Purveyor of Confusion

cvanwey · Jun 2, 2020

dcalling said:
unless you give me an easy way to lookup via a click I don't have time to page through and find that post.

Post 620. (8th request).

dcalling said:
Exactly, so all is given up to God. You do know the 12 disciples all wear clothes do you?

They prolly had the one pair of clothes they wore, and nothing else.

But again, you are continually making no effort to address my actual points. You skip right over them:

- The verse does not speak about a metaphorical sense, in that you need to retain possessions, as long as you make sure not to value them above Jesus. In this context, the Chapter is speaking about the cost of being a follower.

- Furthermore, the verse does not speak about a very specific time, in a very specific place. The verse is there for all readers to read.

dcalling said:
See above. I am pretty sure Amish also have properties, they just don't use modern tools.
It almost seems you are desperate to sew confusion

Nope, I'm not desperate. I'm asking you a BASIC question, and you have yet to answer...

- HOW do you know Luke 14:25-33 does not pertain to you?

Also...

- Maybe your faith is weak, from God's perspective?
- Maybe talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words; and giving up all your possessions would demonstrate your 'faith'?
- Maybe the Amish are more on the right track, verses you?

dcalling · Jun 3, 2020

cvanwey said:
Post 620. (8th request).

Post the content or a link to it. (nth request)

cvanwey said:
They prolly had the one pair of clothes they wore, and nothing else.

But again, you are continually making no effort to address my actual points. You skip right over them:

- The verse does not speak about a metaphorical sense, in that you need to retain possessions, as long as you make sure not to value them above Jesus. In this context, the Chapter is speaking about the cost of being a follower.

- Furthermore, the verse does not speak about a very specific time, in a very specific place. The verse is there for all readers to read.

It can only be a metaphorical sense, as you also acknowledged they had at least one pair of clothes. Not only that some of them own houses that they live in. Who do you think they give that house to?

And from Jesus' teachings we already know the most important law is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, the 12 discapals likely give up all to follow him, still they have their cloth, house, boat...

cvanwey said:
Nope, I'm not desperate. I'm asking you a BASIC question, and you have yet to answer...

- HOW do you know Luke 14:25-33 does not pertain to you?

It does. But see above.

cvanwey said:
Also...

- Maybe your faith is weak, from God's perspective?
- Maybe talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words; and giving up all your possessions would demonstrate your 'faith'?
- Maybe the Amish are more on the right track, verses you?

1. yes maybe
2. I don't need to demonstrate my faith. the faith is between one and God
3. maybe and maybe not, everyone got their own thinking. For the Amish maybe they think living in the past is best way to worship God, but for most others living now with access to modern technology is the best way to worship God and spreading the Gospel.

miknik5 · Jun 3, 2020

It´s okay, CVanwey,

You must have forgotten Romans 14

And in any case, Who is any man to judge another Master´s servant.
To their own Master they will stand or fall...and that servant will stand for his MASTER/LORD is (thankfully) able to make him stand..

cvanwey · Jun 3, 2020

dcalling said:
Post the content or a link to it. (nth request)

Okay, again, I'm not going to do all your work for you.

dcalling said:
It can only be a metaphorical sense, as you also acknowledged they had at least one pair of clothes. Not only that some of them own houses that they live in. Who do you think they give that house to?

@dcalling , you are either not seeing all my prior responses, you are forgetting my prior responses, or you care not to actually address my prior responses.

The entire passage starts at verse 25, and ends at verse 33. Read it in context. It's clear... Below is the NIV:

"25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."

Pay careful attention at the end. I'm going to highlight this part, once again, for you

You must give up everything. Have you done this? Have you even attempted to do this? Or, did you instead say, what you've said, and what many others say?

"Oh, He means you must put Jesus first."

Well, it's clear, in this passage, that to place Jesus first, means that you must give up everything. AGAIN, He does not say WHOM/WHO to give them to. Thus, it is not important. You can give them to your neighbor whom is not a Christian, torch them, leave them where you find them, ect...

dcalling said:
And from Jesus' teachings we already know the most important law is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, the 12 discapals likely give up all to follow him, still they have their cloth, house, boat...

Does this mean that if you have made no true attempt to give up everything, that Jesus will pardon you anyways, or state this passage does not really apply to you?

Again, the passage starts at verse 25, and ends at verse 33. Please read it above...

dcalling said:
It does. But see above.

If you acknowledge that it does apply to you, then can you confidently state you have given up all to follow Him?

dcalling said:
1. yes maybe

Okay. If you are a true believer, you may want to square up all your doubts with the almighty. He has given instruction, above, on what it takes to be a true follower

And once you have done the above, then you'll need to go through the rest of the Bible, and make sure all those given criteria have been fulfilled as well...

dcalling said:
2. I don't need to demonstrate my faith. the faith is between one and God

Well, this arena is to defend your faith. I'm merely using God's Word to demonstrate that it looks as though your faith may not be nearly as strong as you have now admitted

dcalling said:
3. maybe and maybe not, everyone got their own thinking. For the Amish maybe they think living in the past is best way to worship God, but for most others living now with access to modern technology is the best way to worship God and spreading the Gospel.

Sure they have their own thinking. But please remember, the only thinking that matters, is your proclaimed God's. And in light of the given passage, do you honestly think your thinking aligns with His? If so, I would have to disagree.

Remember, I do not claim to follow Him. I do not claim to have true faith in Him. But [you] do.

So I again use your words against you....

"No true Christian would ever own possessions. And if they do, they were never a true Christian."

dcalling · Jun 3, 2020

cvanwey said:
@dcalling , you are either not seeing all my prior responses, you are forgetting my prior responses, or you care not to actually address my prior responses.

The entire passage starts at verse 25, and ends at verse 33. Read it in context. It's clear... Below is the NIV:

"25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."

Pay careful attention at the end. I'm going to highlight this part, once again, for you

You must give up everything. Have you done this? Have you even attempted to do this? Or, did you instead say, what you've said, and what many others say?

"Oh, He means you must put Jesus first."

Well, it's clear, in this passage, that to place Jesus first, means that you must give up everything. AGAIN, He does not say WHOM/WHO to give them to. Thus, it is not important. You can give them to your neighbor whom is not a Christian, torch them, leave them where you find them, ect...

Thank you for quoting scripture.
I have told you again and again, it means that we should take Jesus first, and if He requires give up all your things to follow (die) for him. The apostles didn't throw their belongings away, they still have their cloth (which is not EVERY THING), and fishing boat (as John etc were still fishing) and house (they were praying in their house).

Which part of it do you not understand? Isn't it clear they didn't give up everything (but when required, they give up all include their life for Christ).

cvanwey said:
Does this mean that if you have made no true attempt to give up everything, that Jesus will pardon you anyways, or state this passage does not really apply to you?

cvanwey said:
Again, the passage starts at verse 25, and ends at verse 33. Please read it above...

If you acknowledge that it does apply to you, then can you confidently state you have given up all to follow Him?

Okay. If you are a true believer, you may want to square up all your doubts with the almighty. He has given instruction, above, on what it takes to be a true follower And once you have done the above, then you'll need to go through the rest of the Bible, and make sure all those given criteria have been fulfilled as well...

Not possible to square up all doubts, as God is infinite and we are limited. We only need to make sure we understand the basics, i.e. Love God and Love our neighbors, and don't try to save yourself by your own works except God's grace.

cvanwey said:
Well, this arena is to defend your faith. I'm merely using God's Word to demonstrate that it looks as though your faith may not be nearly as strong as you have now admitted

I am defending the Christian faith by explaining to you what it is. I am not required to defend my own faith with God to you, that is between me and God. You are confused

.

cvanwey said:
Sure they have their own thinking. But please remember, the only thinking that matters, is your proclaimed God's. And in light of the given passage, do you honestly think your thinking aligns with His? If so, I would have to disagree.

See above. I know my relationship with God, you can question it, I have already explained my position.

cvanwey said:
Remember, I do not claim to follow Him. I do not claim to have true faith in Him. But [you] do.

Correct. As in the Bible all I required to do is explain it to you, and if you don't believe, shake the dust off my feet

(Matt 10:14)

cvanwey said:
So I again use your words against you....

"No true Christian would ever own possessions. And if they do, they were never a true Christian."

Nope, that is not my words, I never said that, you conjured it up and try to put in my mouth.

cvanwey · Jun 4, 2020

dcalling said:
Thank you for quoting scripture.
I have told you again and again, it means that we should take Jesus first, and if He requires give up all your things to follow (die) for him.

As I've told you again and again, talk is cheap and action speak louder than words. Did you read the entire passage in context? I've asked you again and again, have you made any attempt to give up all? I doubt that you have. Hence, maybe your faith is actually weak? You have already acknowledged this...

dcalling said:
The apostles didn't throw their belongings away, they still have their cloth (which is not EVERY THING), and fishing boat (as John etc were still fishing) and house (they were praying in their house).

Which part of it do you not understand? Isn't it clear they didn't give up everything (but when required, they give up all include their life for Christ).

How do you know the apostles are in heaven? Maybe their faith was not strong enough? Jesus gave instruction, which maybe even the 'disciples' did not follow. I'm sure Jesus hung out with many, for which He did not deem worthy to enter heaven. There exists many characters in the Bible.

dcalling said:
Not possible to square up all doubts, as God is infinite and we are limited. We only need to make sure we understand the basics, i.e. Love God and Love our neighbors, and don't try to save yourself by your own works except God's grace.

For starters, there is not too much complicated about abandoning all to follow Him; which apparently, is Jesus' measure of true faith. Have you done this? Again, saying you put Jesus first is of little value. You must actually forsake/abandon/give up everything.

dcalling said:
I am defending the Christian faith by explaining to you what it is.

All you have done, is rationalize/re-purpose the Verse(s).

dcalling said:
I am not required to defend my own faith with God to you, that is between me and God. You are confused .

It seems as if it is you whom are confused about God's measure of faith

dcalling said:
Correct. As in the Bible all I required to do is explain it to you, and if you don't believe, shake the dust off my feet (Matt 10:14)

Many believers think their renditions/translations to Scripture are correct, and hear the Lord. And yet, many assertions conflict. What makes you think ALL that Luke 14:25-33 means is what you translate? Because if you are wrong, it seems as though you are not welcome into His kingdom?

dcalling said:
Nope, that is not my words, I never said that, you conjured it up and try to put in my mouth.

Simply replace 'possessions' with 'blasphemy', and they are your words

"No true Christian would ever commit 'blasphemy'. And if they do, they were never a true Christian."

agapelove · Jun 5, 2020

cvanwey said:
Okay. I'm afraid this may require an entirely new topic though... Remains to be seen...? Give me your best Bible prophecy, for starters?

I'm afraid I may not do this topic proper justice. Obviously as a Christian I will argue that the "best" prophecy is that of Christ and the fulfillment of the Davidic dynasty. Other prophecies you can look into are those of the promised land, and the overthrow of the Israelites by foreign conquest. Feel free to start a new thread on this if you would like to discuss these with well learned apologists.

cvanwey said:
This does not address the meat of my concern. (slightly paraphrased) "Like I stated prior, even if we did have the originals, why does an original publication guarantee the said events actually happened?"

Do you approach every historical document with the same amount of skepticism? Perhaps the Magna Carta was also forged.

cvanwey said:
And yes, I'm aware that most of the 'claimed' eye witnesses were mere peasants - of no formal education. Which begs a basic question... If God's intent was to present His power to eye witnesses, wouldn't it be more prudent and/or convincing to present His miracles to the literate population? You know, the ones with abilities to write them down...

He performed miracles in front of Pharisees and they accused him of being the Devil. It was this fear of political and religious overthrow that they had him executed, and then later began persecuting Christians. As you know, the Jewish tradition does not acknowledge Jesus as the promised messiah. It was early educated Jews like Paul, who converted to Christianity, who is responsible for much of the NT authorship.

cvanwey said:
So you admit someone like say... a Hindu... has just as much evidence and justification for their beliefs, as you have for yours? But you instead maybe just flipped a coin to decide which one you actually believe, since the claims are in opposition to one another?

There is about as much "opposition" between Hinduism and Christianity as there is between Christianity and Christianity. I essentially believe that at the root of both (and all) religions is the same God, who has revealed Himself in different ways. Religion is a man-made institution that helps humans understand God. It's similar to how we use racial identity to understand ourselves and each other. Ultimately there is one God and one race (the human race).

cvanwey said:
The title of [this] thread involves 'salvation'. And again, if God's contact is THIS subtle, sounds like a pretty impotent God?`And like I stated prior, seems as though the 'go-to' answer often becomes... "God works in mysterious ways,' and 'we will find out after we die.' For which I again repeat... couldn't any believer make these generic and blanket claim(s) for ANY God(s)?

You cannot directly see the Spirit of God any more than you see spiritual realities like love or hope, yet you acknowledge the latter while denying God. Making a generic/blanket claim about any God is making a claim about God. There is only one God.

cvanwey said:
- 'Objective meaning' is likely whatever each of us impose.
- I have absolutely no clue what happens after death. But if I was to bet on it, I'd say nothing...?

Precisely. There is no objective meaning to life. And until science or what have you gives us a better answer, human beings will turn to religion to assign higher meaning to life.

cvanwey said:
MY POINT is that some day, all will experience eternal bliss/no more sin/no ability or want for sin. Prior to transition into the heavenly realm, ALL will 'sin', according to God, regardless of whether it be deliberate, accidental, or maybe even to commit a 'lesser' sin to save against a 'greater sin.

THUS, if no human has the ability to sin in heaven, because you are no longer you, just immediately send everyone there now. All will sin, regardless of how hard one tries not to, Christian or no Christian.

Hence, what is the point of prior trial and tribulation????

You missed what I've stated two or three times now. The Bible states:

"10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

God is essentially saying, that some day, I will bow to Him, as He truly likes. So again, what's the point of any trial and tribulation? If my knee is someday bowing, and my tongue is someday confessing to Him, as my savior is inevitably and ultimately going to come, then everything prior becomes an unnecessary act in futility.

MY POINT, which I will state again, is that human beings have free will. Not sure what is so difficult about this concept for you? There is no love unless there is also choice. Your "transition" into the heavenly realm is not death, it is when you acknowledge your true identity, confess of your sins, and then repent from your old self. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God is patient with you, "not wanting anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentance."

Because of sin humans are inherently hard-hearted, and it is only through trials and tribulations that we learn to seek God. They say that when you hit rock bottom, you can only go up. God promises that he works all things together for our good, so we must trust that even suffering is part of the sanctification process. A paraphrase of Ephesians 9:22-23 that captures this quite well would be: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience Saul, a vessel of wrath fit for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for Paul, a vessel of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory?

I am a school teacher and I know that "someday", my students will know how to read and write. Does that mean that somehow my job is irrelevant now?

cvanwey said:
If I work on the Sabbath, I'm punishing myself? I'm 'punishing' myself no more or less than any other day of the week. God set up this rule, not me. If I break God's law, God will punish me.
God is the rule maker, and the rule enforcer. You break His rule, He punishes you. He laid forth the ground rules. If I do not agree, too bad. There exists no escape. I cannot choose to live in another state or country, to avoid a law I do not like.

The point of the Sabbath is to give yourself a day off. Workaholics do not need God's help punishing them self.

cvanwey said:
And to answer your comparison, in this sense, you kind of don't have free will Sure, you can choose whether or not you want to drink, and presumably, no one is going to force you to drink one way or another. However, you cannot 'choose' not to have a headache the next day, if you do drink. Hence, one could argue that you may sometimes willingly choose to drink, knowing you are going to suffer the next day. but maybe you knew the fun of that night outweighs the suffrage of the next day, which is temporary. But in Christianity, seems as though, if others are right, and YOU are wrong, your incorrect choices could land you an eternity of suffrage.?.?.?

Well, I can't argue with this statement because I simply do not believe in eternal suffrage. Again, you will have to take this concern up with those folks over there.

cvanwey said:
Oh, you mean God? He is the one whom delivers the threat, or innuendo.

"18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe"

Using the above example, if I say to you, "If you drink too much tonight you will be hungover tomorrow!" Do you consider that a threat???

cvanwey said:
1) As stated prior, we all find our own 'meaning'. But if we are all already ultimately saved, and all end up in eternal bliss and free from sin, than everything prior is arbitrary.
2) You've missed my point here. According to God, we all ultimately choose God, and He already knows this. In this model, free will is irrelevant.
3) This does not change anything about what I stated prior. Everything prior is superfluous.

I'll start from the beginning, let me know where I lose you: Ultimate salvation does not negate free will.

cvanwey said:
- I guess you seem to think prophecy and eye witness attestation are strong pieces? We can start there.
- And as I told you prior, without some catalyst, you cannot will a belief change. You have demonstrated my point profoundly. --- 'Shock therapy' and 'hypnosis' would qualify as a catalyst You cannot simply will a change, however.

The catalyst is my decision to one day seek a shock therapist. I google "hypnotherapy near me", make an appointment, drive myself there, pay for the service, sign liability forms, and get in the chair, over and over again until I somehow believe the moon is made of cheese.

dcalling · Jun 5, 2020

cvanwey said:
As I've told you again and again, talk is cheap and action speak louder than words. Did you read the entire passage in context? I've asked you again and again, have you made any attempt to give up all? I doubt that you have. Hence, maybe your faith is actually weak? You have already acknowledged this...

How do you know the apostles are in heaven? Maybe their faith was not strong enough? Jesus gave instruction, which maybe even the 'disciples' did not follow. I'm sure Jesus hung out with many, for which He did not deem worthy to enter heaven. There exists many characters in the Bible.

For starters, there is not too much complicated about abandoning all to follow Him; which apparently, is Jesus' measure of true faith. Have you done this? Again, saying you put Jesus first is of little value. You must actually forsake/abandon/give up everything.

All you have done, is rationalize/re-purpose the Verse(s).

It seems as if it is you whom are confused about God's measure of faith

Many believers think their renditions/translations to Scripture are correct, and hear the Lord. And yet, many assertions conflict. What makes you think ALL that Luke 14:25-33 means is what you translate? Because if you are wrong, it seems as though you are not welcome into His kingdom?

From my previous post: I have told you again and again, it means that we should take Jesus first, and if He requires give up all your things to follow (die) for him. The apostles didn't throw their belongings away, they still have their cloth (which is not EVERY THING), and fishing boat (as John etc were still fishing) and house (they were praying in their house).

The apostles still own cloth, boat, house, I know the apostles are in heaven because when required, they valued all (their belongings, their life) below God, and give up their life for God. You can try to twist the words, and your ability to do so is amazing.

My faith maybe weak compare to others, but it is strong enough that I know I am saved. You can feel free to suspect other wise

cvanwey said:
Simply replace 'possessions' with 'blasphemy', and they are your words

"No true Christian would ever commit 'blasphemy'. And if they do, they were never a true Christian."

That is after you keep trying to make blasphemy against God and blasphemy against Holy Spirit together, even when the Bible clearly told it is not. In such rebellion against the Bible you can equate possessions with blasphemy.

cvanwey · Jun 6, 2020

agapelove said:
Do you approach every historical document with the same amount of skepticism? Perhaps the Magna Carta was also forged.

I approach each piece of ancient writing(s), observing the same standard(s). The passage in question was likely forged, as the rest of his works do not match, via literary style. The earliest copies do not have this passage. The paragraph was likely added at a later time.

But like I stated prior, even IF it was not forged, I initially asked you for extra-Biblical evidence, which would account for eye witness attestation to the said miracles of Jesus. A later writer, writing what earlier people believed, does not qualify.

Thus, I ask you again...

Do you have any extra-Biblical attestations for Jesus' said miracles? I doubt mentioning something about an eclipse and an earthquake qualifies as eye witness attestation to said Jesus miracles?

agapelove said:
He performed miracles in front of Pharisees and they accused him of being the Devil. It was this fear of political and religious overthrow that they had him executed, and then later began persecuting Christians. As you know, the Jewish tradition does not acknowledge Jesus as the promised messiah. It was early educated Jews like Paul, who converted to Christianity, who is responsible for much of the NT authorship.

Why are the Jews wrong about Jesus? Further, is it possible Jesus was executed, just like the many others whom were merely claiming to be something they actually weren't? Was Jesus the first, or the last, to be executed for making 'false' claims to divinity?

And yes, Saul/Paul is basically responsible for nearly half the NT. But I don't think he met Jesus, until his claimed encounter with Jesus, post mortem. Thus, I'm not sure how Paul is relevant here?

I will ask my curious question again....

If one of Jesus' objectives, was to demonstrate his power and glory, don't you find it curious He did so in front of a population, for which He knew will never write or corroborate the events? It's safe to assume the later Gospel writers wrote of what they were told - exclusively from oral tradition.

Speaking of "political and religious", is it possible the authors of the NT harbored an unfounded bias, and/or maybe had some sort of agenda? Since we do not really know whom wrote the Gospels, one can only speculate....?

I also noticed you skipped right over my prior observation; that we have no originals, and why that may be important here? And further, that God cared not to assure that such writings were preserved?

agapelove said:
There is about as much "opposition" between Hinduism and Christianity as there is between Christianity and Christianity. I essentially believe that at the root of both (and all) religions is the same God, who has revealed Himself in different ways. Religion is a man-made institution that helps humans understand God. It's similar to how we use racial identity to understand ourselves and each other. Ultimately there is one God and one race (the human race).

I find conflict in this answer... Cough cough... Monotheism vs polytheism.... Humans would have to be QUITE confused, for some to claim a singular agent, verses many agents.... And further, such a God might be doing the human race an 'unsatisfactory service', in leading billions to believe He is many gods with completely differing claims and objectives.?.?.?

agapelove said:
You cannot directly see the Spirit of God any more than you see spiritual realities like love or hope, yet you acknowledge the latter while denying God. Making a generic/blanket claim about any God is making a claim about God. There is only one God.

"Love" or "hope" are adjectives, for which humans label for each emotion we feel. Seems as though you are merely reducing/comparing/equating "God" to be nothing more than a singular human emotion?

I'm going to ask you again:

Seems as though the 'go-to' answer often becomes... "God works in mysterious ways,' and 'we will find out after we die.' For which I again repeat... couldn't any believer make these generic and blanket claim(s) for ANY God(s)?

agapelove said:
Precisely. There is no objective meaning to life. And until science or what have you gives us a better answer, human beings will turn to religion to assign higher meaning to life.

Well, I'd rather know what is real, verses to self-dilute myself. I'll continue to speculate that 'when you die, you are dead,' until further notice.... And why do I currently speculate upon this conclusion? Because no one has come back to tell me otherwise. No one has demonstrated the 'power of prayer.' No one has given sufficient evidence that Jesus was anything more than a mortal, whom was killed for His alleged claims.

agapelove said:
MY POINT, which I will state again, is that human beings have free will. Not sure what is so difficult about this concept for you? There is no love unless there is also choice. Your "transition" into the heavenly realm is not death, it is when you acknowledge your true identity, confess of your sins, and then repent from your old self. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God is patient with you, "not wanting anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentance."

Because of sin humans are inherently hard-hearted, and it is only through trials and tribulations that we learn to seek God. They say that when you hit rock bottom, you can only go up. God promises that he works all things together for our good, so we must trust that even suffering is part of the sanctification process. A paraphrase of Ephesians 9:22-23 that captures this quite well would be: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience Saul, a vessel of wrath fit for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for Paul, a vessel of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory?

I am a school teacher and I know that "someday", my students will know how to read and write. Does that mean that somehow my job is irrelevant now?

- We have less free will than you might want to think. Please reference my prior analogies - (taxes, the criminal justice system, Christianity, <and> the ice cream parlor - (which demonstrates more free will than taxes, criminal justice, and Christianity).

- Mere ability to choose between A and B, is not what constitutes free will.

- If the final known destination, is ultimately the same for all recipients - (which is eternal bliss), then everything prior is ultimately arbitrary.

agapelove said:
The point of the Sabbath is to give yourself a day off. Workaholics do not need God's help punishing them self.

If a person needs to work seven days a week, to make ends meet, then they would be punishing themselves more for not working on that 7th day as well.

Please remember, God made this rule. And if the human does not follow this rule, God does not like this... And God is not only the rule make, but the rule enforcer.

agapelove said:
Well, I can't argue with this statement because I simply do not believe in eternal suffrage. Again, you will have to take this concern up with those folks over there.

I understand what you are saying, but under your model, everything is arbitrary. If we all end up in eternal bliss, forever, then some of us are merely taking a detour or pit-stop first

agapelove said:
Using the above example, if I say to you, "If you drink too much tonight you will be hungover tomorrow!" Do you consider that a threat???

This is a false analogy though...

In your example, you are pointing out an observation, for which we have no control over, if you should decide to drink anyways.

In the Bible examples, God is both rule maker, as well as the enforcer. God could have made any rules, and any outcome.

He essentially chose an ultimatum. It is not true 'free will' if the only alternative to His realm, is another forced realm. Again, reference the ice cream parlor, for elaboration upon 'free will.'

agapelove said:
I'll start from the beginning, let me know where I lose you: Ultimate salvation does not negate free will.

Rinse/repeat - If we all end up in eternal bliss, forever, then some of us are merely taking a detour or pit-stop first

agapelove said:
The catalyst is my decision to one day seek a shock therapist. I google "hypnotherapy near me", make an appointment, drive myself there, pay for the service, sign liability forms, and get in the chair, over and over again until I somehow believe the moon is made of cheese.

You have further demonstrated my point. You cannot will a belief change, without a prior catalyst. And yet, it seems God may judge humans, based upon an attribute for which they cannot control. Will hypnosis or shock therapy convince me that Jesus rose from the dead to save me? And if it does, is this good enough for God? I doubt it, as you have eluded to the fact that belief in Him needs to be somewhat 'organic', or of my own choosing... But as we've both now demonstrated, I cannot 'choose' to believe He is the Messiah, without some sort of catalyst... Whether it be evidence, other other other...

And like I told you prior, yes, I can choose to protect my current belief from further scrutiny. Why? Because I know that once I comprehend new incoming information, which opposes my prior view, I may have no choice but to change my current position

agapelove · Jun 9, 2020

cvanwey said:
I approach each piece of ancient writing(s), observing the same standard(s). The passage in question was likely forged, as the rest of his works do not match, via literary style. The earliest copies do not have this passage. The paragraph was likely added at a later time.

But like I stated prior, even IF it was not forged, I initially asked you for extra-Biblical evidence, which would account for eye witness attestation to the said miracles of Jesus. A later writer, writing what earlier people believed, does not qualify.

I wasn't referring to the writing of Josephus. I was referring to NT manuscripts, which are considered historical documents by Christians. Why do you accept without challenge that the original Magna Carta said what the copies say?

cvanwey said:
Thus, I ask you again...

Do you have any extra-Biblical attestations for Jesus' said miracles? I doubt mentioning something about an eclipse and an earthquake qualifies as eye witness attestation to said Jesus miracles?

Have you ever considered that the most important accounts of Jesus are already included in the Bible? If I were to curate a book about a man named Jesus, wouldn't I search far and wide for all writings that qualify as attestations to this man and include them in the final product?

cvanwey said:
Why are the Jews wrong about Jesus? Further, is it possible Jesus was executed, just like the many others whom were merely claiming to be something they actually weren't? Was Jesus the first, or the last, to be executed for making 'false' claims to divinity?

And yes, Saul/Paul is basically responsible for nearly half the NT. But I don't think he met Jesus, until his claimed encounter with Jesus, post mortem. Thus, I'm not sure how Paul is relevant here?

It's important to note that Jesus never claimed to be God. Early Christians only recognized him as such because his righteousness emulated that of the divine. Luke mentions that when Jesus was on the cross, he asked for the forgiveness of those who were crucifying him, and a Roman centurion recognized him as a "righteous man". In Matthew it was written that the centurion recognized him as the "son of God."

cvanwey said:
I will ask my curious question again....
If one of Jesus' objectives, was to demonstrate his power and glory, don't you find it curious He did so in front of a population, for which He knew will never write or corroborate the events? It's safe to assume the later Gospel writers wrote of what they were told - exclusively from oral tradition.

Speaking of "political and religious", is it possible the authors of the NT harbored an unfounded bias, and/or maybe had some sort of agenda? Since we do not really know whom wrote the Gospels, one can only speculate....?

I also noticed you skipped right over my prior observation; that we have no originals, and why that may be important here? And further, that God cared not to assure that such writings were preserved?

Demonstrating his power and glory was not one of Jesus' objectives. In fact he didn't even want people to know he was the messiah (Matt 16:20). It was more important to him that people came to know him by the spirit, rather than by flesh and blood. This could be one reason he preferred not to preserve any concrete proof of his Christ-hood.

The NT writers definitely had an agenda. Their agenda was to spread the gospel so that Gentiles could be saved.

cvanwey said:
I find conflict in this answer... Cough cough... Monotheism vs polytheism.... Humans would have to be QUITE confused, for some to claim a singular agent, verses many agents.... And further, such a God might be doing the human race an 'unsatisfactory service', in leading billions to believe He is many gods with completely differing claims and objectives.?.?.?

One could say that the Trinity is a form of polytheism. The holy spirit works through everyone who believes, so we are many agents of one singular agent ie. the body of Christ. Again, I believe your expectations of how God is suppose to work is hindering you.

cvanwey said:
"Love" or "hope" are adjectives, for which humans label for each emotion we feel. Seems as though you are merely reducing/comparing/equating "God" to be nothing more than a singular human emotion?

I would hardly say comparing God to love is reducing. Love is the most powerful force in the universe. Seems as though you are the one reducing love to nothing more than a human emotion.

cvanwey said:
I'm going to ask you again:
Seems as though the 'go-to' answer often becomes... "God works in mysterious ways,' and 'we will find out after we die.' For which I again repeat... couldn't any believer make these generic and blanket claim(s) for ANY God(s)?

My previous answer still stands. When you make a generic/blanket statement about any God, you are making a statement about God. There is only one God.

cvanwey said:
Well, I'd rather know what is real, verses to self-dilute myself. I'll continue to speculate that 'when you die, you are dead,' until further notice.... And why do I currently speculate upon this conclusion? Because no one has come back to tell me otherwise. No one has demonstrated the 'power of prayer.' No one has given sufficient evidence that Jesus was anything more than a mortal, whom was killed for His alleged claims.

That's the issue. You cannot know what is real. There is no proof for life after death but the reverse is also true. Your skepticism does not have to be a fatal one. The Bible tells us that Jesus was fully human and he was killed for his alleged claims. How literally you understand the gospel does not make you any less or more Christian. What's important is that you mirror Jesus' teachings of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc. That's what makes the gospel a living one.

cvanwey said:
- We have less free will than you might want to think. Please reference my prior analogies - (taxes, the criminal justice system, Christianity, <and> the ice cream parlor - (which demonstrates more free will than taxes, criminal justice, and Christianity).

- Mere ability to choose between A and B, is not what constitutes free will.

- If the final known destination, is ultimately the same for all recipients - (which is eternal bliss), then everything prior is ultimately arbitrary.

What is it that you are still not understanding about free will's compatibility with predestination? Let's take the eternal bliss part out of it. Let's say that the final destination is ultimately just death for everyone. We know for a fact that everybody dies. Does that suddenly mean everyone lost their free will?

cvanwey said:
If a person needs to work seven days a week, to make ends meet, then they would be punishing themselves more for not working on that 7th day as well.

Please remember, God made this rule. And if the human does not follow this rule, God does not like this... And God is not only the rule make, but the rule enforcer.

Of course God does not like that situation. Nobody should have to work everyday to make ends meet. Our Kingdom duty is to make society better for everyone (Matthew 25:34-40). God's rules are there to be a guideline for how we can live an abundant life. When we choose not to live by his rules, we suffer-- not by his word but by ours.

cvanwey said:
This is a false analogy though... In your example, you are pointing out an observation, for which we have no control over, if you should decide to drink anyways.

In the Bible examples, God is both rule maker, as well as the enforcer. God could have made any rules, and any outcome. He essentially chose an ultimatum. It is not true 'free will' if the only alternative to His realm, is another forced realm. Again, reference the ice cream parlor, for elaboration upon 'free will.'

Sure, I'll play along with your ice cream parlor scenario. You can get an ice-cream, or you don't have to get an ice-cream. If you choose to get an ice-cream, great! Get whatever flavor you want. If you choose not to get an ice-cream, you're "punishing" yourself! God knows you want an ice-cream, because who doesn't want an ice-cream? Eventually you cave and get the ice-cream, or maybe you leave the parlor and come back another day. The point is in the end nobody can resist the ice-cream.

cvanwey said:
You have further demonstrated my point. You cannot will a belief change, without a prior catalyst. And yet, it seems God may judge humans, based upon an attribute for which they cannot control. Will hypnosis or shock therapy convince me that Jesus rose from the dead to save me? And if it does, is this good enough for God? I doubt it, as you have eluded to the fact that belief in Him needs to be somewhat 'organic', or of my own choosing... But as we've both now demonstrated, I cannot 'choose' to believe He is the Messiah, without some sort of catalyst... Whether it be evidence, other other other...

And like I told you prior, yes, I can choose to protect my current belief from further scrutiny. Why? Because I know that once I comprehend new incoming information, which opposes my prior view, I may have no choice but to change my current position

I do not need a "catalyst" to decide I want to try convincing myself the moon is made of cheese. That's quite a ridiculous scenario so let's compare it with something more reasonable. Let's say I decide to embark on converting to Hinduism. I can start today, by reading books, researching online, finding a temple, practicing meditation, etc etc. I could move to India if I was seriously considering it. Faith is not always born out of some big life catalyst or dramatic affair. Christian faith is about walking with Jesus. It's a journey. There are a lot of steps involved in fully realizing one's salvation.

cvanwey · Jun 10, 2020

agapelove said:
I wasn't referring to the writing of Josephus. I was referring to NT manuscripts, which are considered historical documents by Christians. Why do you accept without challenge that the original Magna Carta said what the copies say?

In post #790, I asked...

"I'm aware of these authors. None of them were alive to witness the said claimed miracles. This is partially why I asked you for dates. They simply wrote about what some earlier deceased people believed. Furthermore, as I've told others, I have no problem reconciling the existence of a man whom was born, lived, preached, made some claims, and was killed. Eye witness attestation to such said miracles, is a whole new ball game, however. This is why I asked, and exactly what these extra-Biblical sources claim?"

Not sure why you keep bringing up the Magna Carta? I never disclosed what I do and don't believe from this document/claim. But if you read my response above, regurgitated from post #790, it might shed some light.

agapelove said:
Have you ever considered that the most important accounts of Jesus are already included in the Bible? If I were to curate a book about a man named Jesus, wouldn't I search far and wide for all writings that qualify as attestations to this man and include them in the final product?

Sure. But again, we do not know whom/who wrote the originals? Hence, we do not know if the originals were written from direct eye witnesses, or just later writers - whom wrote of what was already in circulation, via oral tradition exclusively, at the time.

Please remember, we are speaking about eyewitness attestation here... And in such a specific set of circumstances, it hardly looks like we have evidence to support such a bold claim?

Hence, why I asked if we have any extra-biblical sources to support eyewitness attestation, since the Bible itself does not seem to account for such...

agapelove said:
It's important to note that Jesus never claimed to be God. Early Christians only recognized him as such because his righteousness emulated that of the divine. Luke mentions that when Jesus was on the cross, he asked for the forgiveness of those who were crucifying him, and a Roman centurion recognized him as a "righteous man". In Matthew it was written that the centurion recognized him as the "son of God."

Again, why are the Jews wrong about Jesus? Jesus was not the only man/woman executed, under similar circumstances.

agapelove said:
Demonstrating his power and glory was not one of Jesus' objectives. In fact he didn't even want people to know he was the messiah (Matt 16:20). It was more important to him that people came to know him by the spirit, rather than by flesh and blood. This could be one reason he preferred not to preserve any concrete proof of his Christ-hood.

The NT writers definitely had an agenda. Their agenda was to spread the gospel so that Gentiles could be saved.

- I disagree. Why have claims of human interaction, via a resurrection? Jesus could just ascend up to heaven, and not further interact with humans there-after.

- In regards to 'agendas', we could argue perpetually, I'm sure

- Third request... I also noticed you skipped right over my prior observation; that we have no originals, and why that may be important here? And further, that God cared not to assure that such writings were preserved?

agapelove said:
One could say that the Trinity is a form of polytheism. The holy spirit works through everyone who believes, so we are many agents of one singular agent ie. the body of Christ. Again, I believe your expectations of how God is suppose to work is hindering you.

Um, Hinduism and Christianity are completely different. If God's 'best', is to leave many/millions/billions to perceive His powers and objectives as such, is this really God's 'best'?

agapelove said:
I would hardly say comparing God to love is reducing. Love is the most powerful force in the universe. Seems as though you are the one reducing love to nothing more than a human emotion.

??

Do you care to not only prove this statement; but to demonstrate that this God exists, and possesses this attribute?

Your assertion again provided below:

"Love is the most powerful force in the universe."

agapelove said:
My previous answer still stands. When you make a generic/blanket statement about any God, you are making a statement about God. There is only one God.

Repeated again:

Seems as though the 'go-to' answer often becomes... "God works in mysterious ways,' and 'we will find out after we die.'

... And care to qualify your assertion "There is only one God"?

agapelove said:
That's the issue. You cannot know what is real. There is no proof for life after death but the reverse is also true. Your skepticism does not have to be a fatal one. The Bible tells us that Jesus was fully human and he was killed for his alleged claims. How literally you understand the gospel does not make you any less or more Christian. What's important is that you mirror Jesus' teachings of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc. That's what makes the gospel a living one.

It does not look like your answer addressed my prior response:

"And why do I currently speculate upon this conclusion? Because no one has come back to tell me otherwise. No one has demonstrated the 'power of prayer.' No one has given sufficient evidence that Jesus was anything more than a mortal, whom was killed for His alleged claims."

agapelove said:
What is it that you are still not understanding about free will's compatibility with predestination? Let's take the eternal bliss part out of it. Let's say that the final destination is ultimately just death for everyone. We know for a fact that everybody dies. Does that suddenly mean everyone lost their free will?

1. You brought up the topic of free will, which is not relevant to Christianity. (Just like free will's irrelevance to taxes).
2. Under the classic definition of free will, Christianity would not qualify or become relevant regardless.

agapelove said:
Of course God does not like that situation. Nobody should have to work everyday to make ends meet. Our Kingdom duty is to make society better for everyone (Matthew 25:34-40). God's rules are there to be a guideline for how we can live an abundant life. When we choose not to live by his rules, we suffer-- not by his word but by ours.

This does not address my point. You stated that if we do not live by His rules, humans suffer. Many need to work on the day of the Sabbath, or maybe even 7 days a week to make ends meet.

agapelove said:
Sure, I'll play along with your ice cream parlor scenario. You can get an ice-cream, or you don't have to get an ice-cream. If you choose to get an ice-cream, great! Get whatever flavor you want. If you choose not to get an ice-cream, you're "punishing" yourself! God knows you want an ice-cream, because who doesn't want an ice-cream? Eventually you cave and get the ice-cream, or maybe you leave the parlor and come back another day. The point is in the end nobody can resist the ice-cream.

1. You brought up the topic of free will, which is not relevant to Christianity. (Just like free will's irrelevance to taxes).
2. Under the classic definition of free will, Christianity would not qualify or become relevant regardless.

agapelove said:
I do not need a "catalyst" to decide I want to try convincing myself the moon is made of cheese. That's quite a ridiculous scenario so let's compare it with something more reasonable. Let's say I decide to embark on converting to Hinduism. I can start today, by reading books, researching online, finding a temple, practicing meditation, etc etc. I could move to India if I was seriously considering it. Faith is not always born out of some big life catalyst or dramatic affair. Christian faith is about walking with Jesus. It's a journey. There are a lot of steps involved in fully realizing one's salvation.

Yes you do. The catalyst could be new evidence

agapelove · Jun 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
In post #790, I asked...

"I'm aware of these authors. None of them were alive to witness the said claimed miracles. This is partially why I asked you for dates. They simply wrote about what some earlier deceased people believed. Furthermore, as I've told others, I have no problem reconciling the existence of a man whom was born, lived, preached, made some claims, and was killed. Eye witness attestation to such said miracles, is a whole new ball game, however. This is why I asked, and exactly what these extra-Biblical sources claim?"

Not sure why you keep bringing up the Magna Carta? I never disclosed what I do and don't believe from this document/claim. But if you read my response above, regurgitated from post #790, it might shed some light.

You said, in post #792: Like I stated prior, even if we did have the originals, why does an original publication guarantee the said events actually happened?

My point is that you appear to carry a disproportionate amount of skepticism for anything biblical. Why don't we ask these questions for the Magna Carta, or Declaration of Independence, or Articles of Confederation, or any other historical document? We accept them for what they say even though we only have the copies of copies of these documents.

cvanwey said:
Sure. But again, we do not know whom/who wrote the originals? Hence, we do not know if the originals were written from direct eye witnesses, or just later writers - whom wrote of what was already in circulation, via oral tradition exclusively, at the time.

Please remember, we are speaking about eyewitness attestation here... And in such a specific set of circumstances, it hardly looks like we have evidence to support such a bold claim?
Hence, why I asked if we have any extra-biblical sources to support eyewitness attestation, since the Bible itself does not seem to account for such...

There are thousands of historical stories that we have no eyewitness attestations for. You would be surprised to discover how much of history is fabricated in order to espouse a specific narrative (here are 14 examples). Therefore, whether or not the gospel accounts were or were not eye witness testimonies is irrelevant. What's clear is that the NT writers had a specific agenda, and what's even more clear is that a man named Jesus did exist and he did cause political/religious unrest among the Jewish community and he did have an enormous following. So enormous that an entire religion spawned from it.

This is why I said it's actually not important how literally you take the gospel accounts or the entire Bible even. What's more important is you try to understand the teachings of Jesus and what new information he tried to reveal about God. Do I think Noah's flood account actually happened? Personally, no. But what's more important is I understand the context in which it was written. Flood myths existed in practically every ancient religion. What did the Jewish flood myth reveal about God? Similarly, creation myths existed in every culture. What does the Jewish creation myth reveal about God?

cvanwey said:
Again, why are the Jews wrong about Jesus? Jesus was not the only man/woman executed, under similar circumstances.

I never said anybody's opinion was wrong. Jewish and Christian beliefs are similar in more ways than you think. The only difference is Christians believe Jesus emulated God perfectly, while Jews do not. If I think yellow is the perfect color to describe happiness but you think blue is, who is wrong and who is right?

cvanwey said:
- I disagree. Why have claims of human interaction, via a resurrection? Jesus could just ascend up to heaven, and not further interact with humans there-after.
- In regards to 'agendas', we could argue perpetually, I'm sure
- Third request... I also noticed you skipped right over my prior observation; that we have no originals, and why that may be important here? And further, that God cared not to assure that such writings were preserved?

- Again, you can read the resurrection as literal or symbolic. Neither adds or takes away from one's Christianness. It's not uncommon for people to have visions of their deceased loved ones. Once again, understanding the lesson the story is trying to teach is more important than how it decides to teach it. The meaning behind the resurrection is that even when we reach the lowest points of our life, we can find our way out again ie. life after death.

- I answered that question already. Jesus' priority was never in preserving a godly reputation. It was about moving people by his teachings and way of life, which could be shared through each of us (the living Gospel). I do not have to bring up the physical Bible in order to evangelize. God cares more about the living gospel than papyrus scrolls.

cvanwey said:
Um, Hinduism and Christianity are completely different. If God's 'best', is to leave many/millions/billions to perceive His powers and objectives as such, is this really God's 'best'?

Are they?

Hinduism is essentially monotheistic because all deities are extensions of one spirit. In Christianity we are all part of one body with Christ as the head. The goal of Hinduism is enlightenment, similar to eternal life aka knowing God (John 17:3). There are many similarities between the figure of Jesus and the figure of Krishna (virgin birth, trinity, performed miracles, embraced the marginalized, etc etc). And in terms of morals, both Hinduism and Christianity teach the same thing (nonviolence, forgiveness, other-centered love, detachment from the world, self control, generosity, etc etc etc).

cvanwey said:
??

Do you care to not only prove this statement; but to demonstrate that this God exists, and possesses this attribute?

Your assertion again provided below:

"Love is the most powerful force in the universe."

Do you disagree with that statement? What then, in your opinion, is more powerful?

cvanwey said:
Repeated again:

Seems as though the 'go-to' answer often becomes... "God works in mysterious ways,' and 'we will find out after we die.'

... And care to qualify your assertion "There is only one God"?

My assertion was simple enough? There is only one God. What's confusing?

cvanwey said:
It does not look like your answer addressed my prior response: "And why do I currently speculate upon this conclusion? Because no one has come back to tell me otherwise. No one has demonstrated the 'power of prayer.' No one has given sufficient evidence that Jesus was anything more than a mortal, whom was killed for His alleged claims."

I answered and I agreed. Jesus was not more than mortal. He was fully human. And yes, he was killed for his alleged claims. What is your question?

cvanwey said:
1. You brought up the topic of free will, which is not relevant to Christianity. (Just like free will's irrelevance to taxes).
2. Under the classic definition of free will, Christianity would not qualify or become relevant regardless.

How is free will not relevant to Christianity? It's one of its biggest pillars. Did you not understand my elaboration on your ice cream parlor scenario? Or even the death scenario? We can take the Christianity out of it and say that ultimately everyone just dies, like what you believe. Do you not think you have free will right now?

cvanwey said:
This does not address my point. You stated that if we do not live by His rules, humans suffer. Many need to work on the day of the Sabbath, or maybe even 7 days a week to make ends meet.

Do you think it's a good thing people need to work 7 days a week to make ends meet? Obviously no. If they have to do that then they are already suffering, and we live in a society that allows that. Capitalism is a sin, and it punishes people well enough without God's help.

cvanwey said:
Yes you do. The catalyst could be new evidence

And how would I go about finding new evidence?

cvanwey · Jun 10, 2020

agapelove said:
You said, in post #792: Like I stated prior, even if we did have the originals, why does an original publication guarantee the said events actually happened?

My point is that you appear to carry a disproportionate amount of skepticism for anything biblical. Why don't we ask these questions for the Magna Carta, or Declaration of Independence, or Articles of Confederation, or any other historical document? We accept them for what they say even though we only have the copies of copies of these documents.

No I do not. My skepticism is the same for each and every claim. The more extra-ordinary the claim, the more default scrutiny is applied

Does the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation make any extra-ordinary claims?

Now, does the Bible? If the Bible was merely about a man names Jesus, whom preached this, that, and the other; asserted some preferred rules, and then the Book reported of His death, then I would not take much of any issue.... But 'magic', followed by a 'resurrection', seems to go a little above an beyond, wouldn't you agree?

So I again preface post #792... If all we CAN have to fall back on, are eyewitness accounts of such said events to the extra-ordinary; BUT it should turn out that maybe we really do not have such eyewitness attestation, is it then <illogical> to simply dismiss such claims?

agapelove said:
Therefore, whether or not the gospel accounts were or were not eye witness testimonies is irrelevant.

I disagree, and so do many Christians. Virtually the only way to even begin to substantiate any one-off, or only-performed-once-supernatural-claimed-event, would be adequate eyewitness accounts and corroboration. Just like we might demand for alien sightings, ghosts, etc... And when it becomes revealed to many, that this needed asset actually fails, to virtually any standard, many Christians then instead turn to the topic of 'martyrdom' for validation.

agapelove said:
What's clear is that the NT writers had a specific agenda, and what's even more clear is that a man named Jesus did exist and he did cause political/religious unrest among the Jewish community and he did have an enormous following. So enormous that an entire religion spawned from it.

What's clear, is that we do not really know who wrote the Gospels? Thus, the agenda cannot really be clear, now can it? All we know, is that the earliest (full) copies were produced by writers - whom already believed, decades/centuries later

And if having many followers justifies any truth to a claim, then it may turn out that the Islamic faith could be (more) true than Christianity, in the near future

Furthermore, we have many religions, for which you deny, which 'spawn.'

agapelove said:
This is why I said it's actually not important how literally you take the gospel accounts or the entire Bible even.

So it's okay to God, for someone to conclude that a magical Jesus and a resurrection did not actually happen? If so, I have some Bible passages for you to read

agapelove said:
What's more important is you try to understand the teachings of Jesus and what new information he tried to reveal about God.

Well, here's where the confusion rears it's ugly head, once again. You claim grace/faith. Others assert necessary works, like the Catholics. Someone else asserts another path for salvation.... My point here, is that 'God's message' does not seem to be clearly conveyed to His intended audience

agapelove said:
Do I think Noah's flood account actually happened? Personally, no. But what's more important is I understand the context in which it was written. Flood myths existed in practically every ancient religion. What did the Jewish flood myth reveal about God? Similarly, creation myths existed in every culture. What does the Jewish creation myth reveal about God?

Seems odd that God would endorse assertions, which later turn out false? Seems odd that God's message, regarding floods and creation myths, were not even original to His Word? Seems odd that God expects humans to know which assertions were 'metaphorical', and which ones are actually literal? All-the-while, knowing humans are imperfect creatures, with flawed tools and thinking. But for some reason, humans are expected to compartmentalize a resurrection claim? Meaning, that claim is literal, but, the OT stories are figurative...? There really exists no way to absolutely disprove a one-time past claimed event... Hence, your assertion as completely safe from investigation.

agapelove said:
I never said anybody's opinion was wrong. Jewish and Christian beliefs are similar in more ways than you think. The only difference is Christians believe Jesus emulated God perfectly, while Jews do not. If I think yellow is the perfect color to describe happiness but you think blue is, who is wrong and who is right?

Your example is subjective, which renders a false analogy. Claims of a man rising from the grave is an objective claim, removed from opinion or emotion

agapelove said:
- Again, you can read the resurrection as literal or symbolic. Neither adds or takes away from one's Christianness. It's not uncommon for people to have visions of their deceased loved ones. Once again, understanding the lesson the story is trying to teach is more important than how it decides to teach it. The meaning behind the resurrection is that even when we reach the lowest points of our life, we can find our way out again ie. life after death.

- I answered that question already. Jesus' priority was never in preserving a godly reputation. It was about moving people by his teachings and way of life, which could be shared through each of us (the living Gospel). I do not have to bring up the physical Bible in order to evangelize. God cares more about the living gospel than papyrus scrolls.

- Beg to differ. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

- Your prior claim was that we have originals. But we do not. We only have copies of copies. And again, if we do not have the originals, and furthermore, do not know who wrote the earliest copies, and further still, eyewitness attestation and corroboration to a past one time event cannot be validated; especially something this 'prolific', can you blame me for discarding the assertion as a whole - until further notice?

agapelove said:
Are they?

Hinduism is essentially monotheistic because all deities are extensions of one spirit. In Christianity we are all part of one body with Christ as the head. The goal of Hinduism is enlightenment, similar to eternal life aka knowing God (John 17:3). There are many similarities between the figure of Jesus and the figure of Krishna (virgin birth, trinity, performed miracles, embraced the marginalized, etc etc). And in terms of morals, both Hinduism and Christianity teach the same thing (nonviolence, forgiveness, other-centered love, detachment from the world, self control, generosity, etc etc etc).

Um, do I even need to dignify this response, with yet another response?.?.? They are quite different. Please stop doubling down

agapelove said:
Do you disagree with that statement? What then, in your opinion, is more powerful?

Yes. Take away humans, and the universe still exists. To my knowledge, only sentient agents carry the ability for emotion. The universe would function just fine, without human presence.

agapelove said:
My assertion was simple enough? There is only one God. What's confusing?

Tell that to a Hindu

agapelove said:
How is free will not relevant to Christianity?

Because again... According to [you], all will ultimately bow to Him, in the manor He likes anyways. Thus, mentioning 'free will' to make choices prior, is an arbitrary and/or erroneous pontification. It does not really matter. You might as well have said... "One in every 3 humans gets herpes." --- It's of no consequence, or adds nothing to the conversation at hand.

If Grace is ultimately bestowed to all, because God knows all will ultimately come to Him, then the topic of 'free will' is arbitrary to mention.

*** Again, this is under your set of assertions

***

agapelove said:
It's one of its biggest pillars. Did you not understand my elaboration on your ice cream parlor scenario? Or even the death scenario? We can take the Christianity out of it and say that ultimately everyone just dies, like what you believe. Do you not think you have free will right now?

My point here, was that the 'ice cream palor' scenario seems to carry more-so true free will, where-as taxes, the criminal justice system, and Christianity do not. But again, this is under the assumption that hell is eternal, which you disagree.

agapelove said:
Do you think it's a good thing people need to work 7 days a week to make ends meet? Obviously no. If they have to do that then they are already suffering, and we live in a society that allows that. Capitalism is a sin, and it punishes people well enough without God's help.

Under the concept of 'might makes right', it only matters what God thinks. And in the given circumstance, the reason would not matter. God does not like it

And yes, some need to work daily to make ends meet. But this seems like an insufficient reason for God?

agapelove said:
And how would I go about finding new evidence?

Not sure why you are making this so dang hard?

You cannot WILL a change in your belief. You need some sort of catalyst -- (evidence, shock therapy, hypnosis, other)...

Tinker Grey · Jun 10, 2020

@cvanwey,

Too, the Magna Carta doesn't ask one to sell one's soul for a coupon for a pocket full of magic beans redeemable after death.

agapelove · Jun 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
No I do not. My skepticism is the same for each and every claim. The more extra-ordinary the claim, the more default scrutiny is applied Does the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation make any extra-ordinary claims?

Now, does the Bible? If the Bible was merely about a man names Jesus, whom preached this, that, and the other; asserted some preferred rules, and then the Book reported of His death, then I would not take much of any issue.... But 'magic', followed by a 'resurrection', seems to go a little above an beyond, wouldn't you agree?

So I again preface post #792... If all we CAN have to fall back on, are eyewitness accounts of such said events to the extra-ordinary; BUT it should turn out that maybe we really do not have such eyewitness attestation, is it then <illogical> to simply dismiss such claims?

It is not illogical, and like I have been trying to tell you, many people do dismiss the claims while still remaining Christian. Christianity is not centered around Jesus' miracles or his resurrection, it's centered around his teachings and way of life. Bishop Shelby Spong is a well known proponent of a metaphorical resurrection. Perhaps you would be interested in his work: "I do not believe that the deceased body of Jesus was resuscitated physically on the third day and was restored to the life of this world as, at least, the later gospels assert, but I do believe that in him and through him people found a way into that which is eternal and so they portrayed him as breaking through and transcending the limits of death."

People who do believe in the literal resurrection are not illogical either.

cvanwey said:
I disagree, and so do many Christians. Virtually the only way to even begin to substantiate any one-off, or only-performed-once-supernatural-claimed-event, would be adequate eyewitness accounts and corroboration. Just like we might demand for alien sightings, ghosts, etc... And when it becomes revealed to many, that this needed asset actually fails, to virtually any standard, many Christians then instead turn to the topic of 'martyrdom' for validation.

I disagree, and so do many Christians. We substantiate the story of Christ off good faith. Majority Christians have no need for apologetics. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make in that last sentence, would you mind paraphrasing?

cvanwey said:
What's clear, is that we do not really know who wrote the Gospels? Thus, the agenda cannot really be clear, now can it? All we know, is that the earliest (full) copies were produced by writers - whom already believed, decades/centuries later

And if having many followers justifies any truth to a claim, then it may turn out that the Islamic faith could be (more) true than Christianity, in the near future Furthermore, we have many religions, for which you deny, which 'spawn.'

You do not have to know the authors' backstories in order to determine what their agenda is. You can tell by reading what they wrote. Muslims and Christians believe in the same God and we both believe in Jesus. You keep trying to create these extensive divisions when we are all more similar than you think.

cvanwey said:
So it's okay to God, for someone to conclude that a magical Jesus and a resurrection did not actually happen? If so, I have some Bible passages for you to read

Feel free to share them.

cvanwey said:
Well, here's where the confusion rears it's ugly head, once again. You claim grace/faith. Others assert necessary works, like the Catholics. Someone else asserts another path for salvation.... My point here, is that 'God's message' does not seem to be clearly conveyed to His intended audience

Well, "under my assertions", if we are all ultimately saved, how you choose to work out your salvation is really up to your own discretion. I don't see how a person who is baptized is any less saved than someone who is not baptized. Some people believe that they should be married in a church while others do not. It does little to change the fact that they're getting married.

cvanwey said:
Seems odd that God would endorse assertions, which later turn out false? Seems odd that God's message, regarding floods and creation myths, were not even original to His Word? Seems odd that God expects humans to know which assertions were 'metaphorical', and which ones are actually literal? All-the-while, knowing humans are imperfect creatures, with flawed tools and thinking. But for some reason, humans are expected to compartmentalize a resurrection claim? Meaning, that claim is literal, but, the OT stories are figurative...? There really exists no way to absolutely disprove a one-time past claimed event... Hence, your assertion as completely safe from investigation.

It's not about "knowing" the right things. Christianity is not an exam, it's a way of life.

cvanwey said:
Your example is subjective, which renders a false analogy. Claims of a man rising from the grave is an objective claim, removed from opinion or emotion

My comparison was not about the resurrection. It was about how Jews view Jesus versus how Christians view Jesus. Faith is subjective, therefore "believing correctly" is beside the point for God.

cvanwey said:
- Beg to differ. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

- Your prior claim was that we have originals. But we do not. We only have copies of copies. And again, if we do not have the originals, and furthermore, do not know who wrote the earliest copies, and further still, eyewitness attestation and corroboration to a past one time event cannot be validated; especially something this 'prolific', can you blame me for discarding the assertion as a whole - until further notice?

- A spiritual resurrection is more crucial to the Christian faith than a bodily one. We keep Jesus alive today through faith, which is what that verse really means. Many Christians believe in the resurrection as literally as they believe in being "born again".

- Where did I claim we have originals?

cvanwey said:
Um, do I even need to dignify this response, with yet another response?.?.? They are quite different. Please stop doubling down

If you can't even come up with a decent response as to how they are drastically different religions, then I will take that as a concession.

cvanwey said:
Yes. Take away humans, and the universe still exists. To my knowledge, only sentient agents carry the ability for emotion. The universe would function just fine, without human presence.

Human beings exist as part of the universe, you cannot just take us away. We are here, and more than anything we are driven by love.

cvanwey said:
Tell that to a Hindu

It is obvious you know nothing about Hinduism so here is what a Hindu has to say about their own religion: Hindus worship one Supreme Being called Brahman though by different names. When God is formless, He is referred to by the term Brahman. When God has form, He is referred to by the term Paramatma. This is almighty God, whose three main forms are Brahma; the creator, Vishnu, the sustainer and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus believe in the one all-pervasive God who energizes the entire universe. Source

cvanwey said:
Because again... According to [you], all will ultimately bow to Him, in the manor He likes anyways. Thus, mentioning 'free will' to make choices prior, is an arbitrary and/or erroneous pontification. It does not really matter. You might as well have said... "One in every 3 humans gets herpes." --- It's of no consequence, or adds nothing to the conversation at hand.
If Grace is ultimately bestowed to all, because God knows all will ultimately come to Him, then the topic of 'free will' is arbitrary to mention.

*** Again, this is under your set of assertions ***

Free will is also arbitrary by your logic, then. You've avoided my question two times now... If, according to you, the final destination for all human beings is death, does that erase the concept of free will?

cvanwey said:
My point here, was that the 'ice cream palor' scenario seems to carry more-so true free will, where-as taxes, the criminal justice system, and Christianity do not. But again, this is under the assumption that hell is eternal, which you disagree.

If I disagree then I'm afraid I have no further comment on this particular story line.

cvanwey said:
And yes, some need to work daily to make ends meet. But this seems like an insufficient reason for God?

As Christians, nay... as fellow human beings, it is our duty to ensure that people do not have to struggle to make ends meet. This is what the law is there for-- to guide us in creating a sustainable life for everyone. Do you really think God is keeping tally of how many Sabbaths a man works? That is not what the law is for.

cvanwey said:
Not sure why you are making this so dang hard? You cannot WILL a change in your belief. You need some sort of catalyst -- (evidence, shock therapy, hypnosis, other)...

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm simply presenting an argument which you're struggling to understand. Sure, shock therapy is a "catalyst", but that catalyst did not spawn out of thin air. I needed to create opportunities to make that catalyst happen. Faith is the process of creating those opportunities.

cvanwey · Jun 11, 2020

agapelove said:
It is not illogical, and like I have been trying to tell you, many people do dismiss the claims while still remaining Christian. Christianity is not centered around Jesus' miracles or his resurrection, it's centered around his teachings and way of life. Bishop Shelby Spong is a well known proponent of a metaphorical resurrection. Perhaps you would be interested in his work: "I do not believe that the deceased body of Jesus was resuscitated physically on the third day and was restored to the life of this world as, at least, the later gospels assert, but I do believe that in him and through him people found a way into that which is eternal and so they portrayed him as breaking through and transcending the limits of death."

Okay. But all the pastors I ever listened to in church, whom preached behind the pulpit, as well as apologists, like WLC for instance, attempt to demonstrate a physical resurrection. Which makes sense. Why? You have verses in the Bible which lead readers to conclude the resurrection was an actual physical event.

Quite frankly, even as a current non-believer to the claim, I find it a difficult pill to swallow, to 'assume' that the 'resurrection' was nothing more than a metaphorical claim.

And no, I myself would not be interested in researching the claims of "Bishop Shelby Spong." Why? Because I do not accept/believe the claim, either way -- (actual or 'symbolic').

But you did not address my point.... Your aforementioned documents make no assertions of a supernatural being. But the Bible does. Hence, to mention them, in the same 'category' as the Bible, seems quite a bit askew....

agapelove said:
People who do believe in the literal resurrection are not illogical either.

Depends upon your standards...? As stated prior, corroborated eyewitness attestation might be the only way to account for a one-time past event? And since it seems clear that we may not have as such, it would be somewhat illogical to outright believe the claim anyways?

agapelove said:
I disagree, and so do many Christians. We substantiate the story of Christ off good faith. Majority Christians have no need for apologetics. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make in that last sentence, would you mind paraphrasing?

- Please give me your definition of 'faith'? And why is faith a 'good' method for believing in such a claim, in spite of an apparent lack in evidence?

- (Paraphrasing)... When Christians use the eyewitness defense, and once this does not go their way, they often turn to 'martyrdom' as their next viable defense

Not you, per say...

agapelove said:
You do not have to know the authors' backstories in order to determine what their agenda is. You can tell by reading what they wrote. Muslims and Christians believe in the same God and we both believe in Jesus. You keep trying to create these extensive divisions when we are all more similar than you think.

Sure you do. What if the author(s) had an agenda, unbeknownst to you? Of course you can read what the text says, and infer that the writer is trying to persuade a specific conclusion. However, you do not know who wrote it, what was their source(s), and why? All we have are later copies of copies. Which the first full manuscripts started cropping up somewhere around ~200-300 years or so later.

And though Christianity and Islam both make claims to a singular ultimate deity, they differ greatly in their claims.

agapelove said:
Feel free to share them.

It would likely be a futile endeavor. See below...

agapelove said:
Well, "under my assertions", if we are all ultimately saved, how you choose to work out your salvation is really up to your own discretion. I don't see how a person who is baptized is any less saved than someone who is not baptized.

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

I'm curious to see how you spin this verse? Looks as though the assertion here is clear... Baptism gets one closer, or further away from, God's sanctioned condemnation. Thus, it would appear that a person, whom is baptized, is more-so on the path of salvation, verses one whom is not baptized...

agapelove said:
It's not about "knowing" the right things. Christianity is not an exam, it's a way of life.

Disagree. If you do not know of Jesus, what He supposedly did for us, and proclaim to be a follower of Him, you are likely not granted into His Kingdom. These are (some) of the 'right' things... And yet, in the same Book, He seems to have placed events in there, for which we are to dismiss as metaphorical, event though God references such assertions as much so as others?

agapelove said:
My comparison was not about the resurrection. It was about how Jews view Jesus versus how Christians view Jesus. Faith is subjective, therefore "believing correctly" is beside the point for God.

Disagree. Have you ever heard of John 3:16-18? Seems as though anyone whom does not accept Jesus's free gift, is deemed condemned. The Jews do not view Jesus as the Messiah. Believing correctly is of the absolute most important, according to the provided verses.

agapelove said:
- A spiritual resurrection is more crucial to the Christian faith than a bodily one. We keep Jesus alive today through faith, which is what that verse really means. Many Christians believe in the resurrection as literally as they believe in being "born again".

Well then, when you get to the part in the Bible, about the 'empty tomb', how do you spin that exactly? Was the tomb 'metaphorically' empty?

agapelove said:
- Where did I claim we have originals?

Right here...

Post #778 "Original manuscripts were written over a span of 1500 years by a number of different authors, yet there is enough consistency to call it one book."

Furthermore....

Post #790 "The Gospels are eye-witness attestations to such said miracles but for some reason they are unacceptable forms of evidence to you."

Again...

We don't have the original manuscripts for the NT. Hence, we hardly have what would be considered eyewitness attestations with corroboration. We only have copies of copies.

Furthermore, you have already reconciled that a flood and a creation myth are likely false.... Hence, the OT is of little relevance either. Even if we have the originals...

agapelove said:
If you can't even come up with a decent response as to how they are drastically different religions, then I will take that as a concession.

I honestly cannot fathom how you are attempting to correlate Christianity to Hinduism? I'm still baffled? See below....

agapelove said:
Human beings exist as part of the universe, you cannot just take us away. We are here, and more than anything we are driven by love.

Third attempt....

Take humans away, and the universe still functions all-the-same. And sense it would appear that only sentient agents have the ability to feel emotion, which includes love, this would mean that if the human race were to disappear, the universe would not change. Hence, I doubt " 'love' is the most power force in the universe"

agapelove said:
It is obvious you know nothing about Hinduism so here is what a Hindu has to say about their own religion: Hindus worship one Supreme Being called Brahman though by different names. When God is formless, He is referred to by the term Brahman. When God has form, He is referred to by the term Paramatma. This is almighty God, whose three main forms are Brahma; the creator, Vishnu, the sustainer and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus believe in the one all-pervasive God who energizes the entire universe. Source

AT BEST, all you will demonstrate here, is that there exists as much confusion in other religions, as with your own

Christianity vs Hinduism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

agapelove said:
Free will is also arbitrary by your logic, then. You've avoided my question two times now... If, according to you, the final destination for all human beings is death, does that erase the concept of free will?

You continue to miss the point of my very directed responses. Let me rephrase a bit...

- Again, we likely have less free will than we think.
- [You] mentioned free will, not me. I merely pointed out that going to an ice cream parlor likely demonstrates a little more freedom or 'free will', than the likes of taxes, the criminal justice system, or even Christianity.
- Mentioning 'free will', in line with Christianity, is arbitrary. Why? God already knows all your choices. Hence, it would be like you watching a sports re-run. Sure, these agents have 'free will', per say, but you already know what they will choose. But more importantly, this God states that ALL will ultimately come to Him, in the end. Hence, all your wrong prior choices act as nothing more than a delay to the inevitable.

But to address [your] concern, the concept of 'free will' exists upon it's own endeavor. Meaning, if 'free will' involves the ability to make a choice, without fear of constraint, then I guess humans possess some 'free will', at some times...? And yes, when you die, that is likely it.

agapelove said:
As Christians, nay... as fellow human beings, it is our duty to ensure that people do not have to struggle to make ends meet. This is what the law is there for-- to guide us in creating a sustainable life for everyone. Do you really think God is keeping tally of how many Sabbaths a man works? That is not what the law is for.

It seems that maybe you are 're-purposing' God's assertion? The point of the Commandment, is to reserve an entire day to worship Him. This really has little/nothing to do with less human struggle?

agapelove said:
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm simply presenting an argument which you're struggling to understand. Sure, shock therapy is a "catalyst", but that catalyst did not spawn out of thin air. I needed to create opportunities to make that catalyst happen. Faith is the process of creating those opportunities.

As I've told you, more than once, we can choose or attempt to protect a current belief. But sometimes, new information is given to us, regardless. And if this new information is comprehended, then you may have NO choice but to alter your current belief.

My entire point is that you cannot merely will a belief change. And yet, it seems as though, if many Christians are correct, God's decree for salvation rests solely upon an attribute that humans cannot control - (belief). ---- For many atheists, they have explored all claims from Christians, and render these claims insufficient.

agapelove · Jun 12, 2020

cvanwey said:
Okay. But all the pastors I ever listened to in church, whom preached behind the pulpit, as well as apologists, like WLC for instance, attempt to demonstrate a physical resurrection. Which makes sense. Why? You have verses in the Bible which lead readers to conclude the resurrection was an actual physical event.

Quite frankly, even as a current non-believer to the claim, I find it a difficult pill to swallow, to 'assume' that the 'resurrection' was nothing more than a metaphorical claim.

Nobody is "assuming" anything about the resurrection. Everybody comes to their own conclusions after thoughtful contemplation. A Christian who is able to believe the resurrection was a physical one is no more Christian than a Christian who is unable to. Believing in a physical resurrection is not what defines Christianity.

cvanwey said:
And no, I myself would not be interested in researching the claims of "Bishop Shelby Spong." Why? Because I do not accept/believe the claim, either way -- (actual or 'symbolic').

And I myself do not believe the moon is made of cheese, but you asked me how I could go about making myself believe if I wanted to. Therefore your argument is not that you do not accept/believe the claim, it's that you do not want to accept/believe the claim. You keep requesting claims to follow but when given specific resources, you say no thank you?

cvanwey said:
But you did not address my point.... Your aforementioned documents make no assertions of a supernatural being. But the Bible does. Hence, to mention them, in the same 'category' as the Bible, seems quite a bit askew....

Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other religious document comes close (1). So yes, I consider the Bible fitting as a historical document, even more so than the aforementioned documents.

cvanwey said:
Depends upon your standards...? As stated prior, corroborated eyewitness attestation might be the only way to account for a one-time past event? And since it seems clear that we may not have as such, it would be somewhat illogical to outright believe the claim anyways?

Once again, the purpose of the gospel accounts is not to ensure people believe the correct claims. They are about moving people to realize the fullness of their humanity. Why do you think Jesus always taught in parables? He was absolutely unconcerned about how religiously correct people were. What he actually cared about was how people practiced humanity by loving one another (Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.") The Bible, although historically accurate, is more so a moral story.

cvanwey said:
- Please give me your definition of 'faith'? And why is faith a 'good' method for believing in such a claim, in spite of an apparent lack in evidence?
- (Paraphrasing)... When Christians use the eyewitness defense, and once this does not go their way, they often turn to 'martyrdom' as their next viable defense Not you, per say...

I've given you my definition of faith multiple times now. Per my last post, "Faith is the process of creating those opportunities." Per post #712 Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Per post #679 Faith is how you choose to see the world, which affects how you live in the world and this is a continual process.

Faith is a practice, and everybody believes in something. What you believe affects the way you live, and if believing in Jesus can make you a better, more hopeful, generous, forgiving person, why is faith not a good method of living one's life?

Also, still not sure what point you are trying to make. The eyewitness defense and martyrdom defense are essentially the same thing? People who witnessed the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus ultimately had a change of heart because of his martyrdom.

cvanwey said:
Sure you do. What if the author(s) had an agenda, unbeknownst to you? Of course you can read what the text says, and infer that the writer is trying to persuade a specific conclusion. However, you do not know who wrote it, what was their source(s), and why? All we have are later copies of copies. Which the first full manuscripts started cropping up somewhere around ~200-300 years or so later.

Many authors prefer to write under pseudonyms. Knowing a writer's biography is unnecessary to dissect the grounds of their work. Does it matter if the epistles were actually not written by a man named Paul? It doesn't change anything. The letters say what they say.

cvanwey said:
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

I'm curious to see how you spin this verse? Looks as though the assertion here is clear... Baptism gets one closer, or further away from, God's sanctioned condemnation. Thus, it would appear that a person, whom is baptized, is more-so on the path of salvation, verses one whom is not baptized...

Baptism is a proclamation of one's faith, a declaration of one's salvation, not a means by which you reach salvation. It's comparable to marriage. You get married to proclaim/declare you love someone, but not being married does little to change how much or how little you love someone. That's why it doesn't say "whoever is not baptized will be condemned".

cvanwey said:
Disagree. If you do not know of Jesus, what He supposedly did for us, and proclaim to be a follower of Him, you are likely not granted into His Kingdom. These are (some) of the 'right' things... And yet, in the same Book, He seems to have placed events in there, for which we are to dismiss as metaphorical, event though God references such assertions as much so as others?

Jesus says not all those who say "Lord Lord" can enter into the Kingdom, but only the one who does the will of the Father. What is the will of the father? (Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.") In the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus explains that a Samaritan man (who was, surprise, a nonbeliever) is more in God's favor than the priest because of his kindness and mercy, not because of his correct ideologies.

cvanwey said:
Disagree. Have you ever heard of John 3:16-18? Seems as though anyone whom does not accept Jesus's free gift, is deemed condemned. The Jews do not view Jesus as the Messiah. Believing correctly is of the absolute most important, according to the provided verses.

What does it mean to "believe in the son"? I will give you a hint... it is not about believing the correct facts about a man named Jesus. What was Jesus' purpose in the world? If what matters most to God is that we all believe the right things, then I'm afraid Jesus has failed.

cvanwey said:
Well then, when you get to the part in the Bible, about the 'empty tomb', how do you spin that exactly? Was the tomb 'metaphorically' empty?

Just to be clear.... I do believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ because I do believe in an afterlife, and I do believe that one day we will all be resurrected and live together with Christ. My point is that there exists Christians who do not believe in a bodily resurrection. If you see an empty grave your first thought is not that the person has resurrected from the dead, your first thought is somebody must have moved the body. So there is really nothing to spin.

cvanwey said:
Right here...

Post #778"Original manuscripts were written over a span of 1500 years by a number of different authors, yet there is enough consistency to call it one book."

Furthermore....

Post #790 "The Gospels are eye-witness attestations to such said miracles but for some reason they are unacceptable forms of evidence to you."

Again...

We don't have the original manuscripts for the NT. Hence, we hardly have what would be considered eyewitness attestations with corroboration. We only have copies of copies.

Furthermore, you have already reconciled that a flood and a creation myth are likely false.... Hence, the OT is of little relevance either. Even if we have the originals...

We do not have to have the actual original manuscripts to know when they were originally written. You are right that you cannot prove the gospels are eye-witness accounts. But you also cannot prove they are not, as you have stated.. we do not know who wrote them.
Once again, the point of both the NT and OT is not to convince you something did or did not happen. The point of the creation myth is not to convince you God actually created the world in seven days. The point of the flood narrative is not to convince you there was a boat with every animal. They were written to counter already existing creation/flood myths in other religions. The point was to reveal something new and different about the Hebrew God.

cvanwey said:
I honestly cannot fathom how you are attempting to correlate Christianity to Hinduism? I'm still baffled? See below....

AT BEST, all you will demonstrate here, is that there exists as much confusion in other religions, as with your own

Christianity vs Hinduism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

The devil is the divider, whose name literally means "the one who divides". I do not surrender to his lies that human beings are disparate. I focus on what unites us and connects us, not what separates us.

cvanwey said:
Take humans away, and the universe still functions all-the-same. And sense it would appear that only sentient agents have the ability to feel emotion, which includes love, this would mean that if the human race were to disappear, the universe would not change. Hence, I doubt " 'love' is the most power force in the universe"

Why do you need to eradicate the human race in order to counter my statement? The Goldilocks principle proves that human beings evolved as part of the universe, not some separate entity that just happens to be here. Human beings exist as part of the universe, and a universe exists inside every human being, the two are interconnected.

cvanwey said:
You continue to miss the point of my very directed responses. Let me rephrase a bit...

- Again, we likely have less free will than we think.
- [You] mentioned free will, not me. I merely pointed out that going to an ice cream parlor likely demonstrates a little more freedom or 'free will', than the likes of taxes, the criminal justice system, or even Christianity.
- Mentioning 'free will', in line with Christianity, is arbitrary. Why? God already knows all your choices. Hence, it would be like you watching a sports re-run. Sure, these agents have 'free will', per say, but you already know what they will choose. But more importantly, this God states that ALL will ultimately come to Him, in the end. Hence, all your wrong prior choices act as nothing more than a delay to the inevitable.

But to address [your] concern, the concept of 'free will' exists upon it's own endeavor. Meaning, if 'free will' involves the ability to make a choice, without fear of constraint, then I guess humans possess some 'free will', at some times...? And yes, when you die, that is likely it.

I think you are confusing foreknowledge with determinism. God knows what choices you will make but you make the choice. God looks at our decisions outside of time. We know what's happened in the past, yet it doesn't mean that people back then did not act freely. More importantly, God states ALL ultimately die. Hence, why aren't all of our right/wrong choices anything more than to delay the inevitable outcome? Why bother wearing a seat belt if we all die anyway?

cvanwey said:
It seems that maybe you are 're-purposing' God's assertion? The point of the Commandment, is to reserve an entire day to worship Him. This really has little/nothing to do with less human struggle?

The Bible literally defines the Sabbath day as the "day of rest", in connection to how God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh. It mentions nothing about worshiping God.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places."

cvanwey said:
As I've told you, more than once, we can choose or attempt to protect a current belief. But sometimes, new information is given to us, regardless. And if this new information is comprehended, then you may have NO choice but to alter your current belief.

My entire point is that you cannot merely will a belief change. And yet, it seems as though, if many Christians are correct, God's decree for salvation rests solely upon an attribute that humans cannot control - (belief). ---- For many atheists, they have explored all claims from Christians, and render these claims insufficient.

For atheists, I think a better word for belief would be 'trust'. Often we imagine faith and belief to look like security in your ideologies--- but that's not how Jesus defines it. Jesus told two different women "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace." If faith really meant believing correctly, then these stories should reveal women who demonstrate perfect knowledge of God, but that's not what we find. Instead, we read about women acting brazen and bold, women who trusted that transformation was possible.

Going back to your favorite moon-made-of-cheese analogy, faith does not begin the moment I believe the moon is made of cheese. Faith begins the moment I commit to believing change is possible. Attempting to protect a current belief is a lack of faith, a lack of trust-- meaning no amount of new information can successfully change your mind until you adopt faith/trust first.

cvanwey · Jun 13, 2020

agapelove said:
Nobody is "assuming" anything about the resurrection.

According to who?

agapelove said:
Everybody comes to their own conclusions after thoughtful contemplation.

Precisely. Which is quite evidence that God's message is not quite as clear as He may have hoped???? See below....

agapelove said:
A Christian who is able to believe the resurrection was a physical one is no more Christian than a Christian who is unable to. Believing in a physical resurrection is not what defines Christianity.

According to who? And why are the ones, namely Christians specifically, whom oppose your conclusion about the claims of a physical resurrection <incorrect or mistaken>?

agapelove said:
And I myself do not believe the moon is made of cheese, but you asked me how I could go about making myself believe if I wanted to. Therefore your argument is not that you do not accept/believe the claim, it's that you do not want to accept/believe the claim. You keep requesting claims to follow but when given specific resources, you say no thank you?

Thank you for illustrating my point.... You cannot 'prove' the moon is not made of cheese, unless we both go there and test it. So, do you want to try and hitch a ride with the next astronaut team, to disprove the claim yourself, that "the moon is made of cheese", (or), would you rather follow the current evidence, and not entertain every single outlying claim placed in front of you - (which you/yourself deem highly improbable - for good reason)?

Meaning, should I lend actual credence to your outlying claim that the resurrection was actually metaphorical? See below...

agapelove said:
Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other religious document comes close (1). So yes, I consider the Bible fitting as a historical document, even more so than the aforementioned documents.

You have missed my point entirely. Please allow me to elaborate...

Your other documents of comparison do not make claims of magic, and further, claims which defy physics. The Bible could be correct about natural claims of persons, places, and physical events. It could actually be 100/100 (which we agree it is likely not. Cough cough, floods claims, etc...). However, again, as stated prior, one-off or one-time past claims of miracles/etc, likely exclusively require eyewitness attestation and ample corroboration to substantiate such claims. And you seem to have entertained the notion that the Bible itself may not produce such 'evidence'. Even if we go outside the Bible...?

It would appear, you are attempting to argue, that because the Bible got historical facts correct about the past -- (i.e.) persons, places, and events, that the claims of the supernatural are then also true?

I already conceded, long ago, it is one thing to assume a man was born, lived, preached, and was executed. It's an entirely new set of circumstances, to believe He was anything other than a man whom died ~2K years ago?

agapelove said:
Once again, the purpose of the gospel accounts is not to ensure people believe the correct claims.

- "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

agapelove said:
They are about moving people to realize the fullness of their humanity. Why do you think Jesus always taught in parables? He was absolutely unconcerned about how religiously correct people were. What he actually cared about was how people practiced humanity by loving one another (Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.") The Bible, although historically accurate, is more so a moral story.

He had an even bigger concern apparently.....

"When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Christian New Testament depicts Jesus paraphrasing the Torah: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"

The 'golden rule' was secondary.

But again, NONE OF THIS addresses my inquiry. I'll re-post again below, with a kick-start, to fetch an adjacent or relevant response:

"Depends upon your standards...? As stated prior, corroborated eyewitness attestation might be the only way to account for a one-time past event? And since it seems clear that we may not have as such, it would be somewhat illogical to outright believe the claim anyways?"

Hence, though 'Jesus' may have made a 'sound' declaration, in regurgitating Confucius's 'golden rule', why deem His Words any more 'objective', than His predecessor's claims, of very similar fashion?

Again, please look to the verse cited above... (i.e.) 1 Corinthians 15:14

agapelove said:
I've given you my definition of faith multiple times now. Per my last post, "Faith is the process of creating those opportunities." Per post #712 Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Per post #679 Faith is how you choose to see the world, which affects how you live in the world and this is a continual process.

Faith is a practice, and everybody believes in something. What you believe affects the way you live, and if believing in Jesus can make you a better, more hopeful, generous, forgiving person, why is faith not a good method of living one's life?

Not sure if I already gave you this analogy already, but I find it fitting here...

It does not matter how I first prepare myself, or of my current biases/filters... (i.e.) As soon as Donald Trump was elected president, it no longer mattered of my prior beliefs and intuitions - (that he could not possibly win in 2016). Right?

But sure, what you believe may very well affect your scope and/or outlook on life. But, as I told you prior, I'm more interested in what is actually real, verses, belief in a perpetually observing deity, whom measures and judges my every action, to keep me in line 'morally'.

As I have also told others, to quote Bertrand Russell:

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

agapelove said:
Also, still not sure what point you are trying to make. The eyewitness defense and martyrdom defense are essentially the same thing? People who witnessed the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus ultimately had a change of heart because of his martyrdom.

Okay. And as with the corroborated 'eyewitness' claims, we have about the same amount of evidence for the attested martyrdom.

Not sure what you do not get? If we have little/no proof than a man was more than a mere man, then why should I take His Words as truth, anywhere above and beyond, anyone else?

agapelove said:
Many authors prefer to write under pseudonyms. Knowing a writer's biography is unnecessary to dissect the grounds of their work. Does it matter if the epistles were actually not written by a man named Paul? It doesn't change anything. The letters say what they say.

We are not speaking of any other mundane set of claims here. Are we? It would be hard to argue, that without the Bible, all believers are left with is oral tradition, and continued anecdotal claims of contact. Because again, I have to mention, the only reliable way to demonstrate a one-time past glorious event, would be corroborated eyewitness attestation.

In this case, all we have, are copies of copies. You do not know if the actually persons, whom placed hand to paper, wrote what they were merely told to write, or other? And again, just because some natural facts 'check out', has little relevancy, as aforementioned.

It's quite possible that the authors merely believed prior oral tradition, and placed hand to paper. But, as I mentioned above, if 'faith' is the mechanism for truth, than I again must reference Bertrand Russell's quote, as a plausible and viable point.

agapelove said:
Baptism is a proclamation of one's faith, a declaration of one's salvation, not a means by which you reach salvation. It's comparable to marriage. You get married to proclaim/declare you love someone, but not being married does little to change how much or how little you love someone. That's why it doesn't say "whoever is not baptized will be condemned".

You are apparently attempting to water down the verse. It states:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"

Your prior response stated:

"I don't see how a person who is baptized is any less saved than someone who is not baptized."

My point was to demonstrate, that according to your God's Words, baptism brings you more towards salvation, verses away from it.

agapelove said:
Jesus says not all those who say "Lord Lord" can enter into the Kingdom, but only the one who does the will of the Father. What is the will of the father? (Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.") In the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus explains that a Samaritan man (who was, surprise, a nonbeliever) is more in God's favor than the priest because of his kindness and mercy, not because of his correct ideologies.

And why is this passage elevated above Romans 10:9-10, Acts 16:31, John 3:16-18, Mark 16:15-20, etc?

Seems as though you are asserting that your deeds/works/actions get you more-so 'closer' to the promise land, verses your faith/belief?

I, on the other hand, concur that we have contradiction here...

In the sense that, as a Christian, you are basically forced to 'prioritize' some Verse over others.... But the question becomes....

How were you able to 'sort out', which Verses speak closer to 'truth', vs others? It's really the entire point of my thread. You know, the one for which you already basically acknowledged

agapelove said:
What does it mean to "believe in the son"? I will give you a hint... it is not about believing the correct facts about a man named Jesus. What was Jesus' purpose in the world? If what matters most to God is that we all believe the right things, then I'm afraid Jesus has failed.

???

I'm going to re-issue my point, and allow a re-do/paraphrase/do-over

Have you ever heard of John 3:16-18? Seems as though anyone whom does not accept Jesus's free gift, is deemed condemned. The Jews do not view Jesus as the Messiah. Believing correctly is of the absolute most important, according to the provided verses.

agapelove said:
Just to be clear.... I do believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ because I do believe in an afterlife, and I do believe that one day we will all be resurrected and live together with Christ. My point is that there exists Christians who do not believe in a bodily resurrection. If you see an empty grave your first thought is not that the person has resurrected from the dead, your first thought is somebody must have moved the body. So there is really nothing to spin.

???

- 'Doubting Thomas'
- empty tomb

*** 2 points of contention to attest that Jesus rose from the dead physically. ***

And no, another viable option would be that the Romans would not, all of a sudden, break their own traditions, and allow for a respectable burial. Maybe there was no tomb to begin with?

Again, we do not know who wrote this story line, when, and why?

(i.e.) - When you read the original end of Mark, or at least earlier copies of Mark that is, and then read the later additions, seems more plausible that 'agenda' comes into play here

agapelove said:
We do not have to have the actual original manuscripts to know when they were originally written. You are right that you cannot prove the gospels are eye-witness accounts. But you also cannot prove they are not, as you have stated.. we do not know who wrote them.

And we cannot prove a 'tea pot' is not orbiting the earth. But I have 'faith' that there could be anyways

Again, why induce faith, with virtually no sufficient evidence?

If we have no corroborated eyewitness accounts for Jesus' miracle(s), and we agree that eyewitness attestation is likely the only way to account for such an extra-ordinary claim, why believe them anyways?

*****************

I'll address the rest later.... Characters exceed 1800 :0

cvanwey · Jun 13, 2020

agapelove said:
The devil is the divider, whose name literally means "the one who divides". I do not surrender to his lies that human beings are disparate. I focus on what unites us and connects us, not what separates us.

So you now concede that Hinduism and Christianity are quite different?

And great, all your response provides is yet another unfalsifiable claim. "It's the devil's work, which causes division/discrepancy.' Got it

agapelove said:
Why do you need to eradicate the human race in order to counter my statement? The Goldilocks principle proves that human beings evolved as part of the universe, not some separate entity that just happens to be here. Human beings exist as part of the universe, and a universe exists inside every human being, the two are interconnected.

You literally stated that 'love is the most powerful force in the universe.' Thus far, all we know is that humans, or select sentient agents, are the only ones with ability to 'love'. You remove them, or refer to a 'time' before such agents, and the universe still likely functioned all-the-same.

Do you wish to continue with yet another double-down, or can we put this to bed?

agapelove said:
I think you are confusing foreknowledge with determinism. God knows what choices you will make but you make the choice. God looks at our decisions outside of time. We know what's happened in the past, yet it doesn't mean that people back then did not act freely. More importantly, God states ALL ultimately die. Hence, why aren't all of our right/wrong choices anything more than to delay the inevitable outcome? Why bother wearing a seat belt if we all die anyway?

No. I think you are missing my basic point. Let me try again.

There is no need to mention free will. We can scrutinize what is actual free will, to humor the mention of it - (hard determinism, libertarianism, etc etc etc... ) But to mention free will, in this context, is again about as useful as also mentioning that 1/3 adults contract herpes

If all are saved by grace eventually, everything prior is meaningless. Such trials and tribulations are nothing more than an exercise in futility. All eventually end up where God wants them anyways.

Thus, the follow up question...

What is the point to all of this, if all are going to end up in a realm of eternal bliss anyways?

And to address [your] response... Maybe human's innate instinct for survival and 'well-being' drives some of our choices? Maybe the fact that the human condition is to forget pain, and to not dwell on the 'morbid inevitable' - (i.e.) death, the known end of a fun vacation, etc; is what drives many/most to live day by day...? WHO KNOWS?

agapelove said:
The Bible literally defines the Sabbath day as the "day of rest", in connection to how God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh. It mentions nothing about worshiping God.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places."

Now, all of a sudden, the Bible verses are literal. Interesting? But somehow, they are not, so much hard and fast, when it comes to faith/grace/works/deeds/OT stories/resurrection claims/etc??????

And to answer your response, a basic question is asked....

WHAT is a Christian to do on the Sabbath day?

What Should a Christian Do on the Sabbath?: How Should This Day of Rest Be Observed?

Hmm.... I'm not supposed to just set there and do nothing?

Like I stated prior, it is a day reserved for worship to Him

And yet, if this day is reserved for worship, but a man needs to work that day, to put food on the table, or because his/her boss has his/her scheduled that day, what is more important?

Again, this is God's law. And yet, in such a case, God's law does not seem to 'help' the human here, as you eluded to prior....?

agapelove said:
For atheists, I think a better word for belief would be 'trust'. Often we imagine faith and belief to look like security in your ideologies--- but that's not how Jesus defines it. Jesus told two different women "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace." If faith really meant believing correctly, then these stories should reveal women who demonstrate perfect knowledge of God, but that's not what we find. Instead, we read about women acting brazen and bold, women who trusted that transformation was possible.

Going back to your favorite moon-made-of-cheese analogy, faith does not begin the moment I believe the moon is made of cheese. Faith begins the moment I commit to believing change is possible. Attempting to protect a current belief is a lack of faith, a lack of trust-- meaning no amount of new information can successfully change your mind until you adopt faith/trust first.

The definition of an 'atheist', is 'one whom lacks belief in a god or gods.' It would be illogical to ask an 'atheist' to trust/believe/other, that a god/gods exist anyways

Please revert back to my prior analogy, about 'Donald Trump', in light of your provided response. Meaning, I do not need to first adopt 'faith/trust' in order to reconcile a new conclusion

Purveyor of Confusion

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads