

I have nothing against Christians in general. I adore my family and relatives, and they are all serious Christians. At least half of my friends are Christians, too. We manage to get along somehow.

Your problem, Robert, is that you attempt to use Christianity as a tool to lord it over people. It seems to give you a sense of power to tell people "I'm a servant of God -- don't mess with me! Do this and believe that, or else!" I suspect that you're like many religious fanatics (and no, I don't consider all religious people "fanatics") in that, deep down, you're more offended by people defying you than by not accepting your religion.

Those threats of hell that you seem to hypocritically enjoy making are as frightening to me as the threats of hell that come from Muslims for not believing in the Koran. Many Protestants tell Catholics that they're hellbound, and many Catholics tell Protestants the same. They're all wrong. Human opinions about such things aren't credible.

As I've had to repeat ad nauseam, I am not challenging God (if He exists), but my fellow mortals' conception of Him. I do not know if the writers of the Bible were any more inspired by God than the writers of the Koran. How do I know that the Bible doesn't give the wrong impression of God? How do YOU know? "Because I know," you probably think. Whatever.

I repeat: Worry about YOUR OWN soul. Mine is none of your business. Jesus doesn't need any help from you.

Angeleyes

2005-05-22 13:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert].God must break through our depravity to reach us. The human mind simply can not reach God through its own reason. [/QUOTE] What you argue seems to be a matchup of two unrelated points.

I have always understood that we reach to God with our acceptance of salvation through Christ, not that God must engage his battering ram to break down our door of depravity.

We reach God through Faith. If one bothers to consider how Christians arrive at their doctrines, how to apply God's word, and how thus to better reach God and achieve Grace, reason is a gift we must be grateful for. It supports Faith and helps expose the lies of evil and greed.

Robert

2005-05-22 19:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]What you argue seems to be a matchup of two unrelated points.

I have always understood that we reach to God with our acceptance of salvation through Christ, not that God must engage his battering ram to break down our door of depravity.

Robert

2005-05-22 20:07 | User Profile

Angler, I have warned you not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of others. I avoid reasoning with you regarding the red herring issues you raise, because to do so, would only be casting pears before swine.

All that I have said to you and about you is true. If God chooses to save you, it will be through breaking you, and dragging you through hell. Right now, you are in self-deception mode. I doubt that will change.

To others who are reading this; mankind's sins have reached the breaking point. Humans are now cloning babies for research. White civilization, which was once Christian, is reverting to paganism. Our hubris has infuriated God.

The time will soon come when God will lower the boom. It is time for Christians to speak up boldly and warn their neighbors. If you do so, you will receive opposition. And don't be surprised when much of this opposition comes from fellow "Christians". You will be accused of incivility for telling the truth. The Rick Warrenites will condemn you for not being "seeker sensitive".

The time has come. You must now make a choice. Will you seek to please the world by getting along with it and adhering to its ideals? Or will you seek to please God, but endure the wrath of your fellow man for doing so? The prophets of old were condemned, beaten and murdered by their society for telling the truth. Christians today can expect no different.

And one other message to many who come here. Don't think that if we could only put the neocon Jews in their place, and put violent inner city blacks in their place, and stop the plague of illegal aliens, that somehow things would then be good.

We have got to take stock of our own sins. We white people must repent of our paganism. Those who are evolutionists must repent. Those who support abortion and cloning must repent. Those who support wanton violence against other nations must repent. If we do not turn to Christ, no actions we take to restore our civilization will receive God's blessing.

Angler

2005-05-22 20:54 | User Profile

How would God ever manage without you, Robert? :rolleyes:

"You'll see, Angler! You'll be sorry when I'M sitting with Jesus in heaven and we're laughing at you down in hell! THEN you'll be sorry!" :lol:

I scoff at your threats on behalf of God. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but God isn't going to "break" me. Good things and bad things happen to good people and bad people. There's no justice in this world and probably none in the next, either. There is no indication that anything supernatural exists, and if it does, we know absolutely nothing about it. Therefore, I put my faith in reason and in my own conscience. On that basis alone I stand or fall, like a man.

Angeleyes

2005-05-22 22:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]God must enable faith. We can't get there on our own.[/QUOTE] Robert, in the context of this conversation, that soundbyte means nothing.

Taking the step of Faith is not a passive act. You have to choose to put your Faith in Christ, in God. It doesn't just "happen." It is an act of volition.

If your argument is that God presents the opportunity, or stters us to the folk who help us find the path, we may have an accord. But please, stop talking in soundbytes.

Thanks.

Angeleyes

2005-05-22 22:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]How would God ever manage without you, Robert? :rolleyes:

"You'll see, Angler! You'll be sorry when I'M sitting with Jesus in heaven and we're laughing at you down in hell! THEN you'll be sorry!" :lol:

Robert

2005-05-22 22:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Robert, in the context of this conversation, that soundbyte means nothing.

Taking the step of Faith is not a passive act. You have to choose to put your Faith in Christ, in God. It doesn't just "happen." It is an act of volition.

If your argument is that God presents the opportunity, or stters us to the folk who help us find the path, we may have an accord. But please, stop talking in soundbytes.

Thanks.[/QUOTE] Not a soundbite when you consider that we are dealing with issues beyond our understanding. Both Calvinists and Arminians have sought to reconcile things which we aren't smart enough to reconcile.

Faith must be enabled by God. That is a fact. How does God enable it? I don't know and neither do you.

How great a factor is human volition? Again, I don't know and neither do you.

God calls on us to believe even when we don't understand. Our human minds are unable to reason through God's mysteries. We must simply choose to believe. And do we make that choice for no other reason than because God elected us to do so? As I said, I don't know and neither do you.

So, in effect, I take a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism. I recognize that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all and that He loves all. The Bible also teaches election. And I don't profess to understand.

Robert

2005-05-22 22:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I scoff at your threats on behalf of God. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but God isn't going to "break" me. Good things and bad things happen to good people and bad people. There's no justice in this world and probably none in the next, either. There is no indication that anything supernatural exists, and if it does, we know absolutely nothing about it. Therefore, I put my faith in reason and in my own conscience. On that basis alone I stand or fall, like a man.[/QUOTE] Oh goodie!

Angler

2005-05-22 23:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I take you you don't find Pascal's wager appealing? It's better odds than Vegas' best game, which is craps. :cheers: Beer, while you ponder?[/QUOTE]Hi AE, and here's a belated welcome to the board. :)

Pascal's Wager is fallacious because it can be applied to any religion. Radical Muslims, for example, are certain that non-Muslims are going to hell. Should I believe (or pretend to believe) in Islam to avoid going to hell? Similarly, should Protestants become Catholics to avoid hell? Should Catholics become Protestants? All of these groups are the "One True Church" in their own eyes. They all threaten outsiders with hell or have done so in the past. (If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church has "reinterpreted" past ex Cathedra statements that ruled out salvation for anyone not subject to the Pope.) None have any evidence to support their claims other than books written by (in many cases unknown) human authors.

Look at it this way: I could make the claim right now that God sent me a vision demanding that you send me $1000 or go to hell. If I claimed such a thing, would you send me the $1000? Or would you take that tiny, tiny risk of going to hell? This is really no different from Pascal's Wager when you get down to it.

There is also the possibility that God really values free thought and the courage to think for oneself even in the face of threats. What would such a God think of Pascal's Wager?

Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that many people -- myself included -- find it impossible to will ourselves to believe or disbelieve anything. Belief for me is an automatic reaction to the evidence and arguments I'm presented with. The credibility of the source also carries some weight. The gravity of the threat I'm faced with carries no weight. The threat of a million hells wouldn't be enough to get me to believe that 1+1=3 or that the earth is 6000 years old.

Because I can't force myself to believe anything (and wouldn't want to anyway, since that's essentially self-delusion), I do not believe that God, if He exists and is indeed holy, good, and wise, would punish someone for not believing in certain way. It is unjust to punish someone for honest skepticism.

Angeleyes

2005-05-23 00:15 | User Profile

Robert

I well know the role of volition. I made an active choice to accept Christ, and to accept that only through Him can I find Salvation.

Don't know how things worked at your end. If you are saved, all to the good.

As to "beyond our understanding," I seek wisdom and understanding as a habit of life. I seek to understand, and maybe you will understand me better when I tell you that, in Life, the Journey is often of equal value to the Destination. Sometimes, greater.

You can choose to be mystified. Again, if it works for you, great! :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Robert]Not a soundbite when you consider that we are dealing with issues beyond our understanding. Both Calvinists and Arminians have sought to reconcile things which we aren't smart enough to reconcile.

Faith must be enabled by God. That is a fact. How does God enable it? I don't know and neither do you.

How great a factor is human volition? Again, I don't know and neither do you.

Angeleyes

2005-05-23 00:30 | User Profile

I see your point in re Pascal. Consider a non denominational context, which was not Pascal's original framework, as I understand it.

Wager V 1.07

Do believe Yes God Big Win! Do believe No God Win or Tie ("Virtue is its own reward" line of thought.) Don't believe Yes God Big Loss Don't Believe No God Tie or "Win?" (But what do you win? You still die, wormfood, so Tie at best. That's how I see it.)
This makes the outcome Win/Tie versus Lose/Tie. Catch: you don't "know" til you die in either case under this model, which is where any cashier's cage is . . . and mixing practical with spiritual has many potential pitfalls, this mental cat's cradle included. (And the Muslim issue noted, their being derivative in the first place set aside.)

On the down side from a Christian sense, the set up leads to "it can't hurt to believe" which won't satisfy most Christians for a myriad of reasons . . . best not gotten into here.

Cheers

[QUOTE=Angler]Hi AE, and here's a belated welcome to the board. :)

There is also the possibility that God really values free thought and the courage to think for oneself even in the face of threats. What would such a God think of Pascal's Wager?

Texas Dissident

2005-05-23 14:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I have always understood that we reach to God with our acceptance of salvation through Christ, not that God must engage his battering ram to break down our door of depravity.

We reach God through Faith.[/QUOTE]

No, God reaches us. We cannot reach God.

Texas Dissident

2005-05-23 14:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I well know the role of volition. I made an active choice to accept Christ, and to accept that only through Him can I find Salvation.[/QUOTE]

Obviously belief preceded that 'active choice' or else you wouldn't have made the 'choice' to begin with.

The greater point being that God brings belief in the first place, and that is where the proper emphasis should be made, not on our feeble choices. Or if you prefer, "It aint about you, it's about God".

Angeleyes

2005-05-24 03:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Obviously belief preceded that 'active choice' or else you wouldn't have made the 'choice' to begin with.

Yes, following a path of reason and counselling from trusted Christians.

The greater point being that God brings belief in the first place, and that is where the proper emphasis should be made, not on our feeble choices. Or if you prefer, "It aint about you, it's about God".

God's will is not mutable by, conditional or dependent on, our 'choice'. And to apply a little reason to that--if God's will was not immutable, then we couldn't have much faith in any promises made in the Scriptures.[/QUOTE] and [QUOTE]No, God reaches us. We cannot reach God.[/QUOTE] Following the reasoning, I come up with: Accept Christ, open the heart (??) reach out, and God reaches into us when the heart is open.

I think I see your point. :)

Texas Dissident

2005-05-24 11:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Following the reasoning, I come up with: Accept Christ, open the heart (??) reach out, and God reaches into us when the heart is open.[/QUOTE]

In reality, a Scripturally accurate timeline would be as follows: we are completely and utterly spiritually dead in sin, flat-lining and destined for hell, the Holy Sprit brings us to, enables and sustains faith in us until we shed this mortal coil and go home to the kingdom Christ has prepared for us. Let God be true and every man a liar...