Is This Scholar Bonkers?

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Is there a way that ALL the physical claims from the Bible, which some scholars currently deem untrue, to still later someday be verified true? And IF so, does this begin to validate that God/Yahweh had an actual hand in any of it?


I think with the different scholars you read you should take in some folks like Hugh Ross.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I think with the different scholars you read you should take in some folks like Hugh Ross.

Hugh Ross is not a Bible scholar. He is a scientist by trade. But I did watched his debate against Kent Hovind. It was awesome. :)

Would you mind taking a gander at my questions? Or, does this video answer all of them? But again, my observations was in reference to Bible scholars.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Hugh Ross is not a Bible scholar. He is a scientist by trade. But I did watched his debate against Kent Hovind. It was awesome. :)

Would you mind taking a gander at my questions? Or, does this video answer all of them? But again, my observations was in reference to Bible scholars.


Your posts are all over the road talking about false-afiability on one hand and on the next Biblical scholars etc. Now Ross actually can deal with the false afffiability issue speaking directly to it since he converted as a Canadian Agnostic due to his investigations of science and the Bible but you don't want to hear it. This makes me think that this is more of a rhetorical effort than a legitimate investigation of knowledge, truth etc.


On the Bible scholar front, I would nominate Dr. Michael Heiser who is an expert of the Bible as far as near eastern cultures goes. He as a Christian acknowledges that the Genesis account can fit many different Creation theories (even theistic Evolution I believe) he likes to compare material in the Old Testament to stuff found in Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other ancient near east cultural writings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Your posts are all over the road talking about false-afiability on one hand and on the next Biblical scholars etc. Now Ross actually can deal with the false afffiability issue speaking directly to it since he converted as a Canadian Agnostic due to his investigations of science and the Bible but you don't want to hear it. This makes me think that this is more of a rhetorical effort than a legitimate investigation of knowledge, truth etc.

Sorry. It might seem that way. This video raises many many many possible questions...

I'm in search, believe it or not.... I stated in my OP, that this can go 'a million directions'. I'm just trying to reduce the directions, by getting stuff 'solved', before moving on. Maybe this is not possible?

Maybe I should rephrase my questions...Such as....

- Are the majority of Bible scholars, whom assert that Moses did actually exist, predominantly Christian? Are the ones whom say he did not exist, atheist? Do they view the evidence from an unbiased perspective, or is there just too much bias, in either direction? Does that even matter?


- Was the intent of the Bible to portray Moses as an actual person? Yes or no?
- Was the intent of the Bible to portray Noah as an actual person? Yes or no?
etc.......

*** Seems as though it might take a Biblical scholar, whom knows enough background, to answer as such. ***

On a side note, the Hugh Ross video is 90 minutes long.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I'm in search, believe it or not.... I stated in my OP, that this can go 'a million directions'. I'm just trying to reduce the directions, by getting stuff 'solved', before moving on. Maybe this is not possible?

I notice in your threads you seem to like to structure things along the lines it's got to be A or B. I don't think much of life lends itself to that. There are some areas where things like "the Law of non-contradiction" come into play and even the Bible uses some instances of that, but those sort of things are kind of rare. Trying to squeeze, or shoehorn everything into that I believe itself is considered a potential fallacy of logic know as Biurfication, basically making something that isn't an A or B into one for some other reason.


Are the majority of Bible scholars, whom assert that Moses did actually exist, predominantly Christian?

Argumentum ad populum?


I honesty don't know how you qualify a Biblical scholar? Is it someone who has a Ph.D. in Biblical languages, if so there are probably many more than you give credit! Is it somebody who has some kind of literary criticism background like the Jesus Seminar Folks? If so, I can see why they would be in the minority. And that is actually why I like Heiser so much because he actually deals with stuff like that.

Probably one of the water shed moments for myself came 25+ years ago. I had a casual friend, Jim, who was way into the Literary Criticism end of the Bible challenge my best friend, Stan, who had previously got his goat on another issue and he seemed to be looking for some kind of personal pay back on a different subject. And he was interrupting one of our favorite shows we watched together as a group (Babylon 5) to try to get some satisfaction.

Jim: In the OT you see God appear as fire.... why is that?

Stan: (ignores him watches TV)

Jim: it's because Abraham coming from Ur was a polytheist and their head god was a fire god!


Benjamin Franklin had a saying "Our critics are our friends because they show us our faults." I began to pay attention to the archaic cultural stuff in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I do not believe it is as damning as my former friend/ acquaintance, but I did become more savvy to that kind of thing. Actually for me it was more like Nietzsche's saying about "Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger". I think I got a more robust, nuanced and broad and in depth view of the Bible then most believers and skeptics ;because, I am very dialectical about learning from a variety of different sources.


But that sort of thing prompted me later to buy a "Jewish Study Bible" that had footnotes in the early Genesis chapters that compared the passages to near eastern flood myths etc. and since then I stumbled on videos from Heiser that go in depth on that kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I notice in your threads you seem to like to structure things along the lines it's got to be A or B. I don't think much of life lends itself to that. There are some areas where things like "the Law of non-contradiction" come into play and even the Bible uses some instances of that, but those sort of things are kind of rare. Trying to squeeze, or shoehorn everything into that I believe itself is considered a potential fallacy of logic know as Biurfication, basically making something that isn't an A or B into one for some other reason.

I disagree. However, I'm not really too concerned with this assertion either way. Please see below.

Argumentum ad populum?

I understand what this fallacy is. However, that is not the intent. I lead my question of consensus with immediate follow up questions :)

My intent is to ask...

Do Christian scholars argue that Moses existed, while atheist scholars argue he did not? Hence, is it possible to get to the bottom of the REAL answer unbiased?
Or is it instead, that the presupposition of 'God exists' and 'no He doesn't' lend too much bias; even for proclaimed experts in this field?

The reason I ultimately ask, is because Moses either did or did not exist. Right?

And if he did not exist, DID the author intent to assert that he did exist? Because if this is the case, we could have a problem?


I honesty don't know how you qualify a Biblical scholar? Is it someone who has a Ph.D. in Biblical languages, if so there are probably many more than you give credit! Is it somebody who has some kind of literary criticism background like the Jesus Seminar Folks? If so, I can see why they would be in the minority. And that is actually why I like Heiser so much because he actually deals with stuff like that.

Dr. Heiser is a Christian scholar. Does he think Moses existed? Why or why not? I'm not familiar with his work? I skimmed through a transcript (https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NB-135-Transcript.pdf), but don't find much either way?.?.?.

Benjamin Franklin had a saying "Our critics are our friends because they show us our faults." I began to pay attention to the archaic cultural stuff in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I do not believe it is as damning as my former friend/ acquaintance, but I did become more savvy to that kind of thing. Actually for me it was more like Nietzsche's saying about "Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger". I think I got a more robust, nuanced and broad and in depth view of the Bible then most believers and skeptics ;because, I am very dialectical about learning from a variety of different sources.

But that sort of thing prompted me later to buy a "Jewish Study Bible" that had footnotes in the early Genesis chapters that compared the passages to near eastern flood myths etc. and since then I stumbled on videos from Heiser that go in depth on that kind of stuff.

Kool. Thank you for the discussion thus far.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Do Christian scholars argue that Moses existed, while atheist scholars argue he did not? Hence, is it possible to get to the bottom of the REAL answer unbiased? Or is it instead, that the presupposition of 'God exists' and 'no He doesn't' lend too much bias; even for proclaimed experts in this field?
I think this is more complex than some questions. One thing is that the current view of secular historians is fairly recent, starting in the latter part of the 20th Cent. Lots of Christians know that the Virgin Birth is controversial, but even among groups like mine that don’t accept Biblical inerrancy, there’s much less awareness of the issues with OT history. Of course among OT scholars there obviously is.

My impression is that among scholars who don’t accept inerrancy, and who are involved in OT history, it’s pretty well accepted that the book of Exodus isn’t historical. So that would be held be most secular and non-evangelical Christian scholars. (Remember that Catholics now accept critical scholarship, so it’s not just “liberal” Christians involved. That’s why I say non-evangelical. That may be a bit oversimplified, since I'm not sure Orthodox accept critical scholarship either.) But Judaism has the same kind of split, and I’d assume Islam as well, so it’s not just Christianity. No group is uniform, so you can bet there is some atheist scholar that thinks the OT story of Moses is substantially true.

Note that while there’s agreement among most non-evangelicals about Exodus, as you get into the time of the kings, there’s disagreement even among secular archaeologists and historians about questions like the existence of David, and just what Israel looked like at various periods. Evangelical scholars are, of course, committed to the historical accuracy of the whole OT, but even non-evangelicals (like secular scholars) are unclear on just how accurate that period is. I’d guess that Christians would tend to be on average less radical, but that’s just a guess.

As far as I can tell from a small amount of reading, interpreting archaeology isn't quite as easy as you'd hope, so there's legitimate room for disagreement. There are historical questions to which the answer simply isn't clear, even if you're trying to avoid bias. Furthermore, a couple of ideologies seem to have developed among archaeologists that aren't entirely explained by differences on religion. But this seems to apply primarily to periods after Moses. I think there's a consensus there. (Personally, I think saying Moses didn't exist may be a slight oversimplification. There are lots of theories about what basis the stories came from, if any. I think it's at least possible that there actually was a leader called Moses, even if the book of Exodus isn't really historical.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I think this is more complex than some questions. One thing is that the current view of secular historians is fairly recent, starting in the latter part of the 20th Cent. Lots of Christians know that the Virgin Birth is controversial, but even among groups like mine that don’t accept Biblical inerrancy, there’s much less awareness of the issues with OT history. Of course among OT scholars there obviously is.

My impression is that among scholars who don’t accept inerrancy, and who are involved in OT history, it’s pretty well accepted that the book of Exodus isn’t historical. So that would be held be most secular and non-evangelical Christian scholars. (Remember that Catholics now accept critical scholarship, so it’s not just “liberal” Christians involved. That’s why I say non-evangelical. That may be a bit oversimplified, since I'm not sure Orthodox accept critical scholarship either.) But Judaism has the same kind of split, and I’d assume Islam as well, so it’s not just Christianity. No group is uniform, so you can bet there is some atheist scholar that thinks the OT story of Moses is substantially true.

Note that while there’s agreement among most non-evangelicals about Exodus, as you get into the time of the kings, there’s disagreement even among secular archaeologists and historians about questions like the existence of David, and just what Israel looked like at various periods. Evangelical scholars are, of course, committed to the historical accuracy of the whole OT, but even non-evangelicals (like secular scholars) are unclear on just how accurate that period is. I’d guess that Christians would tend to be on average less radical, but that’s just a guess.

As far as I can tell from a small amount of reading, interpreting archaeology isn't quite as easy as you'd hope, so there's legitimate room for disagreement. There are historical questions to which the answer simply isn't clear, even if you're trying to avoid bias. Furthermore, a couple of ideologies seem to have developed among archaeologists that aren't entirely explained by differences on religion. But this seems to apply primarily to periods after Moses. I think there's a consensus there. (Personally, I think saying Moses didn't exist may be a slight oversimplification. There are lots of theories about what basis the stories came from, if any. I think it's at least possible that there actually was a leader called Moses, even if the book of Exodus isn't really historical.)

Thank you for the the great response. Seems as though it's quite possible many Christian sects may 'conclude' that Moses was either completely fictitious...? Or maybe, multiple figures in history....? Or maybe other....?

I still have a couple/few questions to consider. The first of which may be unknowable? :)

1. Did the author intend for it's readers to believe Moses was real? (i.e.) Was it the author's intent to assert that Moses was an actual singular character in history?

2. Was Noah real, and did the flood happen?

3. Is it even 'possible' that Jesus falls along the same lines, as described above? Or is this not possible? I'm no mythicist per se. But I will tell you... The more I delve into the NT, the more I have to at least consider it as a 'plausible' conclusion anyways, that maybe Jesus is the same as Moses; as you explained above - (myth, a group of people explained in history, legend, other...). And no, I haven't been reading or listening to Richard Carrier :)
 
Upvote 0

Monksailor

Adopted child of God.
Supporter
Jul 5, 2017
1,487
909
Port town on west (tan sands) shore line of MI
Visit site
✟187,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What compartmentalization of the atonement for sins? The question was how you could reconcile belief in the Resurrection with skepticism concerning aspects of the Old Testament, and the answer is: very easily. It's pretty common in the liberal churches, and I've even seen theological conservatives refer to early stories in Genesis as corrections to pagan mythology.
You should read the WHOLE of an OP. COMPARTMENTALIZE: Copy and Pasted from OP: "Or, can someone successfully compartmentalize the resurrection alone? Meaning, 'yes, all these old stories are just stories, but Jesus did really rise from the dead.'" The resurrection was the completing act of Jesus' atonement for our sins. It demonstrated that He was God with supernatural powers and that His lone sacrifice DID have the power to redeem ALL who choose to believe.

NOW, YOU CHANGE what you say your said. You threw ALL Protestants in one boat in the post I was responding to NOW you have changed it to "liberal churches." That is a VERY different proposition. It would appear that you are very prejudiced against Protestants; erroneously thinking that they are ALL liberal. Such a position is VERY incorrect and ignorant of truth.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
1. Did the author intend for it's readers to believe Moses was real? (i.e.) Was it the author's intent to assert that Moses was an actual singular character in history?

2. Was Noah real, and did the flood happen?

3. Is it even 'possible' that Jesus falls along the same lines, as described above? Or is this not possible? I'm no mythicist per se. But I will tell you... The more I delve into the NT, the more I have to at least consider it as a 'plausible' conclusion anyways, that maybe Jesus is the same as Moses; as you explained above - (myth, a group of people explained in history, legend, other...). And no, I haven't been reading or listening to Richard Carrier :)
Even this is complex. There was a fairly long time for stories to develop. If you assume there was a real Moses, and that some Israelites originally came from Egypt (though not the majority), it's easy to see that stories could accumulate around him. That's only one scenario, of course. Proposals have been made that he was based on various figures from other countries. It's hard to know at each stage who did what and what they thought was true. The final editing probably happened in Babylon. I'd assume they thought Moses was real, though it also seems that they reshaped the history to fit their ideas. But these are all guesses.

It's pretty clear that Noah came out of stories from the surrounding culture. On the other hand, there were surely big floods, and it's not impossible that someone actually warned people about it and escaped. So there might have been a Noah of some sort, though I think most non-evangelical scholars would probably say there wasn't.

I don't see how Jesus could be similar. The OT stories are from "long ago and far away." Paul wrote within a few decades, at a time when people who had seen him were still alive. The Gospels are a bit later, but based on sources that may go back as far as Paul. There is, of course, a group of Jesus' followers, who begin to produce other literature before the last of the NT writings. The claims that Jesus is fiction seem likely conspiracy theory to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please do not think I'm ignoring much of what you've responded to... Just placing some of it to the side for now. I simply want to take smaller bites. See below. You can remind me later, if you feel you want/need to address other areas unaddressed.



True... But this is the crux I see...

If Moses actually DID exist, then all this does is to validate that the Bible got the claim for the existence of a character correct. He did exist. However, does not necessarily lend any further credence to the assertion that this claimed God, in which Moses was claimed to be in contact with, actually exists. This requires a whole other set of criteria....

But...

If it turns out that Moses did NOT exist, what might this say about later verses, written in the Bible, which make seemingly axiomatic statements, such as:


"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness"

I doubt it's very 'righteous' to lead people to believe a fictitious character actually existed.

Was the intent of the Bible to suggest that Moses did exist? If so, what say-you, to the ones whom read such stories, find they reject the book, because they cannot reconcile truth there, hence dismiss a resurrection claim without much further inquiry?

And THEN, please contrast (your) possible alternate conclusion, with that of what God will do to those whom don't believe in earnest.
I think it's rather obvious that the intent of the writer(s) of the Old Testament books was to try to hint at a real flesh and blood personage of some old Israelite named Moses. Of course, all we have today to signal to us that Moses may have existed is the fact that his name comes up throughout the O.T. literature. That's all we have, and we'll just have to learn to live with it.

And what do I say to those who read the bible and reject it? I don't know. What do you think I should say? It's not as if their ability to believe or not is situated 100% on my shoulders. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You should read the WHOLE of an OP. COMPARTMENTALIZE: Copy and Pasted from OP: "Or, can someone successfully compartmentalize the resurrection alone? Meaning, 'yes, all these old stories are just stories, but Jesus did really rise from the dead.'" The resurrection was the completing act of Jesus' atonement for our sins. It demonstrated that He was God with supernatural powers and that His lone sacrifice DID have the power to redeem ALL who choose to believe.

I fail to see your point, given that the the OP made no mention of theories of atonement whatsoever. The question is whether it is possible to simultaneously believe that the Genesis stories are not historical, and yet that the Resurrection is. The answer is that this is possible and in fact fairly common in some circles.

NOW, YOU CHANGE what you say your said. You threw ALL Protestants in one boat in the post I was responding to NOW you have changed it to "liberal churches." That is a VERY different proposition. It would appear that you are very prejudiced against Protestants; erroneously thinking that they are ALL liberal. Such a position is VERY incorrect and ignorant of truth.

I never said all Protestants. I specifically said Mainline Protestantism, i.e., churches like the ELCA, PCUSA, UMC, Episcopal Church, etc. These denominations tend to accept critical scholarship. I used the term "liberal churches" in an attempt at clarification, since the "Mainline" distinction seemed to be causing confusion. I am not sure why you are interpreting any of this as prejudice.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree with your first four words.

You might keep in mind, brother Monksailor, that @Silmarien is a "Christian seeker" and not an "Atheist interloper," so maybe provide her a bit of slack here. ;)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Even this is complex. There was a fairly long time for stories to develop.

I agree partially. I still might interject however.

True or false stories can spread both 'slowly' and/or 'quickly'. In the case for the NT, a few years, or a few decades, may lend plenty of time to develop legend. Furthermore, the acute or obtuse amount of time a story manifests, may lend no further credibility to the 'truthiness' of the claim?

It's pretty clear that Noah came out of stories from the surrounding culture. On the other hand, there were surely big floods, and it's not impossible that someone actually warned people about it and escaped. So there might have been a Noah of some sort, though I think most non-evangelical scholars would probably say there wasn't.

Say everything said above is reality. It drives to a point I'm attempting to convey...

If the author's intent was to suggest Moses was a bona fide character, and the author is asserting that he did indeed exist, but maybe he actually didn't, then doesn't this present suitable questions regarding the claimed veracity for the rest of the Bible?

Or, is it instead reasonable/logical to continue compartmentalizing all stories of the Bible individually?


I don't see how Jesus could be similar. The OT stories are from "long ago and far away." Paul wrote within a few decades, at a time when people who had seen him were still alive. The Gospels are a bit later, but based on sources that may go back as far as Paul. There is, of course, a group of Jesus' followers, who begin to produce other literature before the last of the NT writings. The claims that Jesus is fiction seem likely conspiracy theory to me.

Yes, but Paul never met Jesus. And he authored nearly half the NT alone. Just like the author of 'Moses'
and 'Noah' likely never met such claimed characters. Paul claimed a vision after His death. Most of Jesus' reported followers were likely illiterate. Thus, publishing works may mean little? And we really do not know who wrote the Gospels? And the NT writings are thought to be written anywhere from 65-120-ish AD. You don't think plenty of circulating stories could manifest in a few decades? Heck, read Mark, then read John. Those accounts alone show later additions/claims of the supernatural. Heck, even the original ending of Mark, which later receives additions, seems to demonstrate the legendary embellishment.

I again ask, is it really (that) far fetched to at least throw the 'Jesus myth' conclusion into the pile of possibilities? Much the same as we may conclude Moses and Noah at least?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Monksailor

Adopted child of God.
Supporter
Jul 5, 2017
1,487
909
Port town on west (tan sands) shore line of MI
Visit site
✟187,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think it's rather obvious that the intent of the writer(s) of the Old Testament books was to try to hint at a real flesh and blood personage of some old Israelite named Moses. Of course, all we have today to signal to us that Moses may have existed is the fact that his name comes up throughout the O.T. literature. That's all we have, and we'll just have to learn to live with it.

And what do I say to those who read the bible and reject it? I don't know. What do you think I should say? It's not as if their ability to believe or not is situated 100% on my shoulders. :rolleyes:

What would you say? What did Jesus say about those who rejected the Gospel message brought by His disciples when He sent them out to preach? "14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard;..." (Matthew 10:14-17a)

Shaking the dust off your feet like that upon departure was in effect putting a curse upon them in that culture and time. Even today, if you show the soles of your feet to someone in that geographical area, such as in sitting with your leg crossed over the the other's knee where your sole is exposed to them, it is taken extremely offensively.

Or you could give them these among many available links, Rejecting the Bible or What are the Consequences of Rejecting God's Word? or What Are the Consequences When the Doctrine of Inerrancy Is Rejected? by Don Stewart.

We are told by God that we will be "spewed or spit" out of His mouth if we try not to offend anyone, for example, by being a middle-of-the-road or fence-straddling person in our commitment to God's Word: search "lukewarm." We are to love unbelievers as Christ. True love does not avoid conflict and is willing to accept rejection in any form and will not hesitate to warn anyone of the consequences of a very destructive choice like refusing to believe and accept God's Word. Also, we are commanded to expose evil and not turn our back on it or ignore it. Christ said that He came to bring a sword and not peace; to divide even families in Mathew 10: 33-35, and if we are a true follower of His we WILL be rejected and hated by unbelievers, so if we try to avoid conflict we will not be following Christ. We are commanded to be courageous and expository in our faith.
 
Upvote 0

Monksailor

Adopted child of God.
Supporter
Jul 5, 2017
1,487
909
Port town on west (tan sands) shore line of MI
Visit site
✟187,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You might keep in mind, brother Monksailor, that @Silmarien is a "Christian seeker" and not an "Atheist interloper," so maybe provide her a bit of slack here. ;)
I tried to edit it with additional explanatory research and comments right after that singular sentence was posted and had expended significant time and effort in doing so but it was all deleted somehow. Certainly, not by me and I do not think the cite would delete what I wrote at all as it was all Biblical and intended to clear up the misunderstanding about compartmentalization. I just assumed that God thought that she was not yet prepared or able to accept my explanation and deleted it so I canceled the edit and left it as originally wrote. In short, what I said to this person and was deleted some how was part of what I explained to another a few moments ago. You cannot compartmentalize God's Word as suggested in the OP.

I do apologize to Silmarien if my frankness offended you. I DID expend much effort and time to try to grind the sharp edges off of the statement but it was all deleted somehow and it was very maddening to me that I lost all of the work. But like I said I came to the conclusion the God decided you were not ready for what I had to add so I canceled the edit and left it as originally wrote as that part was not deleted. I am very sorry it may have hurt you. I come from a very, very hard knocks lifetime and forget others may be very sensitive to approaches and ways and means I regard as normal and insignificant. Being sensitive in the environments I come from only meant that you might not survive and would most certainly guarantee more threats to your existence. I struggle with being kind. Most people in my life have not been that way and I did not learn that even from my father (earthly father, an "intellectual" atheist, who hated God and had contempt for all Christians. When one is in survival mode, operational focus must be upon all the avenues of attack form others and being kind and nice to them is not a luxury one can afford as it leaves one vulnerable. I still struggle with this behavior which became instinctive for me. Now being a Christian I have no fear of death or where I am going thereafter and the vulnerability of being kind should not be a concern of mine. But so many, many people, every day, exploit kindness in another and prey upon them, me, that I also fail in my obligation to be kind; regardless. I still have significant growth in that area ahead of me toward my sanctification. If needed, I ask for your forgiveness.

The Bible does say in many places that unbelievers are not able to see the Truth of the Scriptures because it is the Holy Spirit imparted unto believers and our faith which enables us to see the Truth of the God's Word. The entry door of sight is the acceptance of the fact that we are sinners doomed to hell and that FAITH in Jesus' work is the only source of our redemption unto God, the Father, the Father allowing what Jesus did exclusive to anything we might do to be our ticket to heaven for all eternity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What would you say? What did Jesus say about those who rejected the Gospel message brought by His disciples when He sent them out to preach? "14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard;..." (Matthew 10:14-17a)

Shaking the dust off your feet like that upon departure was in effect putting a curse upon them in that culture and time. Even today, if you show the soles of your feet to someone in that geographical area, such as in sitting with your leg crossed over the the other's knee where your sole is exposed to them, it is taken extremely offensively.

Or you could give them these among many available links, Rejecting the Bible or What are the Consequences of Rejecting God's Word? or What Are the Consequences When the Doctrine of Inerrancy Is Rejected? by Don Stewart.

We are told by God that we will be "spewed or spit" out of His mouth if we try not to offend anyone, for example, by being a middle-of-the-road or fence-straddling person in our commitment to God's Word: search "lukewarm." We are to love unbelievers as Christ. True love does not avoid conflict and is willing to accept rejection in any form and will not hesitate to warn anyone of the consequences of a very destructive choice like refusing to believe and accept God's Word. Also, we are commanded to expose evil and not turn our back on it or ignore it. Christ said that He came to bring a sword and not peace; to divide even families in Mathew 10: 33-35, and if we are a true follower of His we WILL be rejected and hated by unbelievers, so if we try to avoid conflict we will not be following Christ. We are commanded to be courageous and expository in our faith.

Monk, I very much feel your grievances and I think a number of folks on CF (atheists in particular) could vouch that they've heard me offer up some rather stern evaluations about their view points as well as about certain less than biblical aspects of our surrounding culture. (If you haven't noticed this yet, you might have a look around here in the Christian Apologetics section). However, I take some issue with your own view of these common feelings we share on the grounds that where the word "EXPOSITORY" is concerned, it has to be meted out not only through the Spirit, but also through the spiritual synergy of the Church Body and through a responsible engagement with HERMENEUTICS.

So, while I appreciate your candor and your drive to evangelize, I think you may be missing some of the overall context that should arbitrate any of the insights and applications we might take from within the Bible, and our engagement with HERMENUETICS will (and should) play into and mediate the ways in which we not only understand the Bible but also the ways in which we stand for it and even 'deliver' it.

Moreover, I have to wonder about your present ability to read and understand since you're stretching a toe or two over the guidelines that overshadow the Christian Apologetics forum. I realize you probably didn't mean to start debating a fellow Christian here, or even a Christian Seeker like @Silmarien, so you may want to have another look at the guidelines which you agreed to abide by when you signed up to actively participate in this forum. See the link below (which is also above):

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

Peace :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I tried to edit it with additional explanatory research and comments right after that singular sentence was posted and had expended significant time and effort in doing so but it was all deleted somehow. Certainly, not by me and I do not think the cite would delete what I wrote at all as it was all Biblical and intended to clear up the misunderstanding about compartmentalization. I just assumed that God thought that she was not yet prepared or able to accept my explanation and deleted it so I canceled the edit and left it as originally wrote. In short, what I said to this person and was deleted some how was part of what I explained to another a few moments ago. You cannot compartmentalize God's Word as suggested in the OP.

I think you've simply misunderstood the response @Silmarien gave to @cvanwey at the beginning of this whole thread ...

... and yes I understand that she said she thinks the accounts in the Old Testament regarding Moses are "legendary rather than historical."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I think it's rather obvious that the intent of the writer(s) of the Old Testament books was to try to hint at a real flesh and blood personage of some old Israelite named Moses. Of course, all we have today to signal to us that Moses may have existed is the fact that his name comes up throughout the O.T. literature. That's all we have, and we'll just have to learn to live with it.

Kool. I agree and think the same thing - that the author's intent was to assert a singular flesh and blood man, whom did this and that in 'history'. Same goes for Noah. However, if it turns out that they did not exist in history, contrary to the author's intent, then whose to say the rest of the Bible is, all of a sudden, trust-worthy?

I will extent to you the same followup posed to @hedrick ...

Is it possible that the stories of Jesus fall somewhere on the same scope? That Moses, Noah, and Jesus are either mythical, other? He states, no, because it points to a 'conspiracy'. Thus, I ask you the same question. If it is not possible, why not?


*** Again, I'm not necessarily a 'Jesus mythicist.' However, when evaluating the details, seems as though one might need to at least place this option on the table / chopping block.*** Along side with...


- "He was real, and rose from the dead"

- "He was a single real man, but merely a human being alone - same as all other recorded people in history claiming to be of God."

- Or maybe another option..?

Keep in mind, I've never really dove into this option before... I figure you and @hedrick , being that both of you seem to look to be open to other options, may be a good place to start the exploration process :)

Points to consider, in exploration of the 'He never existed option':

1. Jesus never bothers to write anything to paper Himself. Seems odd, since the Word is of great importance to His teachings. Why verbalize only, to instead let fallible men later write stuff? Later men could write whatever they want, especially decades/centuries later. - (i.e.) Not falsifiable, for the most part - (which ties to point #2 directly below).


2. The Gospels are anonymous. Yea, so? So are many accounts from antiquity. Why is this significant here however? Because not only do we not know who wrote them, but when. - Most of which are thought to be written many decades later. Legends can certainly inflate over time. Being that eyewitness attestation is of great importance to the claims of miracles, the fact that we have no clue who wrote them, seems to raise more questions than answers. See below...


3. We don't have original manuscripts. And it's argued that complete copies do not arise until during or after Constantine, whom was a known follower whom encouraged scribes to write about Christianity.

4. The Jewish Diaspora happened around the exact same time as the Flavian dynasty. Which was argued to issue wartime propaganda to suppress the Jews. This point might fall directly to @hedrick 's assessment to assert that 'Jesus was mere myth' is to also follow 'conspiracy theory'. But again, since the original publication of the Gospels were anonymous, this means we do not know WHO wrote them, and when. - Which ties back to points 2 and 3.

5. We really have very little, if nothing, outside the Bible itself -secular reports of such claimed events in history. Seems as though if many rose from their graves and walked a city for many to see, we might have recordings of such, and not a singular passage from the Gospel assertion/account itself. Again, this points to the fact that anyone can write anything later, and have it be uncontested / unfalsifiable.


I'll stop here for now.

Thank You!
 
Upvote 0