Religions > Atheism > Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 08:20:12 PM |
| Object: |
Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_markshea_archive.html#114167439815207585
The Increasing Deterioration of Andrew Sullivan
I haven't been following Sullivan very closely for the past several
months. Increasingly, the guy appears to be bucking for Press Secretary
of the To-Be-Elected-in-the-Next-Decade-or-So-Post-Christian-Regime of
Angry Lefties. For years, the Pole Star of his Journalism has been the
sole non-negotiable. And as that has come to dominate, everything else
is employed in the service of it. When Radical Islam was the biggest
threat to it, Bush was the Great Hero. When Bush became the biggest
threat to it, his journalism became more and more about finding ways to
undercut Bush. Sometimes Bush has handed him swords to do that (most
notably, the Administration's wretched record with respect to torture
and human rights abuses in Defense of the Fatherland). But Sullivan has
also pursued a remarkable career of increasingly distorted and
dishonest attacks on anybody he perceives as a threat to the Great
Polestar.
One of his biggest bugaboos has been the great bogeyman he labels the
"Theocrat". This refers to anybody who a) thinks that faith has a place
in the Public Square and b) thinks homosexual behavior to be what the
Christian Tradition has always said it is: a sin. He has repeatedly
smeared Benedict as everything from a Jew-hater to a closet queen in
pursuit of that particular agenda, as well as, of course, telling lies
about anybody in the American political or media landscape if he could
get away with it. Most recently, he went after Ramesh Ponnuru and
Robert George, with the vile suggestion that they were somehow vaguely
in favor or shooting abortionists. It was classic Sullivan.
Sullivan is a tribal Catholic, like many of his generation. He's been
raised to regard his religion as something more like an ethnicity than
a creed. The problem with this way of relating to the faith is becoming
more and more evident as he grapples with the adamant fact that the
Church is *never* going to changes its teachings on the immorality of
homosexual acts. He, like many Catholics who are inflexibly loyal the
teachings of the Third Vatican Council, lived in hope of JPII's death,
only to be crushed by the election of Benedict XVI. As the awareness is
slowly dawning on them that their most cherished "developments" are
never going to come, they are casting around for some way to avoid the
fact that the Magisterium is what it is an says what it says.
Sullivan, has opted for the "Call it Fundamentalism" route and is
increasingly inclined to credit the loopiest crap in support of his
growing rejection, not simply of the Church's sexual teaching, but of
the inspiration of Scripture and even of the deity of Christ. One habit
he has fallen into is to constantly liken the Church's moral teaching
to that of Radical Islam. "Both condemn homosexual activity, so the
Church is the same as Taliban." This cheap smear has consequences
though. As C.S. Lewis says, "The trouble about trying to make yourself
stupider than you really are is that you often succeed." Sullivan's
labors to de-legitimate the Church are bearing fruit, not in successful
argument, but in successful self-delusion. Most recently, Sullivan got
all enthused about Thomas Jefferson's alleged "re-discovery" of Jesus
(it turns out Jesus was an Enlightenment sage who very much agreed with
Jefferson once you edited out all the things the New Testament added).
Jefferson wrote: I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wanted
anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all
others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he
never claimed any other."
Sullivan, being a tribal Catholic, knows at some level that a flat
denial of the deity of Christ is rather incompatible with what is known
"Christianity" quote Jefferson with approval, but then pulls back and
starts chattering about a "Third Way" between rejection of his faith
and this sort of straight up apostasy. He cites some ex-Fundy apostate
named Bart Ehrman with approval:
"In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine,"
he says, his voice urgent. "In John, you do."
....thereby proving again that turning cradle Catholic loose with the
Bible is indeed a dangerous proposition since they often tend to credit
every ignorant pronouncement made about it by somebody with a couple of
letters behind their names, particularly when they are in the process
of trying to escape the Magisterium.
News for Sullivan and Ehrman: the Jesus of the Synoptics does indeed
make claims of deity. It is Mark's Jesus who responds to the question
of Caiaphas "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" with "I AM"
which is both a direct answer to the question and a claim of deity
since "I AM" is the name of God in Hebrew." Likewise, the synoptic
gospels contain the account of Peters' confession, "You are the Christ,
the son of the living God" and Jesus' approving words, "Flesh and blood
have not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven has revealed
it." Plus, of course, there are lots of implicit claims such as his
habit of forgiving sins, which the Pharisees quite rightly questioned
by saying. "Who has power to forgive sins but God alone?"
Sullivan is not, however, interested in facts. He's interested in
protecting the further adventures of his groin. He lays down as an
axiom of faith the following:
One thing I do know: nothing that comes genuinely from Jesus sounds
anything like the dictates of contemporary fundamentalism.
Since he has already made abundantly clear that "fundamentalism" means
"anything that challenges my commitment to homosexual acts" that can
only mean that orthodox Christianity has anything to do with "the real
Jesus."
So it is becoming increasingly obvious to him that, in order to call
himself a Christian, he is going to have to pull a Jefferson and
reconstruct Jesus in his own image and likeness. This project he calls
the "Third Way". Others will call it, more accurately, full-fledged
apostasy. Essentially it will consist of doing what Dan Brown did:
saying "Jesus was alright, but his followers have totally bollixed
things up. I will now give you The Truth about Jesus, which is that he
agreed with me about the Thing that Matters to Me Most. And never mind
that crap in the gospels where Jesus says to his apostles, "He who
listens to you, listens to me. And he who listens to me, listens to him
who sent me." That was all added later by the Corrupt Church.
The moral: Almost nobody attacks Jesus directly (yet, though that day
will come). Mostly, people attack Jesus through his Body. Jesus meant
well, they say, but the Church screwed everything up. Protestantism
consisted of the attempt to say that screwup happened in the Dark Ages
sometime and that Catholics were the problem. The Enlightenment
consisted of the attempt to say Christians were the problem. Mormonism
and some Baptist theologies consist of the attempt to say the problem
happened right after the apostles. Neo-paganism (probably where
Sullivan will end up if he follows his current trajectory) consists of
the attempt to say that the screwup happened at the hands of His own
apostles.
Eventually, the claim will be made that Jesus himself was the problem.
But our culture hasn't gotten there yet. Nonetheless, guys like Brown
and Sullivan are wielding their little tridents in the effort to get us
there.
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
10 Mar 2006 09:52:46 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in
news:1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly
Not much need. The catlicks keep him nailed up. He's not exactly a moving
target.
--
Doc Smartass
RIAA the RIAA!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
11 Mar 2006 11:55:53 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in message
news:1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_markshea_archive.html#1141674398
15207585
The Increasing Deterioration of Andrew Sullivan
....
So here we have Mr. Shea attacking christians who attack christians.
Christian hypocrisy at it's finest!
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
11 Mar 2006 12:10:14 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in message
news:1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
....[big snip]...
Eventually, the claim will be made that Jesus himself was the problem.
The greed of Constantine was the problem.
Constantine invented the fiction of Jesus in 312 CE.
Eusebius of Caesare perverted the dates 300 years
under his supreme imperial sponsorship.
In the words of Lord Acton:
"Power tend to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely"
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
10 Mar 2006 08:26:54 PM |
|
|
In <1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The moral: Almost nobody attacks Jesus directly (yet, though that day will
come).
Well, if ever bothered to exist, maybe somebody would...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mary Hogan" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
13 Mar 2006 12:41:15 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:i-mdnR7dwdvzqI_ZRVn-sQ@megapath.net...
In <1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The moral: Almost nobody attacks Jesus directly (yet, though that day
will
come).
That day is here, Trumpet. It is time for the world to love the One God, It
is time for Him to be recognized over all these spin off copies.
Well, if ever bothered to exist, maybe somebody would...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
13 Mar 2006 02:44:32 PM |
|
|
"Mary Hogan" <hoogy@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:1142275139_8271@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:i-mdnR7dwdvzqI_ZRVn-sQ@megapath.net...
In <1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The moral: Almost nobody attacks Jesus directly (yet, though that day
will
come).
That day is here, Trumpet. It is time for the world to love the One God,
It is time for Him to be recognized over all these spin off copies.
It's apparently time for you to take your medication.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
13 Mar 2006 06:48:19 PM |
|
|
In <1142275139_8271@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, "Mary Hogan"
<hoogy@zoominternet.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:i-mdnR7dwdvzqI_ZRVn-sQ@megapath.net...
In <1142043612.311974.209460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The moral: Almost nobody attacks Jesus directly (yet, though that day
will
come).
That day is here, Trumpet. It is time for the world to love the One God,
It is time for Him to be recognized over all these spin off copies.
Absolutely, Odin is really tired of that Yahweh faker...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
13 Mar 2006 10:21:33 PM |
|
|
Absolutely, Odin is really tired of that Yahweh faker...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
1Sa 2:10 Those who strive with Yahweh shall be broken to pieces. He
will thunder against them in the sky. Yahweh will judge the ends of the
earth. He will give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of his
anointed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
17 Mar 2006 04:44:31 PM |
|
|
"cyclotron" <jffrycnt@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1142310093.429037.215930@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
1Sa 2:10 Those who strive with Yahweh shall be broken to pieces. He
will thunder against them in the sky. Yahweh will judge the ends of
the earth. He will give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of
his anointed.
Always telling us what Yahweh is going to do. Perhaps if He'd get off his
holy ***** and smite a few atheists, we might be afraid. But no, He doesn't,
and we live lives as long as Christians, and generally wealthier and
happier too.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
God is a word to express, not our ideas, but the want of them.
-- John Stuart Mill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 04:51:53 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote
"cyclotron" <jffrycnt@netscape.net> wrote
1Sa 2:10 Those who strive with Yahweh shall be broken to pieces. He
will thunder against them in the sky. Yahweh will judge the ends of
the earth. He will give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of
his anointed.
Always telling us what Yahweh is going to do. Perhaps if He'd get off
his
holy ***** and smite a few atheists, we might be afraid. But no, He
doesn't,
and we live lives as long as Christians, and generally wealthier and
happier too.
The Lord God sent AIDS against the homosexuals, and it was used as an excuse
for pornography.
Looks like He can't win.
As for atheists being wealthier and happier, what happens is that people
with university educations are the types who get hold of the latest ideas,
read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins "The Jesus Myth", and and describe
themselves as atheists. Poorer people tend just to drop out of regular
religious practise.
So we get apparently contradictory results - religious practise is a force
for social advancement, and a predictor of all the things that lead to
economic success, but atheists tend to be from a higher social class.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 07:19:37 PM |
|
|
The Lord God sent AIDS against the homosexuals, and it was used as an excuse
for pornography.
Looks like He can't win.
For one thing, AIDS is not limited to gays. Africa has a heterosexual
AIDS crisis. Rather than condemning those suffering from an incurable
disease it is the place of Christians to do what they can to care for
and help them. In this fallen world, no one is immune from death. The
death rate is exactly one per person. After that comes judgment, which
is why we need the best lawyer in the universe, our advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ, who took our sins and our punishment for us.
God's love for us was demonstrated by this: that "while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for the ungodly".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
17 Mar 2006 11:53:22 PM |
|
|
Enkidu said:
Always telling us what Yahweh is going to do. Perhaps if He'd get off his
holy ***** and smite a few atheists, we might be afraid. But no, He doesn't,
and we live lives as long as Christians, and generally wealthier and
happier too.
The words you read above are not mine. If you do not fear God, I think
you do not understand who you are and who he is. Look at the stars.
Look at the mountains. He made them, though you deny it. You are so
insignificant in the scheme of it all. Yet he is concerned for you. Yes
he could "smite" you as you suggested. But it is his patience that
keeps him from it. When will you wake up and see he is everywhere in
everything? The day is coming when the world will be judged, but this
is the day of mercy. If I were you (and I have been an unbeliever), I
would run to him for mercy while the time is right. You can live in
health and prosperity in this life, but what good will that do you on
the day of judgment? God offers you a free gift of forgiveness and
mercy if you will accept it, that is the atonement provided by the
blood of Jesus Christ. Believe in him and be saved, and know it even
this moment. As Paul said:
Rom 10:8 ..."The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;"
that is, the word of faith, which we preach:
Rom 10:9 that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord,
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will
be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and
with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be
disappointed."
If you pray and accept Jesus as your saviour, you will be saved
immediately and forever just as the thief on the cross was saved even
at the moment of his death. It only takes a simple sincere prayer of
faith. And you need not worry about living the Christian life, for he
will begin to guide you from that very moment. I say these things
because it happened to me. I do not wish to instill fear in you but I
testify of the things Jesus has done in order that he might instill
life in you. That is my prayer for you and all those who have mocked me
in this discussion. That you may know him and receive his life. I have
no need to push a point or win an argument. My concern is for your
soul. I hope you understand that. It is not my desire to force religion
down your throat. I spoke up because I saw a post that mocked the name
and person of God. I could not keep silent. I prayed and asked God for
a reply, and my Bible opened directly to the verse from Samuel. I
didn't look it up. It was a word God gave me for Mr. Bilbo and the
others here who mocked his name. A warning yes, but I hope a word of
life as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 08:14:31 AM |
|
|
"cyclotron" <jffrycnt@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1142661202.539941.120170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu said:
Always telling us what Yahweh is going to do. Perhaps if He'd get
off his holy ***** and smite a few atheists, we might be afraid. But
no, He doesn't, and we live lives as long as Christians, and generally
wealthier and happier too.
The words you read above are not mine. If you do not fear God, I think
you do not understand who you are and who he is. Look at the stars.
Look at the mountains. He made them, though you deny it. You are so
insignificant in the scheme of it all. Yet he is concerned for you.
Yes he could "smite" you as you suggested. But it is his patience that
keeps him from it.
It sounds to me as it you have a "mustard seed's" worth of faith. Cast a
mountain into the sea. Or cure a loved one of AIDS or cancer. Take
Jesus up on His offer. It doesn't work, does it? Next time you pray,
ask Jesus why He said He'd return during the life time of His earliest
followers. Remind Him that He is two thousand years late. While you've
got His attention, ask Him why the world is in exactly the state He
supposedly came to prevent. Finally, ask Him why faith in Him seems to
have the same result as faith in all those other 'false' gods.
Get back to me when He explains it all to you.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United States, which paid
no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to
say, this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I would suggest
the taxation of all property equally.
-- Ulysses S. Grant
.
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 09:25:44 AM |
|
|
It sounds to me as it you have a "mustard seed's" worth of faith. >Cast a
mountain into the sea. Or cure a loved one of AIDS or cancer.
Take
Jesus up on His offer. It doesn't work, does it? Next time you >pray,
ask Jesus why He said He'd return during the life time of His >earliest
followers. Remind Him that He is two thousand years late. While >you've
got His attention, ask Him why the world is in exactly the state He
supposedly came to prevent. Finally, ask Him why faith in Him >seems to
have the same result as faith in all those other 'false' gods.
Get back to me when He explains it all to you.
So, you are familiar with his word. But you have extracted a few
difficult passages and have based all your interpretation on your
misunderstanding of those passages. What about the other things Jesus
said that shed light on those passages? I often ask similar questions
but unlike you, I just want to fill in the gaps in my understanding
that has come through faith in him, while you seem to want to eliminate
the "gaps" before you will believe the whole. This is like tossing out
the steak because you don't like the onions. Perhaps it is time you
acquired a taste for them, because they are good for you.
Faith is rare indeed as Jesus illustrated by the mustard seed example.
Peter sank in the water when he began to doubt. We are weak and human,
frail and unbelieving. It frustrated Jesus so that he wondered how long
he had to endure it. But it is quite true that the only leverage anyone
can have with God is faith. Abraham is our example. So I can't move a
mountain that makes God not real? No it simply shows how far I am from
knowing him in his reality and power. Who gets what he wants from God?
Jesus told us to be persistent. To pray and not give up. God knows the
heart. He responds to true faith and sincerity. He loves honesty,
simplicity and trust. Jesus came to save the world, that is true. But
he will return to complete that redemption. He actually foretold that
the world would become as it is today before his return.
And then, we do not know why suffering exists, but we have a glimmer of
light in the story of Job. His faith is illustrated in this passage:
"Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a
book!
That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the
latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh
shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not
another; though my reins be consumed within me." Job 19:23-27
And Jesus said:
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.
In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have
overcome the world." Joh 16:33
And Paul told us:
"And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that
tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and
experience, hope" Rom 5:3-4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 10:22:10 AM |
|
|
"cyclotron" <jffrycnt@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1142695544.873767.276580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
It sounds to me as it you have a "mustard seed's" worth of faith.
Cast a mountain into the sea. Or cure a loved one of AIDS or cancer.
Take
Jesus up on His offer. It doesn't work, does it? Next time you
pray, ask Jesus why He said He'd return during the life time of His
earliest followers. Remind Him that He is two thousand years late.
While >you've got His attention, ask Him why the world is in exactly
the state He supposedly came to prevent. Finally, ask Him why faith
in Him >seems to have the same result as faith in all those other
'false' gods.
Get back to me when He explains it all to you.
So, you are familiar with his word. But you have extracted a few
difficult passages and have based all your interpretation on your
misunderstanding of those passages.
The Bible says what it means in clear language or it means nothing at
all. If the "Infallible Word of God" requires interpretation by men,
it's absolutely worthless. As evidence, I piont you to all of the
different interpretations men have made, and that men have been killed
over.
What about the other things Jesus
said that shed light on those passages? I often ask similar questions
but unlike you, I just want to fill in the gaps in my understanding
that has come through faith in him, while you seem to want to
eliminate the "gaps" before you will believe the whole.
What a crock or *****. You ask no questions whatsoever. You are not the
least interested in finding the truth because you think you already know
the truth. You are only interested in finding a plausible way to
reconcile what you want the Bible to say with the state of the world we
observe and what the Bible actually does say.
[snip]
And then, we do not know why suffering exists, but we have a glimmer
of light in the story of Job.
You mean the part where God tormented His most faithful servant on a bet?
Strange example of a living father you have there. If I acted that way
with my children, I would not be held up as a model of a loving and
comassionate father. It has been said that the ways of God are not the
ways of man. For that, let us rejoice.
[snip]
And Paul told us:
"And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that
tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and
experience, hope" Rom 5:3-4
Do tell me more. What exactly did Paul say of Jesus?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy
nailed to two pieces of wood.
-- George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 09:15:24 PM |
|
|
The Bible says what it means in clear language or it means nothing at
all. If the "Infallible Word of God" requires interpretation by men,
it's absolutely worthless. As evidence, I piont you to all of the
different interpretations men have made, and that men have been killed
over.
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable
and will fail. But the word of God will never fail. If men have misused
it, misinterpreted it or abused others in the name of it, they must
answer to God for what they have done. Teachers especially must be
careful that they teach what is true. For God will hold them
accountable.
You ask no questions whatsoever. You are not the
least interested in finding the truth because you think you already know
the truth. You are only interested in finding a plausible way to
reconcile what you want the Bible to say with the state of the world we
observe and what the Bible actually does say.
I do ask questions but not to discredit the Lord that I trust. I ask
him to show me the meaning of what I don't understand. I do believe I
have the truth but I don't know everything. As Paul said, now we see in
a glass, darkly, but then face to face. The day will come when my
questions will not only be answered but seem trivial. I don't need to
reconcile the Bible to explain the world we live in. The Bible is a
very honest look at mankind. All the warts are clearly there. Jesus
knew what was in men and he knew we were evil, sold under sin. But he
came to redeem us from that state. This world is passing away, but
whoever does the will of God will abide forever.
Do tell me more. What exactly did Paul say of Jesus?
Why do you ask?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
18 Mar 2006 09:21:44 PM |
|
|
"cyclotron" wrote
: >The Bible says what it means in clear language or it means nothing at
: >all. If the "Infallible Word of God" requires interpretation by men,
: >it's absolutely worthless. As evidence, I piont you to all of the
: >different interpretations men have made, and that men have been killed
: >over.
:
: You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable
: and will fail. But the word of God will never fail. If men have misused
: it, misinterpreted it or abused others in the name of it, they must
: answer to God for what they have done. Teachers especially must be
: careful that they teach what is true. For God will hold them
: accountable.
:
: >You ask no questions whatsoever. You are not the
: >least interested in finding the truth because you think you already know
: >the truth. You are only interested in finding a plausible way to
: >reconcile what you want the Bible to say with the state of the world we
: >observe and what the Bible actually does say.
:
: I do ask questions but not to discredit the Lord that I trust. I ask
: him to show me the meaning of what I don't understand. I do believe I
: have the truth but I don't know everything. As Paul said, now we see in
: a glass, darkly, but then face to face. The day will come when my
: questions will not only be answered but seem trivial. I don't need to
: reconcile the Bible to explain the world we live in. The Bible is a
: very honest look at mankind. All the warts are clearly there. Jesus
: knew what was in men and he knew we were evil, sold under sin. But he
: came to redeem us from that state. This world is passing away, but
: whoever does the will of God will abide forever.
:
: > Do tell me more. What exactly did Paul say of Jesus?
: Why do you ask?
Maybe the same reason you ask? "I ask him to show me the meaning of what I
don't understand."
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." -Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." -Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." -Shawnee
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets." -Arthur C. Clarke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
19 Mar 2006 07:48:32 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, cyclotron in episode
<1142738124.675369.45990@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
The Bible says what it means in clear language or it means nothing at
all. If the "Infallible Word of God" requires interpretation by men,
it's absolutely worthless. As evidence, I piont you to all of the
different interpretations men have made, and that men have been killed
over.
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of god."
Hm....
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
19 Mar 2006 08:21:37 PM |
|
|
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
Here is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word.
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles. Those writers who were not apostles
were either their companions or eyewitnesses of the same events as the
apostles. Paul is a special case because he had an encounter with the
risen Christ independently of the others. The apostles were not just
eyewitnesses of the resurrection, but were endued with power by the
Holy Spirit to demonstrate that God would "back up" their testimony.
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world. After the apostles we have the writings of
the church Fathers. While much of what they say is a great support to
the Bible, anyone who reads them can see they did not have the same
power in their words. It is the Holy Spirit testifying to the
resurrection of Jesus that is the power of the New Testament. The NT is
the legacy left to us from the apostles. Even today, this word is still
changing lives. And even today the Holy Spirit is at work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
19 Mar 2006 09:23:45 PM |
|
|
"cyclotron" <jffrycnt@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1142821297.557089.207010@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are
fallable and will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of
god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
I've got a book right here that says there is no god but Allah, and
Mohammed is his prophet. You have the opportunity to trust my book, but
you choose not to. I wonder why that is.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- so long
as I'm the dictator.
--George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cyclotron" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
22 Mar 2006 06:48:00 AM |
|
|
I have selected a few statements to respond to since a barrage occurred
after my last post. Several from Matt Giwer and one from Enkidu. Sorry,
but that is all I have time for.
Giwer said:
Men wrote 33 gospels. Only four of them were declared the word of god
even
though they contain irreconcilable differences which is either possible or
impossible for your god to do. You have to reconcile those facts if you insist
upon making such statements.
And only four of them are considered to be of apostolic origin. Why?
Because at the time the canon was being organized they could compare
the gospels with what every Christian believed in the whole world,
aside from some factions known to be in error. I suspect your 29 other
gospels are mostly of gnostic origin, and gnosticism was clearly
refuted starting from John up to Irenaeus. Porphyry of Tyre, who
opposed Christianity, spoke of four gospels circa 280 A.D.
Teachers especially must be
careful that they teach what is true. For God will hold them
accountable.
Where did god say that? Please be specific in your answer. It has to
be a sin
some way or other to attribute to God what it has not said.
"According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master
builder I laid a foundation, and another builds on it. But let each man
be careful how he builds on it.
For no one can lay any other foundation than that which has been
laid, which is Jesus Christ.
But if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, costly
stones, wood, hay, or stubble;
each man's work will be revealed. For the Day will declare it,
because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself will test what sort
of work each man's work is.
If any man's work remains which he built on it, he will receive a
reward.
If any man's work is burned, he will suffer loss, but he himself will
be saved, but as through fire." (1Co 3:10 -15)
Matt also said:
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary. And the Paul of Acts is not specific as to what
happened to him. He does NOT claim a personal encounter.
I don't see how you can say this. There is much corroborating evidence
between Acts and the epistles. And of course he claims a personal
encounter:
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time."(1Co 15:8 )
The apostles were not just
eyewitnesses of the resurrection,
No gospel claims anyone witnessed the resurrection. Where are
you coming from?
You are playing with words. This expression indicates the apostles saw
the risen Christ.
On the side, you have picked up the unfortunate Christian habit of calling
statements testimony because testimony is assumed to be under oath with penalty
of perjury.
Again, you are playing with words. However, if you must use legal
definitions, then Paul says:
" Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not." (Gal 1:20)
Obviously by saying "before God" he is indicating the legal solemnity
of his testimony.
Enkidu said:
So . . . since it's a sin to attibute to God what He has not said, >and
there is no God, then claiming that the Bible is the word of God >is a sin
against God who doesn't exist *because* He doesn't exist!
I understand this is jest, however, this is exactly why a certain kind
of logic can never lead one to the truth. There are those who are "ever
learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (ITim
3:7). However, honesty and faith will lead one to the truth through
sane logic (wisdom), not the kind that picks everything apart until the
entropy renders it unrecognizable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
19 Mar 2006 08:34:52 PM |
|
|
On 19 Mar 2006 18:21:37 -0800, in alt.atheism
"cyclotron" <jffrycnt@netscape.net> wrote in
<1142821297.557089.207010@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
You have the opportunity to accept a claim that is unsupported by
evidence.
Here is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word.
There are many religious texts that you reject, though.
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Really? How much of the New Testament did the apostles write?
Those writers who were not apostles
were either their companions or eyewitnesses of the same events as the
apostles.
Was Luke an apostle, an eyewitness or a companion?
Paul is a special case because he had an encounter with the
risen Christ independently of the others.
So he tells us. Is there any confirmation of his claim?
The apostles were not just
eyewitnesses of the resurrection, but were endued with power by the
Holy Spirit to demonstrate that God would "back up" their testimony.
So we are told, but not by the apostles themselves.
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
That is one possible reason, though it seems to me that Latter Day
Saints has grown faster since its founding than Christianity did in the
Roman Empire.
After the apostles we have the writings of
the church Fathers.
Yet many Christians, particularly the modern American sects reject their
teachings.
While much of what they say is a great support to
the Bible, anyone who reads them can see they did not have the same
power in their words.
Didn't they? Is that because Augustine condemns the foolishness of
Creationism?
It is the Holy Spirit testifying to the
resurrection of Jesus that is the power of the New Testament. The NT is
the legacy left to us from the apostles. Even today, this word is still
changing lives. And even today the Holy Spirit is at work.
I'm not certain you understand who wrote the New Testament.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
19 Mar 2006 09:38:02 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, cyclotron in episode
<1142821297.557089.207010@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>...
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable
and will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of
god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity". Here
is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word. There is
nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not have its
origin with the apostles.
So you *don't think the apostles were fallible men?
Those writers who were not apostles were either
their companions or eyewitnesses of the same events as the apostles. Paul
is a special case because he had an encounter with the risen Christ
independently of the others.
Or he went nuts and had hallucinations.
The apostles were not just eyewitnesses of
the resurrection,
Or at least they said something like that happened.
but were endued with power by the Holy Spirit to
demonstrate that God would "back up" their testimony.
Or at least they claimed to be.
For this reason, not
because they were great leaders or speakers, or even educated, the gospel
spread rapidly across the Roman empire and into the rest of the world.
Or not. Christianity is curiously missing from much the history of the
time. A few, sporadic mentions here and there. Nothing major.
After the apostles we have the writings of the church Fathers. While much
of what they say is a great support to the Bible, anyone who reads them
can see they did not have the same power in their words.
And, boy, were some of them loopy as hell.
It is the Holy
Spirit testifying to the resurrection of Jesus that is the power of the
New Testament. The NT is the legacy left to us from the apostles. Even
today, this word is still changing lives. And even today the Holy Spirit
is at work.
Or so you claim. But you're fallible right? So why should I trust you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VtSkier" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
19 Mar 2006 08:35:42 PM |
|
|
cyclotron wrote:
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
Here is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word.
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Please provide, if not proof, then strong evidence that
this statement is true/factual.
Those writers who were not apostles
were either their companions or eyewitnesses of the same events as the
apostles.
Please provide, if not proof, then strong evidence that
this statement is true/factual.
Paul is a special case because he had an encounter with the
risen Christ independently of the others.
So, apparently, Paul said. Please provide, if not proof,
then strong evidence that this statement is true/factual.
Paul, by his own apparent words, was neither an eyewitness
nor a companion of the other apostles. In fact he apparently
had differences with the other apostles, most notably James.
Interestingly, the earliest "christian" writings we have
are the letters of Paul, who was neither an eyewitness nor
a "companion" of the apostles. It seems the "special case"
is the inventor of christianity, not the apostles.
The apostles were not just
eyewitnesses of the resurrection, but were endued with power by the
Holy Spirit to demonstrate that God would "back up" their testimony.
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world. After the apostles we have the writings of
the church Fathers. While much of what they say is a great support to
the Bible, anyone who reads them can see they did not have the same
power in their words. It is the Holy Spirit testifying to the
resurrection of Jesus that is the power of the New Testament. The NT is
the legacy left to us from the apostles. Even today, this word is still
changing lives. And even today the Holy Spirit is at work.
This last has a preach-y quality to it. It could probably
move the gullible. Can you back it up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
19 Mar 2006 10:14:23 PM |
|
|
VtSkier wrote:
Interestingly, the earliest "christian" writings we have
are the letters of Paul, who was neither an eyewitness nor
a "companion" of the apostles. It seems the "special case"
is the inventor of christianity, not the apostles.
If you read of the claims of the Paul of Acts you find that is not the Paul of
the epistles.
--
It is more accurate to compare Israel to the communists than the Nazis
because they admit it and the communists were worse.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3578
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "VtSkier" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
19 Mar 2006 10:43:51 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Interestingly, the earliest "christian" writings we have
are the letters of Paul, who was neither an eyewitness nor
a "companion" of the apostles. It seems the "special case"
is the inventor of christianity, not the apostles.
If you read of the claims of the Paul of Acts you find that is not
the Paul of the epistles.
Uhm, it is my understanding that Paul is purported to
have authored *most* of the letters attributed to him.
If so, then these are the earliest "christian" writings.
Acts is a *story about* Paul and the apostles, most
likely by the same author who wrote GLuke. It has never
been *by* Paul, and with the passage of 75 to 100 years
(at a minimum) the characters would certainly have changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 12:25:51 AM |
|
|
VtSkier wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Interestingly, the earliest "christian" writings we have
are the letters of Paul, who was neither an eyewitness nor
a "companion" of the apostles. It seems the "special case"
is the inventor of christianity, not the apostles.
If you read of the claims of the Paul of Acts you find that is not
the Paul of the epistles.
Uhm, it is my understanding that Paul is purported to
have authored *most* of the letters attributed to him.
If so, then these are the earliest "christian" writings.
The last I heard was only the four longest could be attributed to the same
person, whomever that person was.
Acts is a *story about* Paul and the apostles, most
likely by the same author who wrote GLuke. It has never
been *by* Paul, and with the passage of 75 to 100 years
(at a minimum) the characters would certainly have changed.
Read what it says Paul did while in Jerusalem and then read how Paul of the
epistles gives no sign of doing those things. And vice versa if I remember one
passage from the epistles.
For example in one of the epistles he makes his own argument to an apparently
Jewish Cephias on why it is OK to eat with non-Jews. Paul of Acts could have
cited the miracle where the food taboos were removed. Paul of Acts would have
cited "go forth and teach all nations." Paul of Acts would have written epistles
as though he were the same Paul of Acts who took the time to learn all there was
to learn about Jesus. Paul of Acts would have written as though he did in fact
know the teachings of Jesus instead of never mentioning a one of them. Paul of
Acts would have cited the authority of Jesus for his teachings but never did,
not once saying he was relating the teachings of Jesus.
--
The good news about the Katrina response is thousands of mobile homes were
delivered to Arkansas faster than anyone thought possible.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3580
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 12:05:40 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Interestingly, the earliest "christian" writings we have
are the letters of Paul, who was neither an eyewitness nor
a "companion" of the apostles. It seems the "special case"
is the inventor of christianity, not the apostles.
If you read of the claims of the Paul of Acts you find that is
not the Paul of the epistles.
Uhm, it is my understanding that Paul is purported to
have authored *most* of the letters attributed to him.
If so, then these are the earliest "christian" writings.
The last I heard was only the four longest could be attributed to
the same person, whomever that person was.
Acts is a *story about* Paul and the apostles, most
likely by the same author who wrote GLuke. It has never
been *by* Paul, and with the passage of 75 to 100 years
(at a minimum) the characters would certainly have changed.
Read what it says Paul did while in Jerusalem and then read how Paul
of the epistles gives no sign of doing those things. And vice versa if I
remember one passage from the epistles.
I'd go further than that: one of these is clearly written *against* the
other. In the same way the Epistle of James, whether or not written by
"the brother of the Lord" is written against justification by faith alone.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 10:01:48 PM |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Interestingly, the earliest "christian" writings we have
are the letters of Paul, who was neither an eyewitness nor
a "companion" of the apostles. It seems the "special case"
is the inventor of christianity, not the apostles.
If you read of the claims of the Paul of Acts you find that is
not the Paul of the epistles.
Uhm, it is my understanding that Paul is purported to
have authored *most* of the letters attributed to him.
If so, then these are the earliest "christian" writings.
The last I heard was only the four longest could be attributed to
the same person, whomever that person was.
Acts is a *story about* Paul and the apostles, most
likely by the same author who wrote GLuke. It has never
been *by* Paul, and with the passage of 75 to 100 years
(at a minimum) the characters would certainly have changed.
Read what it says Paul did while in Jerusalem and then read how
Paul of the epistles gives no sign of doing those things. And vice
versa if I remember one passage from the epistles.
I'd go further than that: one of these is clearly written *against* the
other. In the same way the Epistle of James, whether or not written by
"the brother of the Lord" is written against justification by faith alone.
One of the things I have found profitable lately is to consider alternate
connotations for words in light of facts. For example, noting there is no
explicite statement of monotheism until around the time of Mohamed leads to
asking what was meant by true god and false god. It had to be painfully obvious
this god had no better track record answering prayers than any other god.
Faithful and unfaithful as in lovers comes to mind. And that explains why the
description as a god of love when the whole concept of love is a force fit
without that meaning of true and false. It is a god that is true to his
worshippers. That is also the thrust of the OT, punishment for being untrue.
With regard to Paul and James it leads me to ask what was meant by the word
faith. What was the original word used and what did it mean in context when used
outside of religious material? It is not clear there could have been a Christian
meaning for the word as used today outside of a Christian context. Without
knowing the Greek I would expect the usage to be trust, having trust in the
emperor, authority and this god.
--
Purim, the it's OK when we do it holiday.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3598
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
19 Mar 2006 10:08:21 PM |
|
|
cyclotron wrote:
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word of god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
Here is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word.
As your god lied in three of the four gospel accounts of visiting the tomb how
can you trust it?
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Those writers who were not apostles
were either their companions or eyewitnesses of the same events as the
apostles.
Who obviously cannot be relied upon to have told the truth. Obviously we know
there are four different tomb stories so in at least three cases, maybe all
four, there were liars. How can we know there were not liars to other evetns?
Consider when Jesus prayed alone in Gethsemane while the others slept off the
big meal. Who made up that story? What it the certian young man wearing only a
loincloth who was listening? Do we trust a queer looking for a ***** in a
public park?
Paul is a special case because he had an encounter with the
risen Christ independently of the others.
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary. And the Paul of Acts is not specific as to what
happened to him. He does NOT claim a personal encounter.
The apostles were not just
eyewitnesses of the resurrection,
No gospel claims anyone witnessed the resurrection. Where are you coming from?
but were endued with power by the
Holy Spirit to demonstrate that God would "back up" their testimony.
But there are no accounts in the epistles of that happening.
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
After the apostles we have the writings of
the church Fathers. While much of what they say is a great support to
the Bible, anyone who reads them can see they did not have the same
power in their words.
No one claims there is any "power" in the NT words save believers. It is all in
what they choose to say is great. Shakespeare was considered a hack playwright
until the late 19th century.
It is the Holy Spirit testifying to the
resurrection of Jesus that is the power of the New Testament.
Under oath? Not hardly. ".. so help me me."
The NT is
the legacy left to us from the apostles. Even today, this word is still
changing lives. And even today the Holy Spirit is at work.
Changing lives? So is the Book of Mormon. So is the Koran. So is Silent Spring
for that matter. What is your point?
--
It is more accurate to compare Israel to the communists than the Nazis
because they admit it and the communists were worse.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3578
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
