Christians...why Bother Us?

[chefranden]

When you read Ezek chaps 17 & 19 - the issue there is that the rebellious Israelites are being punished for their continual idolatry & other sins. SO God is bringing in Babylon to conquer and lead them to exile, and many Jews are running to Egypt for refuge. Yet, God has said "surrender to Babylon and live" but the leaders and people chose mainly to fight or take refuge in Egypt. SO how does Ezek refer to eternal life? What's your hermeneutic here?

 

From my previous writing.

 

It is about here that the Pauline apologist will be tempted to claim that the life and death being spoken of is temporal. However, there is little evidence that temporal authorities ever put men to death for oppressing the powerless, the poor, the widow, or the orphan. There is little evidence of men being put to death for charging interest on loans except by medieval kings and lords that didn’t want to make good on their debt. There is even less evidence of people being put to death by temporal authorities for not being charitable. Indeed these are the sorts of behavior that often lead to wealth and power. Vs.21 puts an end to the idea that Ezekiel’s Yahweh is talking about temporal life and death. It is impossible for a dead wicked guy to turn his life around by acting righteously.

 

 

 

You have to catch Ezek 18 in its historical setting - Ezekiel is in exile, and is referring to how the people should respond to God's chastisement; which was foretold by Jeremiah just before God's judgement fell on Judah. You continue to want to divorce Ezek 18 from its immediate context, the historical setting, previous prophecies, and the NT - your hermeneutic is just completely invalid.

 

Au contraire, mon ami. It is you that insist that Ezekiel is in context with Paul. It is not. Ezekiel says on thing and Paul another. I think that Ezekiel is talking about eternal life, because 18 doesn't make any sense if it is not. But it may not be. Lots of stuff in the bible doesn't make a lick of sense. So it is quite possible that Ezekiel didn't believe in such nonsense. Nevertheless, I tend to think that Ezekiel was a precursor pharisee.

 

Please forgive my offense - I was trying to understand what you're thinking.. It seems you are pursuing righteous living. But it appears as though you are doing so in response to the teaching of Ezekiel & David, who were prophets of YHWH - but you don't believe YHWH even exists. SO I'm just trying to understand what appears to me to be something of a major disconnect. How have I misunderstood you?

 

I'm not trying to defend Ezekiel against Paul, or Paul against Ezekiel. I'm just saying they have different contradicting plans of salvation. Living righteously will not save me from death. Living righteously will not save you from death. Believing in Jesus will not save me from death. Believing in Jesus will not save you from death. Nevertheless, Paul says you cannot live righteously, and Ezekiel says you can. They are in contradiction.

 

 

 

Here I would disagree. Job was a contemporary of Abraham, and look what he said about eternal life.

Job 19:25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

Job 19:26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God,

Job 19:27 whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me! (At the glorious nature of this thought!) Parenthetical comment added by yours truly.

 

I can see how you might read that into Job. However, if I was just reading Job without being contaminated with years of Christian indoctrination, I wouldn't make that conclusion.

 

And David's words concerning Jesus Christ primarily, but secondarily all who belong to God.

Psa 16:9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure.

Psa 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.

Psa 16:11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

 

Again if reading this uncontaminated by Christian doctrine, I wouldn't get Jesus out of it, just as Jews past and present don't get Jesus out of it. Here Sheol is the grave as is shown by the second bit of the verse.

 

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

 

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).

 

As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).

 

And finally note what the NT says of Abraham and Moses.

Heb 11:9 ...

 

Not admissible on the subject. Jewish beliefs on death have to be taken from them, not from Christians interpreting Jewish scripture. You have to get eternal life from the Torah alone to show that I'm wrong about Jewish belief before the Exile.

[chefranden]

Paul makes it clear that he had little contact with the real disciples, and that he disputed with Peter. According to Paul, Peter was wrong and a hypocrite, an odd thing to accuse a real disciple of. Paul says,"They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." What other choice did the apostles have? They had no ability to restrict Paul, and they thereby protect the Jewish Christians from Paul's heresy. Later they did try to set the churches straight as the Judaizers.

 

Paul got along well with other apostles - read from Galatians >> And the fact that there was accountablility should be commended.

 

Gal 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Galatians 2

1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem... I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain... On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[c] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[d] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[e] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

 

Why do you ignore the evidence I gave you?

 

gal2: 11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 

Problems problems: Paul wants the Galatians to know that he had the best or only gospel. A gospel that was not received in the flesh, like those other apostles claim. He didn't get it from Peter or James. In fact he had to correct those guys because they were wrong, for they had the different gospel. Peter was clearly wrong, but why would Paul's opinion count more than Peter's? Because Paul is writing that's why. By the time Acts comes along -- after Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans -- the church started by the real disciples is scattered and broken. Paul's doctrine is gaining ascendancy over the real disciples, because his churches haven't been wrecked.

 

Paul may have been political buddies after 14 years, but he still doesn't agree with the real disciples gospel. Why? Because they preach works. Paul doesn't get the real disciples to change their minds, but he gets the Gentile franchise doesn't and doesn't care as long as they stay off his turf.

 

They didn't stay off his turf. Otherwise there is no point for Paul to explain that his gospel didn't come from the real disciples.

 

James was probably not written by James, but it certainly contains theology that came from Jerusalem and not from Paul. Protestants have always been uncomfortable with James, because he says works prove faith. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

[OnceConvinced]

What I don't understand, is that I was taught from the bible that you should hang with the good Christian crowd and avoid people like us, I mean I understand you have to go out and preach the good word but am not sure about reading and hanging around us,

 

but yet there are Christians on this board trying to defend or convert is beyond me, I remember outreach in real life was hard enough let alone on the Internet and to come to a site were most stand against the beliefs of the Christian is once again hard for me to understand,

 

if I was still a Christian I would never come to a site like this, because these people take sermons and turn them inside out and examine them and expose clear problems and that makes ministry almost impossible once your messages are shown to have error or believed errors.

 

But imagine the huge amount of brownie points you'd get from the magical sky daddy! And not only that, you can go around claiming that you suffered persecution for the lord!

[rayskidude]

Paul makes it clear that he had little contact with the real disciples, and that he disputed with Peter. According to Paul, Peter was wrong and a hypocrite, an odd thing to accuse a real disciple of. Paul says,"They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." What other choice did the apostles have? They had no ability to restrict Paul, and they thereby protect the Jewish Christians from Paul's heresy. Later they did try to set the churches straight as the Judaizers.

 

Paul got along well with other apostles - read from Galatians >> And the fact that there was accountablility should be commended.

 

Gal 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Galatians 2

1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem... I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain... On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[c] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[d] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[e] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

 

Why do you ignore the evidence I gave you?

gal2: 11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 

So let me get this straight - since Paul rebuked Peter on one accasion for sin - therefore, they did not get along? Have you ever confronted your wife or kids? OK - so them I guess you don't get along with anyone you've ever disagreed with. I really find it hard to beleive you posit this stuff witha straight face - whic is why I ask if you're serious.

 

This is also why I say your hermeneutic is way off base - it doesn't line up with the Bible in general, or within the context of history, Biblical boks, or genres of literature.

 

And quoting Jewish sources on the understanding of the OT? Really? That's your confidence?

 

Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Mat 22:31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:

Mat 22:32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

Mat 22:33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Joh 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

Joh 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.

Joh 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.

Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

 

The Jews don't understand alot of truth contained in the OT.

 

Paul may have been political buddies after 14 years, but he still doesn't agree with the real disciples gospel. Why? Because they preach works. Paul doesn't get the real disciples to change their minds, but he gets the Gentile franchise doesn't and doesn't care as long as they stay off his turf.

 

Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,

Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Act 15:12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Act 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.

Act 15:14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.

Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

Act 15:16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,

Act 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things

Act 15:18 known from of old.'

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

 

Gee, look at this wild disparity of doctrine and affection!!!!!

 

James was probably not written by James, but it certainly contains theology that came from Jerusalem and not from Paul. Protestants have always been uncomfortable with James, because he says works prove faith. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

Then why does Paul say;

Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:

Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Rom 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

 

And the ceremony in Gen 15 showed that God established an unconditional covenant with Ahraham - nor dependent on Abraham, but on God.

[chefranden]

So let me get this straight - since Paul rebuked Peter on one accasion for sin - therefore, they did not get along? Have you ever confronted your wife or kids? OK - so them I guess you don't get along with anyone you've ever disagreed with. I really find it hard to beleive you posit this stuff witha straight face - whic is why I ask if you're serious.

 

This is also why I say your hermeneutic is way off base - it doesn't line up with the Bible in general, or within the context of history, Biblical boks, or genres of literature.

 

You seem to worry a bit about my hermeneutic. My hermeneutic make's its circle around the fact that the scripture writers are just people. That is there is no magic involved. If Paul makes a commentary on a passage of Genesis, his commentary is certainly of no more weight than say rabbis Akiva ben Joseph, Gamaliel, and Nahum of Gimzo might give on the same passage. I'd probably give Paul less weight because he was a tent maker, not a rabbi. Paul had no more of a special line to God than I do. His writing was his opinion. The same would be true of the rabbis of Paul's time, but at least I'd have to give them the weight of their scholarship extra over Paul, and I suspect that they would disagree with Paul if they ever gave his work any thought.

 

Now I don't wonder why you give weight to Paul over Peter. You have to by faith. I don't. Therefore I don't consider Peter as an actual sinner or hypocrite, a person in the wrong as in Paul's mind. I consider Peter another church leader of what amounts to a different sect with an actual different opinion than Paul's. Peter's side of the story/argument is not expressed. It seems to me that it is well within the realm of possibility that Peter considered Paul to be wrong, a hypocrite, or even an apostate.

 

True we don't know, however it seems doubtful that Peter would consider Paul his superior, since Paul was not a student of Jesus. As you know the Jerusalem church didn't just change to Paul's theology. They let him go among the gentiles, and the best reason for that - considering that these were ordinary and not magic people - is that they were glad to get Paul out of their hair. Fine let Paul chase around among the goyim of Greece, just keep him away from what we are doing among the real people of God. Since the Pauline bit of the church gained ascendancy after the destruction of Jerusalem we can well suppose that if Peter wrote or dictated about the matter the roman/gentile church suppressed it.

 

Now who are the likely candidates as the leaders of Paul's nemesis Judizers? By faith and indoctrination you can't admit that they were the original disciples with Peter and James at their head. But that is very likely who they were. Why else does Paul go out of his way to say that he didn't learn the Gospel from those guys? "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." Why else does he make the point that even Peter had it screwed up? It had to be because the disciples were the source of the different gospel. Paul says in effect don't listen to those guys, don't even listen to an angel of heaven, if they tell you something different than I told you. This wasn't a minor dispute from Paul's point of view: "If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Any man includes Peter and James and any other emissary from the Jerusalem Church.

 

Have you ever asked this question of yourself or your teachers: Why Paul?

 

If Jesus was actually the magic Son of God, was actually God himself, why did Jesus bother with the 12? The magic Jesus must have known that Paul and not these 12 would be starting the Church that succeeded. Keep in mind as you ponder that the gospel referred by Paul was not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Paul didn't know much if any of that since they weren't written until after his death.

[bdp]

rayskidude, bolding your responses doesn't give them any more weight or authority.

 

"The Jews don't understand a lot of truth contained in the OT."

 

To say that you understand their book better than they do is the height of arrogance.

[chefranden]

And quoting Jewish sources on the understanding of the OT? Really? That's your confidence?

 

I missed this earlier. And why not? Why should I give them any less weight than Paul or you. Of course by faith and indoctrination you have to set them aside as useless, but I don't. In fact I'd have to give them more weight then Christians because it is their scripture.

 

Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God....

The Jews don't understand alot of truth contained in the OT.

 

Well according to the gospel writers, especially John, the Jews got it wrong. But what else should I expect. The writers would stand up for their party against any who opposed them wouldn't they? There is nothing special about this. Even if these were actual words of Jesus, which I doubt, why wouldn't Jesus put the other Jews down in favor of his own teaching? Try to remember that to me the historical Jesus is just a guy. He's not God, or the Son of God, or what ever you take him to be. So don't be surprised that I don't shake in my boots when you quote one of the gospels.

 

Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe...

 

Gee, look at this wild disparity of doctrine and affection!!!!!

 

Save your exclamation marks. I'm not impressed by them.

 

Try giving a cogent argument instead of sarcasm. I've already pointed out that Acts was written after the demise of the Jerusalem Church and would try to cover up any dispute between Paul and the 12 in order to forward the Pauline sect. Get me some actual writing of Peter that said he agreed with Paul, not some report by a Pauline partisan.

 

James was probably not written by James, but it certainly contains theology that came from Jerusalem and not from Paul. Protestants have always been uncomfortable with James, because he says works prove faith. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

Then why does Paul say...

 

Because he has a different opinion than the Jerusalem (judaizing) Church had. There is no magic. This dispute is no different than the Church of Christ vs the Baptists. It is one sect saying one thing and another sect saying something else. There was no more unity among churches then, than now.

 

 

And the ceremony in Gen 15 showed that God established an unconditional covenant with Ahraham - nor dependent on Abraham, but on God.

 

So?

 

The covenant was with Abraham. The Jews to this day believe it is with them. The Christians believe it is with them. I think that the covenant was hijacked by Paul. The covenant belongs to the Jews because they had it first. The covenant also belongs to the Christians, because the Jews were never able to take it back. Neither party has the covenant because God gave it to them. There is no God to give anything to anybody.

 

The Jews are God's chosen people: just ask them. The Christians are God's chosen people: just ask them. As for me and my house

[MathGeek]

RaySkiDude,

 

You are proof of what I ask about in the opening post. You...just...can't...leave...us...alone! If there is anything to the Calvinist kind of Christianity that certain folks preach today (like Paul Washer), then we as non-believers have no choice in the matter to believe or not. Considering the fact that I had an empty spot in my heart or mind or what have you when I was going through a laying-of-hands exorcism, doesn't that mean God meant for that feeling to occur within me? Seems to me that if God choose to his followers, he can also choose his doubters and dissenters.

 

If my views are anywhere close to the actual truth, then the God of the Bible basically made Christian evangelism an unimportant activity for one to engage in. You are being delusional in trying to change our minds. If your God basically controls every outcomes in the possible, observable universe, then God is using both of us as pawns in a rigged game. My reasoning allows for a foreseeable comeback from you but I don't see this view as being wrong. Also, if God really did rig the universe for his purposes, then at some point certain unbelievers may have a total and complete transformation and become True Believers like yourself. This could even happen to those who were of the cloth and now are not of the cloth anymore. The major flaw of your tight worldview is that you fail to see the world through a case-by-case basis. Every unbeliever that was a believer left Christianity for different reasons, hence why we call people individuals. A death in my family was likely the keystone that shattered the rejected cornerstone, but other case studies exist in the section called Testimonies of Former Christians. If you even read a fraction of those testimonies, then maybe you find a slight shred of sympathy for them and alter your worldview accordingly.

 

Personally, I think you knew what to expect coming here and all you are doing is verifying my views that all you squiddies are just motes of dust that have no point in the overall functioning of this website, as humans are to the overall functioning of the universe. You are a minor virus and it proves that your God is a malicious, sloppy computer programmer that can't even write a decent operating system. Keep spouting your insipid religious rhetoric all you want, but it won't make a lick of difference.

 

It's because your God made us this way.

[Shyone]

RaySkiDude,

 

 

It's because your God made us this way.

I wonder how helpful it is to acknowledge in writing the existence of a god in which we don't believe. "Acknowledge" may not be the correct term, but "grant for the purposes of argument" still might lead a Christian to think that they have been exchanging words with someone who believes in its existence.

 

I know the intent is to frame the argument in your reader's terms so that they will understand, but it seems self defeating if the writer does not truly accept the reader's terms.

 

Maybe instead of tacitly granting its existence, we might write, "If your god existed..." as a qualifier.

 

Just a suggestion.

[MathGeek]

RaySkiDude,

 

 

It's because your God made us this way.

 

[snip]

 

Maybe instead of tacitly granting its existence, we might write, "If your god existed..." as a qualifier.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

That's a good point. I might try that if he decides to answer me in a future post.

[chefranden]

RaySkiDude,

You are proof of what I ask about in the opening post. You...just...can't...leave...us...alone!...

 

While I agree with some of what you say here, I'm glad that the occasional Christian doesn't leave us alone. It would be a more boring life if I didn't get to argue with a religionist from time to time. In any case you have to admit that 99+% of Christians do leave us alone. Sometimes there is such a dearth of them here I have to go look for one. The lions in this den often go hungry.

[MathGeek]

RaySkiDude,

You are proof of what I ask about in the opening post. You...just...can't...leave...us...alone!...

 

While I agree with some of what you say here, I'm glad that the occasional Christian doesn't leave us alone. It would be a more boring life if I didn't get to argue with a religionist from time to time. In any case you have to admit that 99+% of Christians do leave us alone. Sometimes there is such a dearth of them here I have to go look for one. The lions in this den often go hungry.

 

Point taken, Chef. Part of it stems from the fact that lions like RaySkiDude are getting owned left and right by you and a few others and they don't seem to learn. So much for the True Believers being likes lambs.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude, bolding your responses doesn't give them any more weight or authority.

 

"The Jews don't understand a lot of truth contained in the OT."

 

To say that you understand their book better than they do is the height of arrogance.

 

Sorry, my computer skills are limited - I often bold lots of stuff, when my intention was just to bold a few words or a phrase. My bad.

 

And that fact that I think many Jews do not understand the OT, esp the Messianic passages and propheicies - well just look at how often in the OT that God and His prophets criticize the Jewish nation for not understandiing, and despising, and disregarding, and disobeying His word. To the point that both Isreal & Judah were exiled - and Israel never returned.

 

Then Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Luke, and Paul quoted extensively from the OT in the NT and gave the proper interpretation of many OT passages that gave a fore-shadowing of the things that were to take place. So while I understand you're accusation of arrogance - because the OT is Jewish Scripture - I disagree that it is arrogant. It's just a better understanding of Messianic passages, prohecies, and the New Covenant based on the fact that the Jesus the Messaih has come, and the New Covenant community (the Church) has been established.

 

Obvioulsy, many Jewish perspectives of the OT are to be respected and followed - but re: the issues above, the Jews were mistaken. And again let me state - review the plethora of examples in the OT where God's prophets said the very same thing.

[rayskidude]

If my views are anywhere close to the actual truth, then the God of the Bible basically made Christian evangelism an unimportant activity for one to engage in. You are being delusional in trying to change our minds. If your God basically controls every outcomes in the possible, observable universe, then God is using both of us as pawns in a rigged game. My reasoning allows for a foreseeable comeback from you but I don't see this view as being wrong. Also, if God really did rig the universe for his purposes, then at some point certain unbelievers may have a total and complete transformation and become True Believers like yourself. This could even happen to those who were of the cloth and now are not of the cloth anymore. The major flaw of your tight worldview is that you fail to see the world through a case-by-case basis. Every unbeliever that was a believer left Christianity for different reasons, hence why we call people individuals.

 

Yes - I agree that God is in complete control, the Sovereign LORD of the universe. And though I believe in election/pre-destination; yet I also know from Scripture that God has also chosen the means of bringing salvation to His elect people: the prayers of the saints and preaching the Gospel.

 

Rom 1:14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.

Rom 1:15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

 

Rom 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.

Rom 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge

 

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

 

And I know that God commands people to believe in Him and His provision for our salvation, and that ample reason for this God & faith are not lacking.

 

Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,

Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'

Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

 

A death in my family was likely the keystone that shattered the rejected cornerstone, but other case studies exist in the section called Testimonies of Former Christians. If you even read a fraction of those testimonies, then maybe you find a slight shred of sympathy for them and alter your worldview accordingly.

 

I am sorry to hear that you lost a loved one; I know the sorrow and mourning that can bring - and how we invariably ask that question; "Why?"

It is not my intention to denigrate the experiences of others. And so, for when I have offended, I apologize and ask for your forgiveness.

 

But I am just trying to explain how God's existence, and a life lived knowing Him and living for His Glory, is to be sought in any and every circumstance. In the midst of everything in life - God is at work, despite what current circumstances would seem to communicate. The Christian faith often runs counter-intuitive to what we would reason out from human understanding and desires; but God is powerful & loving - and He can and will bring all things to an appropriate end, which He has designed and determined.

 

Apart from this God and our faith - what else can deliver the comfort and re-assurance that we so often need?

[NotBlinded]

Aren't the flowers beautiful on the graves of rotting bones?

[Kuroikaze]

Apart from this God and our faith - what else can deliver the comfort and re-assurance that we so often need?

 

Do you realize how this sounds?

 

First off, here you have before a large group of people who do not believe in your god, and many of us no go at all, and yet we are not crying for comfort or wallowing in depression. So unfortunately your claim lacks the bite of validity as far as most of us are concerned.

 

Further, in my opinion, only an addle minded fool would choose the comfort of a delusion over seeing the world as it really is.

 

Reality is not always comforting nor does it always give us assurances, but at least it is REAL.

 

 

It may be comforting to think that the wizard of oz lives at the heart of the emerald city, but that comfort will not change the fact that the "wizard" is really just a crazy old man behind a curtain.

[MathGeek]

 

Yes - I agree that God is in complete control, the Sovereign LORD of the universe. And though I believe in election/pre-destination; yet I also know from Scripture that God has also chosen the means of bringing salvation to His elect people: the prayers of the saints and preaching the Gospel.

 

Weird. I think I understand your justification somewhat. God made a select few to be saved and yet they don't know it, therefore evangelism is necessary to ensure that they are awakenend to be saved.

 

Wow, still seems rather backward to me. If God truly pre-destined people to believe in him, he might have made babies believe in Him as the first point of cognition. This may spare the children having to learn about Jesus in Sunday School.

 

Lame rebuttal I know, but it would make more sense. Whenever someone evangelizes me, I get angry.

 

And I know that God commands people to believe in Him and His provision for our salvation, and that ample reason for this God & faith are not lacking.

 

This is the ultimate fallacy in the idea of predestination. God commands belief and yet he made a select few to believe in him, so why would he command it? God is being inconsistent here. If he commands belief, that means Man is not built to believe, but if man is made in God's image then he should be built to believe automatically. Being selected to have wholehearted belief seems to be an automatic given thus rendering evangelism pointless if predestination is correct. If predestination is not correct, then evangelism is needed. Which is it?

 

 

 

But I am just trying to explain how God's existence, and a life lived knowing Him and living for His Glory, is to be sought in any and every circumstance. In the midst of everything in life - God is at work, despite what current circumstances would seem to communicate. The Christian faith often runs counter-intuitive to what we would reason out from human understanding and desires; but God is powerful & loving - and He can and will bring all things to an appropriate end, which He has designed and determined.

 

It seems to me that your explanation of your personal belief is just confusing. You do not remedy my problems with predestination and free will and it seems to me that you don't intend to. I must say your last line about Christianity being counter-intuitive to what we humans know and understand is like a kick to the head. We must take these ideas as axiomatic and not question from there. Your answer here just cements my views that the God of the Bible is a demented chessmaster that treats us like the pawns we are and we have no right to say anything we want about it. At least with the naturalistic point of view, there is no way I can go against it because Nature has no intention whatsoever.

[RationalOkie]

... I think many Jews do not understand the OT

 

This is priceless, there's nothing more pretentious than an American Christian telling Jews that THEY don't understand the Old Testament. Wow!....

[NotBlinded]

... I think many Jews do not understand the OT

 

This is priceless, there's nothing more pretentious than an American Christian telling Jews that THEY don't understand the Old Testament. Wow!....

But they only don't understand it if they don't see Jesus being foretold in there somewhere. Of course if they did see that, they would be Christians. So, that means that all the Jews are wrong about their own religion. I mean, afterall, it was said that Jesus would be rejected by his own. No, it doesn't matter that it was self-fullfilled.

[RationalOkie]

... I think many Jews do not understand the OT

 

This is priceless, there's nothing more pretentious than an American Christian telling Jews that THEY don't understand the Old Testament. Wow!....

But they only don't understand it if they don't see Jesus being foretold in there somewhere. Of course if they did see that, they would be Christians. So, that means that all the Jews are wrong about their own religion. I mean, afterall, it was said that Jesus would be rejected by his own. No, it doesn't matter that it was self-fullfilled.

 

I'm just stupified by the arrogance of the American Christian. They laugh at the Mormon's 'Magic Underwear' and can't see any reason that we should laugh at their myth's and legends. It's truly awe inspiring. Yet, they are quick to judge the other religions FALSE.

[Shyone]

It seems to me that your explanation of your personal belief is just confusing. You do not remedy my problems with predestination and free will and it seems to me that you don't intend to. I must say your last line about Christianity being counter-intuitive to what we humans know and understand is like a kick to the head. We must take these ideas as axiomatic and not question from there. Your answer here just cements my views that the God of the Bible is a demented chessmaster that treats us like the pawns we are and we have no right to say anything we want about it. At least with the naturalistic point of view, there is no way I can go against it because Nature has no intention whatsoever.

Predestination is a hoot! It makes life totally pointless!

 

Why not just create souls that will stay in heaven, and skip the "life" part?

 

Why make souls just so they will either go poof or to hell? It's a waste of everyone's time, and an exercise in futility.

 

Imagine the poor souls that thought they were "selected" and going to heaven. They wasted their time on earth worshipping when they could have been having fun.

[Ouroboros]

Predestination is a hoot! It makes life totally pointless!

And Christians are the ones complaining about that, "without God, life is pointless."

 

Imagine the poor souls that thought they were "selected" and going to heaven. They wasted their time on earth worshipping when they could have been having fun.

And the reversed, those who live a sinful life and then go to Heaven because God said so.

[Shyone]

Imagine the poor souls that thought they were "selected" and going to heaven. They wasted their time on earth worshipping when they could have been having fun.

And the reversed, those who live a sinful life and then go to Heaven because God said so.

You're going to hate this, but my understanding of their thinking is that one who is selected automatically lives a good life. I think. Maybe not.

 

Hell, I don't know, and I could give a rat's ass.

[rayskidude]

You're going to hate this, but my understanding of their thinking is that one who is selected automatically lives a good life. I think. Maybe not.

 

Yes, ShyOne >> you win the Cupie Doll!

 

God's elect are shown to be elect in this life because they;

1. persevere in the faith until the end

2. walk in the Spirit and do not fulfill the desires of their sin nature

3. give evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their daily lives

4. follow Jesus, in a self-sacrificing life lived for God's glory and the good of others

5. faithfully reach out to the lost with the Gospel of salvation by grace thru faith in Jesus the Messiah

6. are willing to suffer to live out God's purpose

 

BUT NOT necessarily by;

1. being wealthy

2. being healthy

3. being very successful in business, education, athletics, politics, etc

4. being Stoic or legalistic in their lifestyle

 

Christians may experience worldly success - which is not inherently wrong - but these are not the measure of true spirituality.

[rayskidude]

'MathGeek' date='09 September 2009 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1252530038' post='483799']

 

I took your advice and read several ex-Christian testimonials. I was especially moved and intrigued by 'webmdave.'

 

Since I cannot post on that discussion - does he still post somewhere else on this site? I did want to ask him a couple of questions about his journey.