In my above post I said if Jesus is the liason between God and man I should have said between the Father and man, remember when Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru me". If you believe you are doing what you think God wants you to do then do it, but I know who I am, the New Testament Moses and what my job is and that is to tell the whole world that: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. I also consider my job; Our job that is God and mine's job. By the way God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, knowing God's Name is just a start. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit only to the apostles, in other words the Holy Spirit is still very active today. And when God said I have chosen "you" that is what it says. Before I met God and I do mean the whole Trinity, I basically said nothing about God even though I believed in Him, I have also met satan so I know for a fact that he is real and I tell you he is upset. I have also been to hell and spiritual death so I know both are real but Jesus won the keys to both, He did not win the keys to Heaven, anyway as it says, new heavens and a new earth. I stake my everlasting destiny on the fact that God's Plan is ultimately for everyone to be with Him. As it says and you shall become sons and daughters of God, if Jesus is the liason between God and man maybe what a christian should be is a liason between Jesus and the rest. Jesus said and you shall do even greater things than Me, talk about an awesome statement. You can do what you want but I wouldn't recommend underestimating God. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
"To Peter Huff: If you want to be thankful to a loser go right ahead, I refuse to be thankful to a loser, God is not a loser."
I don't understand what you are getting at in accusing God of being a loser? The victory is won in Christ Jesus.
You said,
"God has a Plan and has had that Plan since before creation just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that He doesn't have it."
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I agree 100% that God has a plan. I just disagree that you are rightly interpreting that plan.
When you say,
"As it says, "Remember I have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me" and I have said YES to being chosen.
That is precisely the point, He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world. Who are the us??? Who did the choosing???
"For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world..." (Ephesian 1:4)
You said,
"I would like to know why so many people want to tell God what He can and cannot do, who He will and will not save? You seem to have a much higher opinion of yourself than you do of God."
First of all, the Bible is God's revelation to mankind about Himself. It is His Word to a fallen world. In it He tells us who He is, who we are, what He expects of us, why we have not met that expectation and the only remedy. I am not telling God what He can and cannot do, He is telling me.
Second, I would say the same of you. You have a higher opinion of your supposed direct word from God in which He communicated to you, than you do of His revelation to us that contradicts what you say repeatedly. What you are telling me is that God speaking to you directly supersedes His written revelation to us that He says is without error (Prov. 30:5)
You said,
"God did say, "My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts". Does it really upset you that much that God just might be more forgiving than you, more merciful than you and more loving than you?
Not at all. I know that to be the case. And I also know that God cannot lie, and He has disclosed to mankind that He will not save everyone.
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses,
'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desires or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." (Romans 9:14-18)
Why don't you read the whole chapter Thomas! While you are at it look up Acts 13:48. Pay attention to the phrase "those who were appointed for eternal life believed." That verse suggests that there are those who are not appointed for eternal life.
You said,
"Did you ever notice that the learned of Jesus's day were the ones that Jesus had the most trouble trying to break thru to their heart because they already knew it all and who was this carpenter's Son to speak to them that way? The self-rightious Jews of Jesus's day were sure it was only for them, the self-rightious Christians of today are sure it is only for them."
Well brother, I recognize my need for a Savior on the very grounds that I am a fallen human being, incapable of meeting God's standard by my own righteousness. It is not those who are well that need a physician. The problem with the Scribes and Sadducees was that they were incapable of recognizing their need of the grace and mercy of God. They were bent on doing it their way, in direct opposition to God's word. Are you sure that you are innocent of that crime?
You said,
"Have you ever thought of praying for God's Will, as in "Thy Will Be Done", rather than in what you think God's Will is?"
Yes, I have, because Jesus told us how to pray, and it is His will that will be done on earth as it is in heaven, not yours or mine.
You said,
"Anyway, Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth", He didn't say He would send a book or a theologian to guide me."
What you fail to recognize Thomas is that the Holy Spirit did teach the disciples/Apostles the truth and what He taught, the disciples/Apostles wrote down for our use today. That is why Peter could say,
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it..." (2 Peter 1:19)
What is He referring too? "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation..." (vs. 20)
Thomas, there are so many places in Scripture that warns us not to let anyone deceive us, and that in the last days there would be many false Christs deceiving and being deceived.
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people" (Matthew 24:11; 7:15-23)
One of the reasons that I know you are proclaiming a false Gospel (Galatians 1:6-8) is because what you say does not line up with the very Word of God. You do not have reverence for what He has said. Please, test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1)
I hope God will be merciful to you and open the eyes of your understanding.
To Peter Huff: If you want to be thankful to a loser go right ahead, I refuse to be thankful to a loser, God is not a loser. How many people in Egypt believe the Old Testament Moses? How many people believed Jesus when He was down here? God has a Plan and has had that Plan since before creation just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that He doesn't have it. As it says, "Remember I have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me" and I have said YES to being chosen. I would like to know why so many people want to tell God what He can and cannot do, who He will and will not save? You seem to have a much higher opinion of yourself than you do of God. God did say, "My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts". Does it really upset you that much that God just might be more forgiving than you, more merciful than you and more loving than you? Did you ever notice that the learned of Jesus's day were the ones that Jesus had the most trouble trying to break thru to their heart because they already knew it all and who was this carpenter's Son to speak to them that way? The self-rightious Jews of Jesus's day were sure it was only for them, the self-rightious Christians of today are sure it is only for them. Have you ever thought of praying for God's Will, as in "Thy Will Be Done", rather than in what you think God's Will is? Anyway, Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth", He didn't say He would send a book or a theologian to guide me. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Or, in my opinion, one of the fines books written besides the Bible on what Christ has done that we cannot do, that you can find on-line, is "The Everlasting Righteousness" by Horatius Bonar.
I think that in some ways you are misguided my friend in Christ Jesus. You are still young in your faith, and, although your intentions are noble you do not know the Scriptures. When you say,
"It is God's WILL that all be saved"
Is God not capable of saving all then? After all He is the Almighty and only true God. When He declares (in Jesus His Son) that "He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:23) notice first off who is the One doing the action (as is the case in salvation throughout the entire Bible). Notice the imperative "will" and also the distinction "His people" in the verse. So when you say
"we are all brothers and sisters, whether we like it or not"
I disagree with you. The Lord Himself made the distinction.
"Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free [notice who is doing the action again], you will be free indeed....You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires...He who belongs to God hears what God says [I hope you hear that Thomas and that God continues to open your eyes so that you may know Him better]. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" (John 8: 34-36; 44; 47, 48)
Only those born anew or regenerated are His children, although, as the poet in Acts 17:29 said we are all His offspring, in the sense that God gives us all life and breathe and determines where we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:25, 28)
Remember Ephesians 1:5, 6 says that "In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will - to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves."
You see Thomas, at one time we were all dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1; Romans 3:10-12)and it took that grace and mercy of God to open our eyes to the light. Remember Thomas, "It is by grace you have been saved through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8)
Notice Thomas, over and over again that it is God who saves and redeems a people for Himself.
Remember Thomas that "we await eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:24)
Remember Thomas that it is "those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." (Romans 8:14; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Hebrews 127)
Remember Thomas that it does not depend on mans effort but on God's mercy for He says that He "will have mercy on whom [He has] mercy" (Romans 9:14; see also verse 16)
Remember Thomas that whoever God saves are saved completely.
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day...No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:39, 44)
Remember Thomas, that "He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them...because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 7:25; 10:14)
Those who trust in Him will never be put to shame Thomas, but why does not everyone trust in Him? Surely from these verses our God is able to save every man, woman and child. But you have admitted that such is not the case,
"It most definitely matters how we live, I did not say that hell is not real and that spiritual death is not real, quite the contrary"
So salvation, Thomas, is not universal. God saves a specific people to Himself that is countless by our standards (Revelations 5:9-12)but nevertheless, limited.
Remember Thomas when Jesus asked, "'Who then can be saved?' Jesus replied, 'What is impossible with men is possible with God."" (Luke 18:26, 27)
When you say,
"One place that it says that, "It is God's Will that all be saved is in 1 Tim 2, but it is all over the place if we have eyes to see."
Please , let's take the verses one by one starting with 1 Timothy 2
Please notice the verse in its context,
"I urge, thn, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - [here Paul qualifies who the everyone is] for Kings and all those in authority, [and here is his reason] that we may live peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good [that we should live godly and peaceful lives] and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men [i.e. kings and people of authority, as per the context] to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4)
Again Revelation is specific on this too.
"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seal, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9)
So the "all" spoken of in Scripture can be an all of distinction (all kinds of people) rather than an all of quantity, meaning every single one; people from every walk of life, so to speak, from every nation and tribe, both Jews and Gentiles, men and women, rich and poor.
In Titus chapter 2 Paul speaks of the grace of God which brings salvation appearing to all men, but does it mean every single man, woman and child on the face of the earth or every kind of person? Well the context before and after speaks of older men (vs 2), older women (vs 3), younger women (vs 4), younger men (vs 6),slaves (vs 9)and rulers and authorities (vs 3:1).
Is Paul speaking to every single younger and older person here? If I said that in my travels I have seen all men, you would know that I am not referring to every single man on the earth, but every nation of men as in kinds.
As for God speaking to you, although it is very possible, if what you say does not line up with His Word then you should not be saying it is from God.
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain (i.e. Scripture), and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place..." (2 Peter 1:19)
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)
Thomas, is your standard the Word of God (John 17:17), or your own subjective opinion?
To Peter Huff: That is the point of Jesus's death on the cross, which is part of God's Plan. Jesus took the sin and the sins of the entire human family upon Himself when He willingly died on the cross. It most definitely matters how we live, I did not say that hell is not real and that spiritual death is not real, quite the contrary. Remember when Jesus, on the cross, said, "My God, My God why have Thou forsaken Me?", think about it, some of what is written in the bible was coming true at that precise moment. I saw on another post that it said that satan created hell, satan created nothing at all, if someone goes to hell they will realize that they built it themselves and that they have no one to blame but themselves. Jesus won the keys to hell and death and He will use them in due time. The bible should help lead you to God, when God the Father came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000, I knew that it was all true, but just because it is true does not mean that it has not been distorted by many. When I was told in a dream, that I knew was from God, that only I could say it, I had no idea what it was only I could say, so I dove into bible studies of any and no denominations including Jewish bible studies. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except thru Me", He said to the Father not to God, remember God is a Trinity, that is why I said there could be many ways to Jesus. When I write, "Let Us make man in Our Own Image", what I am saying is that we are all brothers and sisters, whether we like it or not. We are, if we call ourselves christians, suppose to pick up our cross and do whatever we feel God is calling us or choosing us to do, that is what Jesus told us, isn't it? One place that it says that, "It is God's Will that all be saved is in 1 Tim 2, but it is all over the place if we have eyes to see. Thank you for responding and hang in there, we are all in this together. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Thomas, are you telling me that every single person who ever lived is going to be saved (Hitler and Stalin included)?
If that is the case what was the point in Jesus' death on the cross? If God was going to save everyone of us then why was it necessary for Jesus to die? If God is going to save everyone of us then it doesn't matter how we live, right???
What do you really believe about God's Word. Is it inspired? Is it infallible? What is your authority for saying that,
" if you look at it and think about it there could be plenty of ways to Jesus instead of just the ways that we try to tell God how He can do things"
How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?
How do you read many ways out of "I am the Way"
or,
"no one comes to the Father except thru Me"
How does
"Let US make man in OUR IMAGE",
mean that all of us will be saved? Is that what you think those words mean?
To Peter Huff: Time will tell. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", if you look at it and think about it there could be plenty of ways to Jesus instead of just the ways that we try to tell God how He can do things, basically this is one of the places where Jesus is letting us know that He is God in the Flesh. Jesus said plenty of things and there are many things written in the bible, a lot of people try to make God so small so that they can get Him to do their will, well it doesn't work that way, God has a Plan and it is for all of His children, ALL, page one, "Let US make man in OUR IMAGE", that means all of us. It is God's WILL that all be saved, maybe we should be praying for God's Will rather than our own. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
To Peter Huff: Time will tell. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", if you look at it and think about it there could be plenty of ways to Jesus instead of just the ways that we try to tell God how He can do things, basically this is one of the places where Jesus is letting us know that He is God in the Flesh. Jesus said plenty of things and there are many things written in the bible, a lot of people try to make God so small so that they can get Him to do their will, well it doesn't work that way, God has a Plan and it is for all of His children, ALL, page one, "Let US make man in OUR IMAGE", that means all of us. It is God's WILL that all be saved, maybe we should be praying for God's Will rather than our own. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
"Just trying to do what God chose me for, I am the New Testament Moses, God chose me, I said yes. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum."
How do you know that you are not a false prophet, as the Bible gives a pretty good account of one in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 or Jeremiah 14:14, 15; 29:8, 9.
When the Lord Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." How do you get universal salvation out of that?
Well Godfrey, it is actually the Word of God that calls you a fool.
Psalm 14:1, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (see also Ps. 38:1-4 or Ps. 10:4 good buddy)
I'm just answering you as the Bible tells me to answer you, as your folly deserves, so that you will not be wise in your own eyes (Proverbs. 26:5)
I'm showing you that although you think the Christian worldview is silly, the folly of your worldview can make no sense of the tough, meaningful questions in life. That's fine if you think your subjective standard has any meaning other than what you assign it to be, but it is another thing to make sense of it.
That's a lot of words to cover up the simple fact that you called me a fool. Whatever the moral status of the act, it is certainly an ad hominem attack, which is well known as faulty argument. It's also an insult, and I'm not going to hang around here for that.
"2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, “Thou empty fellow;” it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Pro_21:24), which tramples upon our brother - disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, Joh_7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; “Thou wicked man, thou reprobate.” The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that would suddenly (Psa_64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power."
Robertson's Word Pictures says, concerning the verse,
"“Raca” (Raka) and “Thou fool” (Mōre). The first is probably an Aramaic word meaning “Empty,” a frequent word for contempt. The second word is Greek (dull, stupid) and is a fair equivalent of “raca.” It is urged by some that mōre is a Hebrew word, but Field (Otium Norvicense) objects to that idea. “Raca expresses contempt for a man’s head=you stupid! Mōre expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel” (Bruce).
The text I quoted in Proverbs,
"Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, that he not be wise in his own eyes."
Matthew Henry comments,
"Pro 26:4-5 -
See here the noble security of the scripture-style, which seems to contradict itself, but really does not. Wise men have need to be directed how to deal with fools; and they have never more need of wisdom than in dealing with such, to know when to keep silence and when to speak, for there may be a time for both. 1. In some cases a wise man will not set his wit to that of a fool so far as to answer him according to his folly “If he boast of himself, do not answer him by boasting of thyself. If he rail and talk passionately, do not thou rail and talk passionately too. If he tell one great lie, do not thou tell another to match it. If he calumniate thy friends, do not thou calumniate his. If he banter, do not answer him in his own language, lest thou be like him, even thou, who knowest better things, who hast more sense, and hast been better taught.” 2. Yet, in other cases, a wise man will use his wisdom for the conviction of a fool, when, by taking notice of what he says, there may be hopes of doing good, or at least preventing further, mischief, either to himself or others. “If thou have reason to think that thy silence will be deemed an evidence of the weakness of thy cause, or of thy own weakness, in such a case answer him, and let it be an answer ad hominem - to the man, beat him at his own weapons, and that will be an answer ad rem - to the point, or as good as one. If he offer any thing that looks like an argument, an answer that, and suit thy answer to his case. If he think, because thou dost not answer him, that what he says is unanswerable, then give him an answer, lest he be wise in his own conceit and boast of a victory.” For (Luk_7:35) Wisdom's children must justify her.
John Gill comments,
"Pro 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly,.... The Targum is,
"but speak with a fool in thy wisdom;''
and the Syriac version,
"yea, speak with a fool according to thy wisdom;''
which would at once remove the seeming contradiction in these words to the former, but then they are not a true version; indeed it is right, and must be the sense, that when a fool is answered, as it is sometimes necessary he should, that it be done in wisdom, and so as to expose his folly; he is to be answered and not answered according to different times, places, and circumstances, and manner of answering; he is to be answered when there is any hope of doing him good, or of doing good to others; or of preventing ill impressions being made upon others by what he has said; when the glory of God, the good of the church, and the cause of truth, require it; and when he would otherwise glory and triumph, as if his words or works were unanswerable, as follow;
lest he be wise in his own conceit; which fools are apt to be, and the rather when no answer is given them; imagining it arises from the strength of their arguments, and their nervous way of reasoning, when it is rather from a neglect and contempt of them."
I regard you as made in God's image and therefore deserving of dignity.
For me, I did not answer you out of malice or angry, and I do not think you are stupid. Good chance is that you are a lot smarter than I am - the Lord knows - but your worldview is fatally flawed and lacks wisdom.
All I am doing is showing you that what you believe (your worldview is unsustainable) is foolish, it has the wisdom of the world which is really no wisdom at all.
I would say you are proud of your knowledge, whereas true knowledge starts with God because God's Word rests on God Himself as true. Humility starts with recognizing that you are not in control, but God is.
Mattthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
"Isn't there something in the Bible about saying "thou fool?" Some reference to the fires of Gehenna, as I recall."
For one thing, you need to get the context right in whom that applies to. Plus there are various uses of the word "fool." I could be referring to lack of moral judgment,understanding or wisdom or calling a person an idiot. Since you do not know where it is I will not comment further. If you want to quote chapter and verse I would be glad to reply further.
The Lord Jesus told a parable of foolish virgins (Matthew 25). The Apostle Paul called the Galatians fools (Galatians 3:1). God uses the term to describe the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1:18). Therefore, the clue is in the particular passage once you find it. If you still want to make that claim I would be glad to continue with the chat.
When I stated,
“I don't have the standard for good, God does, and yes, He is the only absolute and standard for determining good for it is what He is.”
Your reply,
"If you deny the possibility of any standard of good that emanates from the immanent world, then there’s no point trying to offer you one."
My point all along was how do you establish that standard? Unless you have an ultimate objective, absolute standard you cannot make sense of “good.” It just becomes a subjective opinion. You have yet to show me otherwise.
What makes your opinion valid? The way you think is “I do not believe in God and because I do not believe it is true God does not exist.” That is poor thinking that an infinitesimal mind can be so much of an expert to rule out the existence of God. What percentage of all knowledge do you or I know? Let’s be real.
You said,
"There’s nothing more absolute than life or death."
How do you know that? Is that your personal opinion or do you have an absolute to base it on?
I said,
“So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it?”
Your reply,
"I’m not interested in consensus. I’m interested in right and wrong. I don’t get my ideas by watching to see which way other people jump. If you’re interested, you can get much more on the subject of life as the standard of value in Ayn Rand’s _The Virtue of Selfishness._
Again, a non-answer. You don’t follow my argument. How do you establish right and wrong without an absolute standard? Your problem is that you weigh right and wrong by your own standard. Well, Godfrey, what makes your standard truer than my standard? How do you determine truth? Is this your own personal opinion/idea also? Do you just call something true or right because it appeals to your subjective emotional experience?
If you are not interested in consensus and you determine your own standard of right and wrong then you place yourself in God’s place. And when someone disagrees with you who’s then right? Are you always right? How do you know? What silliness.
When I asked,
“How do you determine reality?”
Your reply,
"You observe reality with your senses, and with the tools that extend the senses."
Really, which sense do you think with? Do you think with you sight? How about your smell? What does thinking taste like? What audible sound does thinking make? Can you touch thinking? How do you observe my thought if I do not talk to you?
When I said,
“From which of the senses can you observe logic from? And yet you use it to observe.”
Your reply,
"I’m not clear on what you think “logic” means. I can say that logic is not a model of thinking. The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association. Logic is a formal tool with formal rules that serves the purpose of checking thinking against fundamental observations of reality, to wit, existence, identity, and the excluded middle.
This is a most brilliant statement, "The human brain does not work by logic" as you logically put words together to convey a thought.
What I mean by logic is the process you use to make sense of anything. Without it all these words on this page would be meaningless. The human brain works by using logic in everything we do.
When I said,
“O, by the way you are certainly doing a "good" job in observing origins; life from non-life, non-material from material, intangible from tangible. O, where did you observe any of those?”
You said,
"I don’t think I follow the question. And I keep trying to tell you, I’m not interested in origins."
First, evolution claims we evolved from non-living, non-thinking processes.
Second, You claim you are not interested in origins, but you’re spending a lot of time on a faith based blog arguing about faith. I’m sure your reason for stating you're not interested is because your worldview is incapable of and unable to answer origins, as so many other things.
You say,
“My point is, you demand evidence, but you want to so tightly circumscribe what can be considered evidence that anything I would offer as proof is eliminated from consideration, while your airy assertions are to be considered rock solid. If you’re going to exclude me from the discussion, why have a discussion?”
So far what evidence have you given me? All I see is your personal opinions without any factual evidence to back them up?
When you say,
“I say for the last time, you can’t prove the truth of the Bible by referring to the Bible. That’s circular reasoning. I won’t come back to this point.”
Very convenient!
All reasoning eventually boils down to circular reasoning. Your reasoning keeps coming back to “because I say so.” You contend there is no god because you say so. Why do you say there no God? Because you say there is no evidence for God? Have you seen all the evidence? No, but the evidence you have seen is not convincing to you? Why is the evidence not convincing to you. Because you do not feel there is any evidence for God. And on we go.
The same applies with your reasoning on your standard for right and wrong, good and evil. It is all circular.
I said,
“...the writings of the early church fathers...”
Your reply,
“Who burned every document they disagreed with in the slightest, along with the people who held with those documents when they could capture them.
Again you make a statement without any proof to back it up. Who documented that? If every document was burned that disagreed with them then how did you ever come to find out this information?
You said,
"There is no archeological proof for the existence of any named individual in the Bible, other than a few men of power in the Roman Empire. And even there, the timelines are crossed up. And there is archeological proof that some of the places didn’t exist, including specifically Nazareth, which before the time of the crusades, was nothing but a mausoleum and a garbage dump. This is established. You can look it up. The word “Nazareth” seems to have originally been “nazirite,” which is altogether different."
Again, where is your proof? You throw out these smoke screens and empty claims. The problem of you citing proof or me citing a proof is we can both supply a lot of authors in support of our claim, but how do you ever establish which is right without an objective, absolute standard.
All evidence needs to be interpreted.
When I asked you to check out some of the evidence of Gary Habermas and former atheist Antony Flew in their debate on the Resurrection of Jesus @ www.garyhabermas.com. here is your reply,
“I certainly don’t have time to listen to this whole thing, but from what I saw of it, you would have to be a believer to start with to find Habermas’s argument compelling. He argues straight from the gospels, which, again, is no way to prove the gospels."
Again, this is evidence of your bias because you never give any evidence but you berate mine.
Your bias is something I have been claiming all along and is just further proof that the Bible is true.
You said,
"I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the other scholars you cite argue similarly."
Since it does not fit your worldview you are not even going to consider the argument. That only proves how closed minded you are, while your contending all the time how fair and open minded you are and that I’m the one who is closed minded.
I said,
“The reason scientist make no hypothesis about what went before is because they have no answer. “
Your reply,
If you can’t see the logical weakness of that statement, I think it’s futile to argue."
I do not think you have an argument for your claims. It is easier to brush off with bare assertions.
I presented you with some evidence stating that there were lies in basic elementary and high school textbooks in regards to evolution. Again you could not be bothered to refute any of the arguments if you even listened to them. Instead, here is what you said,
“This is a “creation science” site. Even judges, who aren’t scientists, can see that this isn’t science. The strategy is to throw up so many questions that the sky is clouded with them, and that people who don’t understand the science are confused by them. Questions are easy to pose. Scientific answers are not always easy to understand. If you’re interested in the science, here’s a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html”
When I stated,
“That is my point. If all you are and if all I am is a sum total of a bunch of material/physical chemicals reacting in some way, based on evolutionary random selection, how can a physical reaction produce something non-physical such as logic? Since we are two separate beings, what is to stop me fizzing one way and you another? If we are both fizzing differently, then how can we determine anything? Ever seen a rock determine anything?”
Here is your answer,
“I don’t have the answer to the how, but as I say, science is coming closer every day.”
Well, that is the delusion (to coin Richard Dawkins) you live under.
You continue,
“And all this “fizzing” business is just weird. The chemical reactions going on in the body, with the exception of gas in the bowel, do not resemble “fizzing” in any way whatsoever. The chemistry of the body is extremely precise, step-by-step, and highly controlled.”
It is just figurative language to describe what goes on in the brains of evolutionists. Each reacts in a blind, irrational way. If the world came into existence by blind chemical non-rational, non-thinking, non-cognitive processes then how do you get intelligent, cognitive thinking processes out of non-living matter? A stone does not think. A chemical reaction does not think.
When I criticized Steger you said,
“Why are you dragging Stenger in? If I was referring to Stenger, I would have told you. I am capable of independent thought.”
I drag him in because he is one of those people who had a great influence/impact in your life. Do you expect me to believe that he has not greatly influenced the way you think? Let’s be real. Why so touchy?
When I said,
“Why would I want to believe you? You cannot even establish a standard for good or right that makes sense.”
Your reply,
“Flat contradiction doesn’t disprove.”
You espouse a way of looking at the world that does not have the ability to define good and you want me to take you seriously?
When asking about what sign or miracle would you ever believe you said,
“Any miracle, meaning any suspension of the laws of physics, that you can actually, scientifically, demonstrate ever took place. It should be easy.”
Let’s again be realistic. If you ever saw the suspension of a natural or physical law you would find a reason to not believe it. The same was the case during the ministry of Jesus.
I stated,
“You're wrong; in interpreting origins no one was around at point "A" so point "A" has to be interpreted to arrive at points "B" to "Z."
Your response,
"I’M NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS! SCIENCE IS NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS!"
And yet your “Big Bang” or “Big Dud” was Science looking back at the origin of the universe. Again, you throw up a smoke screen to avoid the question. Your worldview cannot explain origins. It is one of the big puzzlements of an atheistic worldview; the inability to answer a meaningful question.
You said,
One CE? Any year within six years of it? What year was Christ supposedly born?"
So a Gregorian monk got a little mixed up in his division of history. Jewish and Roman calendars start at different times of the year. “The date we call A.D. 1 eventually became so well entrenched that changing the calendars proved impossible.” Jesus and the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, p. 188.
I said,
" There are two censuses mentioned in the New Testament in Luke 2:15 and Acts 5:37. There is also a description published by Gaius Vibius in A.D. 104...”
Your reply,
"I searched the internet for Gaius Vibius. I found two. Neither of them was alive in A.D. 104."
After you chastise me for using dictionary definitions you immediately go to the Internet for your references. Did you think I just made the quotation up?
Here is the quote and the source,
"Because of the approaching census it is necessary for all of those residing for any cause away from there own districts to prepare to return at once to their own governments, in order that they may complete the family administration of the enrollment." The Revel Bible Dictionary, p. 200.
You said,
“I find this highly unlikely. Especially as your author doesn’t seem to exist.”
When I criticized your logic and referred you to a web site to see how your evidence stacks up, you said,
“Habermas doesn’t have anything to do with logic.”
What do you know about logic? You have already ruled it out in your previous statements.
You said,
“And my statement has nothing to do with logic. It’s a simple historical fact. Logic doesn’t enter into it.”
When I said,
“Depending on what you read depends on the dates for the "Big Bang."
Your reply,
"I assure you that 14.3 billion years ago is the currently accepted date."
I love that answer. “I assure you…the currently accepted date.” That is great assurance. How long before it changes again?
You said,
“Incidentally, I’m not happy with the big bang theory myself. It has certain logical problems. “
I don't blame you, and there you go using logic again. I thought that “The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association.”
I said,
“First, you said that "evolution is arrived at after intense observation of the actual world." Yeah, the world we live in today, not what the conditions were like at the time of origin. That is speculation based on data. NO ONE WAS THERE.“
Your reply,
"SPECULATION BASED ON DATA? Now you want to discard data? You want to label all science as speculation?"
Your problem is that you refuse to see that any data needs to be interpreted. It does not come with instructions on it. How good the interpretation is depends on how thorough the research is. You can make any theory say what you want it to say. How can you say that the world we live in today is the key to interpreting the world at the time of the “Big Bang?”
Then you said,
“I think it’s time to close this discussion. If all science is out the window, if no data can be adduced, I have nowhere to stand.”
There again, you try to throw another smoke screen by “all science.” What science have you used? You are trying to your straw man arguments again to appeal to anyone who may read this.
You said,
“And you can’t claim to make any scientific argument. We’re left with nothing but assertion. Discussion is impossible.”
What evidence would you look at? You have not provided any factual evidence to refute my claims in your claims that Jesus Christ never existed or that the Bible is not historical. How scientific is that?
God is real and He is a lot nicer than a lot of people that know His Name seem to think that He is. Talk about taking the Name of God in vain, so many people that call themselves christians really don't know didly-squat about God except for His Name. At least the ones that are condemning so many people when God Incarnate said "Father forgive them, they know not what they are doing", now some of the they sure do not know what they are saying. God is Love, Pure Love, not the spite-filled, revenge-seeking, egomaniac that you would think that He is from reading some of the garbage posted here and on some of the other postings from so called christians. God have Mercy on us all. By the way God wins total victory, satan loses, a tie is utterly unacceptable. Just trying to do what God chose me for, I am the New Testament Moses, God chose me, I said yes. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
God is real and He is a lot nicer than most people think that He is and that goes especially for some of those that know His Name. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
I saw him do this to a Pagan on another thread. He tried to convince him?her? that atheists have no way of 'making sense of the world without borrowing from a Christian worldview'. At least the Pagan responder tried to tell him to let atheists speak for their own points of view and not to make assumptions.
Seems they, like you, have the good sense not to get involved any further. This guy seems to have his hands over his ears going 'lalala.'
Since you have wasted your time in an "On Faith" blog I would guess that you either are not quite satisfied with Atheism and are looking for something of greater substance, or you like stirring the pot.
Since Atheism is in vogue right now I'm going to respond to some of these comments, just for the record, whether you waste any more time over them or not to show you that what the Bible says is true, "Answer a fool as his folly desires so that he will not be wise in his own eyes." I am working 12 hour shifts until Monday so I will not have the time until then.
I entered this discussion because I thought you were interested in honest discussion. Then you proceed to rule patristics, textual analysis, history, biology, and astrophysics out of court. You systematically reduce the discussion to assertion, then claim your assertions are superior because they come from God. This isn't discussion, and it isn't honest.
You continually demand proof, but deny the possibility of using data. This is contradictory, and SERIOUSLY dishonest.
I've wasted enough time on you, Huff. I won't be wasting any more.
I copied the discussion I haven’t answered yet into Word, and it came to 14 pages. That’s like trying to answer Niagra Falls. But I’ll touch on some of the salient points.
“I don't have the standard for good, God does, and yes, He is the only absolute and standard for determining good for it is what He is.”
If you deny the possibility of any standard of good that emanates from the immanent world, then there’s no point trying to offer you one.
“So Godfrey, how do you make an absolute out of that?”
There’s nothing more absolute than life or death.
“So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it?”
I’m not interested in consensus. I’m interested in right and wrong. I don’t get my ideas by watching to see which way other people jump. If you’re interested, you can get much more on the subject of life as the standard of value in Ayn Rand’s _The Virtue of Selfishness._
“How do you determine reality?”
You observe reality with your senses, and with the tools that extend the senses.
“From which of the senses can you observe logic from? And yet you use it to observe.”
I’m not clear on what you think “logic” means. I can say that logic is not a model of thinking. The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association. Logic is a formal tool with formal rules that serves the purpose of checking thinking against fundamental observations of reality, to wit, existence, identity, and the excluded middle.
“O, by the way you are certainly doing a "good" job in observing origins; life from non-life, non-material from material, intangible from tangible. O, where did you observe any of those?”
I don’t think I follow the question. And I keep trying to tell you, I’m not interested in origins.
“And you, Godfrey, want to throw out the proof and discard the 2000 years of intense study and research of the thousands of men and women who have also learned Greek, Hebrew and Latin and in some cases used it as their mother tongue. Their writings also fill libraries and their research was conducted over the full period of their later life too.
“So what is your point?”
My point is, you demand evidence, but you want to so tightly circumscribe what can be considered evidence that anything I would offer as proof is eliminated from consideration, while your airy assertions are to be considered rock solid. If you’re going to exclude me from the discussion, why have a discussion?
“First and foremost, my proof is the Bible.”
I say for the last time, you can’t prove the truth of the Bible by referring to the Bible. That’s circular reaoning. I won’t come back to this point.
“...the writings of the early church fathers...”
Who burned every document they disagreed with in the slightest, along with the people who held with those documents when they could capture them. If you have the power to exclude the other arguments (which trick you’re trying on me, see above) then your argument doesn’t have much weight.
“Then there are archaeological proofs that confirm that these places mentioned in the Bible actually existed, as did the people.”
There is no archeological proof for the existence of any named individual in the Bible, other than a few men of power in the Roman Empire. And even there, the timelines are crossed up. And there is archeological proof that some of the places didn’t exist, including specifically Nazareth, which before the time of the crusades, was nothing but a mausoleum and a garbage dump. This is established. You can look it up. The word “Nazareth” seems to have originally been “nazirite,” which is altogether different.
“Check out his website for a great refutation of former atheist Antony Flew in their debate on the Resurrection of Jesus @ www.garyhabermas.com. Look under the video section for the free online debate if you want to see how your position stacks up.”
I certainly don’t have time to listen to this whole thing, but from what I saw of it, you would have to be a believer to start with to find Habermas’s argument compelling. He argues straight from the gospels, which, again, is no way to prove the gospels.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the other scholars you cite argue similarly.
“The reason scientist make no hypothesis about what went before is because they have no answer.“
If you can’t see the logical weakness of that statement, I think it’s futile to argue.
“For your information you can actually see some of the lies/contradictions in the textbooks if you go to www.drdino.com and look under videos on evidence that this former science teacher extracted from the textbooks. Can you refute the actual 25 lies he lists?”
This is a “creation science” site. Even judges, who aren’t scientists, can see that this isn’t science. The strategy is to throw up so many questions that the sky is clouded with them, and that people who don’t understand the science are confused by them. Questions are easy to pose. Scientific answers are not always easy to understand. If you’re interested in the science, here’s a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
“That is my point. If all you are and if all I am is a sum total of a bunch of material/physical chemicals reacting in some way, based on evolutionary random selection, how can a physical reaction produce something non-physical such as logic? Since we are two separate beings, what is to stop me fizzing one way and you another? If we are both fizzing differently, then how can we determine anything? Ever seen a rock determine anything?”
I don’t have the answer to the how, but as I say, science is coming closer every day. And all this “fizzing” business is just weird. The chemical reactions going on in the body, with the exception of gas in the bowel, do not resemble “fizzing” in any way whatsoever. The chemistry of the body is extremely precise, step-by-step, and highly controlled.
“According to you or at least your friend Steger (sic).”
Why are you dragging Stenger in? If I was referring to Stenger, I would have told you. I am capable of independent thought.
“Why would I want to believe you? You cannot even establish a standard for good or right that makes sense.”
Flat contradiction doesn’t disprove.
“So what sign or miracle would you ever believe Godfrey?”
Any miracle, meaning any suspension of the laws of physics, that you can actually, scientifically, demonstrate ever took place. It should be easy.
“You're wrong; in interpreting origins no one was around at point "A" so point "A" has to be interpreted to arrive at points "B" to "Z."
I’M NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS! SCIENCE IS NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS!
"Immediately you jump to the conclusion that I do not think science is valid at all. Not at all. The point I make is that when scientists look at origins..."
See immediately preceding.
“...which year was that?”
One CE? Any year within six years of it? What year was Christ supposedly born?
" There are two censuses mentioned in the New Testament in Luke 2:15 and Acts 5:37. There is also a description published by Gaius Vibius in A.D. 104...”
I searched the internet for Gaius Vibius. I found two. Neither of them was alive in A.D. 104.
"Because of the approaching census it is necessary for all of those residing for any cause away from there own districts to prepare to return at once to their own governments, in order that they may complete the family administration of the enrollment."
I find this highly unlikely. Especially as your author doesn’t seem to exist.
“Again, your logic is weak. You need to look at the videos on www.garyhabermas.com to see how well your argument stacks up.”
Habermas doesn’t have anything to do with logic. And my statement has nothing to do with logic. It’s a simple historical fact. Logic doesn’t enter into it.
Depending on what you read depends on the dates for the "Big Bang."
I assure you that 14.3 billion years ago is the currently accepted date. But you don’t look it up in a dictionary, for God’s sake. You look in current science. I’m not about to chase down all your internet references, but when were they posted?
Incidentally, I’m not happy with the big bang theory myself. It has certain logical problems. One example: it asserts that at a certain point in time, time started. This is a manifest contradiction. There are other problems.
“First, you said that "evolution is arrived at after intense observation of the actual world." Yeah, the world we live in today, not what the conditions were like at the time of origin. That is speculation based on data. NO ONE WAS THERE.“
SPECULATION BASED ON DATA? Now you want to discard data? You want to label all science as speculation? I think it’s time to close this discussion. If all science is out the window, if no data can be adduced, I have nowhere to stand. And you can’t claim to make any scientific argument. We’re left with nothing but assertion. Discussion is impossible.
Actually, I should have said all but John were written before 70 A.D. My mistake, but even John was written before the turn of the century according to well researched scholars like W.F. Albright. It will take me a while to dig up quotes, but it can be done. And what we will be doing is pitting scholar against scholar, so I'm sure that you can pull the scholars to support your position as I can to support mine.
But from the manuscripts themselves can you show me the mention of the fall of Jerusalem taking place in Matthew, Mark or Luke (or any of the other significant historical events that led up to the destruction of Jerusalem, to my knowledge). Please feel free to point out any. Since you are disputing an historical record/materials, the Gospels, point out from those records where you draw your conclusions from. Or maybe you should show me where these Gospels are not considered historical data. Which "scholars" have determined this or the "fact" that Jesus was a mythical figure?
John Warwick Montgomery in History and Christianity, p.26-27, quoted Sir Frederic G. Kenyon writing on the New Testament documents,
"In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."
Then he goes on to compare other ancient manuscripts, such as those of Sophocles or Plato, etc.
Then, on A.T. Robinson Montgomery said,
"Moreover, as A.T. Robinson, the author of the most comprehensive grammar of the New Testament Greek, wrote, "There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 1,000 for the other early versions. Add over 4,000 Greek manuscripts and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. Besides all this, much of the New Testament can be reproduced from the quotations of the early Christian writers." p28-29
On the internal evidence Montgomery had this to say,
"...historical and literary scholarship continues to follow the dictum that the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself. This means that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies...." p.29
On the external evidence, Montgomery had this to say,
"Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves? Careful comparison of the New Testament documents with inscriptions and other independent early evidence has in the modern period confirmed their primary claims. For example, Sir William Ramsey came to the conclusion after years of painstaking archaeological and geological investigation of Luke's gospel. He rejected the negatively critical attitude to Luke taken by the 19th-century Tübingen school. He wrote, "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."
"Moreover, as to the authors and primary historical value of the Gospel accounts, confirmation comes from independent written sources. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis around A.D. 130, writes as follows on the basis of information obtained from the "Elder" (Apostle) John: "The Elder used to say also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however, in order..."
"Another superlative external testimony of the primacy of the Gospel accounts is provided by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who writes, "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews [i.e., Jews] in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure [i.e., death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord...himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia....."
"Specifically, present-day scholars date the important New Testament materials as follows: the Pauline letters, A.D. 51-62; Mark's Gospel, 64-70; the Gospel according to Matthew and Luke, 80-85; Acts, shortly after Luke...John's Gospel, no later than 100. It should be emphasized that the dates here given are in general the latest possible ones for the books in question; the is excellent reason for earlier dating in most cases. For instant, Luke-Acts should probably be dated prior to 64, since Paul almost certainly died in persecution by Nero, yet Acts does not record his death."
"As a sensitive barometer to the current archaeological-based trend towards even earlier dating of these documents, we have the statement of the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, W. F. Albright....: "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)." p 31-35
Godfrey, I am running out of time, but this weekend I will document more of why the Gospels are thought to be earlier than 70 A.D. after I re-read some of the materials I have on hand, if you are still interested. I also have a quote on Luke's Census from The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas, which I will record the page number here so that I can reference it later (page 173).
Let's see your proof.
Briefly, with the time remaining, I would also like you to answer why, in an evolutionary/atheistic world, there would be such a problem as evil, or for that matter good. To what objective standard do you make your appeal for any code of conduct?
With all the horrid and tragic events that will happen in your and my lifetimes that I'm sure neither one of us will recognize as good, what is the purpose in them happening? After all, unless you see Nature like our pagan friends do, as having it's own conscious, does Nature recognize a right and wrong; good and evil? It's just an evolutionary process, of which you are supposedly a part of, and therefore not subject to good or evil. Therefore why do you, a biological process (according to evolution) even make a distinction between good and evil? Survival of the fittest is the process, according to Darwin, that all life follows. Then why should you consider,
"Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil."
Is "good" not just looking out for your own best interests (as in survival of the fittest), or is that what you are doing by trying to improve and prolong life. Looking out for your own best interests? Why, for when you are dead none of this means anything anyway????
Well, my worldview has an answer for all of this, and you keep borrowing from it when you make distinctions between good and evil, and in the process contradicting the core of what evolution is based on, meaninglessness. A rock does not make these distinctions; it does not sit there and contemplate life. Yet supposedly both you and it all came about by a chance "Big Bang" billions of years ago.
The atheist has a lot of explaining to do.
Why would a tsunami be considered bad, since it is just a natural function (supposedly) common to all life and not within our ability to stop? It is just nature doing what nature does, without distinction.
It's three in the morning, so I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive answer now, but I do have to say that your assertion that the gospels were written before 70CE is nothing short of wild-eyed. All the authorities I've read, and I've read a bunch, say that Mark was written after 70CE, and the others after that, with John being well up in the second century, possibly as late as 165CE. This is so well known I'm surprised you would contradict it. Mark couldn't have been written before 70CE because he mentions the fall of the Temple, and that happened in 70.
I was thinking more about your statements below in answer to mine about the gospels being historical records, in which you said,
"No, they aren’t. They are inconsistent with known history in many ways, including known dates.
Well Godfrey, if that in itself is not one of the most illogical and untrue contentions that you have made to date then I'll be jiggered.
I’ve been to the British Museum of Natural History and seen fragments of texts and manuscripts that prove they are historical records. Secular, as well as biblical historians have agreed to that and to the facts that the gospels were written well within the lifetimes of the Apostles. They were the ones claiming to be eyewitnesses. Where are the historical records to say otherwise from that time period?
So when you say,
“The gospels are a collection of books mostly written to show that one person’s version of the myth was better than another's.”
Myths usually take time to develop and not usually within the span of time that the Gospels were established because others are there to refute such myths. From historical references we know that the Gospels were written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
If the resurrection of Jesus was myth, the whole Christian movement could have been squashed by the Roman authorities by producing Jesus' dead body. That would have stopped the apostles and others from proclaiming that someone who was put to death had been raised from the dead. Where is the literature to prove the resurrection never actually happened, during the founding of the early churches and the days and months after Pentecost? In one day 3000 people came to faith (Acts 2:41).
Well Godfrey, when you say,
"This is such a mish-mash of bad logic, misapprehension, misunderstanding, and incoherent flitting from point to point that I don't know if I want to answer it. Let me come back when I'm a little fresher."
Again, it is an easy thing to say. Hopefully you are willing to show me why you make these assertions.
I'm still waiting to see how you can arrive at a standard of "good" that is anything but your subjective opinion. Without an absolute standard it is impossible to make sense of.
You assert,
"My standard of good is life."
You also claim that your subjective standard is absolute. How do you determine from life that a subjective opinion is absolute? Is not a subjective opinion something that is taken from ones own mind and is particular to that particular person? I mean, you use the word "my" so from that I conclude that you are not talking from an objective standpoint, that being that it is not influenced/preceding from/by your own emotions or bias.
"Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil."
Then death is bad. But for me as a Christian I do not accept your definition. I believe that to die as a Christian is to be with God, which is the ultimate good. So already I question your absolute, since I've just listed an exception that comes from my subjective experience. So who is right about "good?" I say you are not, you say you are.
My measure of "good" is not myself or from myself. It is a standard above and outside of myself that makes sense of what "good" is.
Well, I was hoping for more from you, since I took the time and effort to answer each of your assertions, but I totally understand if that is as far as you can take it. If I do not hear from you again, take care and thanks for the chat.
This is such a mish-mash of bad logic, misapprehension, misunderstanding, and incoherent flitting from point to point that I don't know if I want to answer it. Let me come back when I'm a little fresher.
"What, you think you have the only absolute in the universe? My standard of good is life.”
I don't have the standard for good, God does, and yes, He is the only absolute and standard for determining good for it is what He is.
"God is not like man that He should lie, nor like the son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)
Or as the Apostle Paul put it,
"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness - a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at His appointed season He brought His word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior." (Titus 1:1-3)
You said,
"Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil. There’s much room for discussion here of course. Keep in mind that this is a brief statement of a deep subject."
So Godfrey, how do you make an absolute out of that? As you yourself have said later in the post,
"When did we ever get a consensus?"
So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it? As you have said, it boils down to discussion on a deep subject that you or I cannot possibly know, in the long run/big picture, of whether our actions are actually helpful or hurtful.
For instance, as a Christian I look upon the preaching of the gospel message as a good thing, whereas you look upon it as a bad thing. So which one of the two of us is doing a good thing? I believe it improves life for eternity whereas you believe it inhibits people and stops them from enjoying a fulfilling lifestyle in this present life.
Adolph Hitler viewed the extermination of Jews and others as a good thing for Germany.
For the Russian or Chinese communist, the advancement of the state is good. Therefore the extermination of millions to do so has been determine in the past to be in the best interests of the State.
Head hunting tribes in the South Pacific viewed the eating of human flesh as good, that is as long as it was not theirs, or a member of their tribal family.
So how do you determine "good" from lifestyle?
Eating a human enemy may be thought of as in the best interest of a tribe, an easy meal, or maybe an only meal if game is scarce.
The other thing about absolutes is since we are subjective beings, in that we see/evaluate things through our own eyes, or the eyes of someone else's standard, when two human standards, both claiming to be absolute are stating opposite beliefs, then it is impossible that they are both right. A cannot equal A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship
All Comments (165)
http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ chris brown
May 21, 2008 9:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 21, 2008 21:02
In my above post I said if Jesus is the liason between God and man I should have said between the Father and man, remember when Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru me". If you believe you are doing what you think God wants you to do then do it, but I know who I am, the New Testament Moses and what my job is and that is to tell the whole world that: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. I also consider my job; Our job that is God and mine's job. By the way God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, knowing God's Name is just a start. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
August 6, 2007 6:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 6, 2007 18:46
Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit only to the apostles, in other words the Holy Spirit is still very active today. And when God said I have chosen "you" that is what it says. Before I met God and I do mean the whole Trinity, I basically said nothing about God even though I believed in Him, I have also met satan so I know for a fact that he is real and I tell you he is upset. I have also been to hell and spiritual death so I know both are real but Jesus won the keys to both, He did not win the keys to Heaven, anyway as it says, new heavens and a new earth. I stake my everlasting destiny on the fact that God's Plan is ultimately for everyone to be with Him. As it says and you shall become sons and daughters of God, if Jesus is the liason between God and man maybe what a christian should be is a liason between Jesus and the rest. Jesus said and you shall do even greater things than Me, talk about an awesome statement. You can do what you want but I wouldn't recommend underestimating God. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
August 6, 2007 11:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 6, 2007 11:45
Hello Thomoas,
When you say,
"To Peter Huff: If you want to be thankful to a loser go right ahead, I refuse to be thankful to a loser, God is not a loser."
I don't understand what you are getting at in accusing God of being a loser? The victory is won in Christ Jesus.
You said,
"God has a Plan and has had that Plan since before creation just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that He doesn't have it."
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I agree 100% that God has a plan. I just disagree that you are rightly interpreting that plan.
When you say,
"As it says, "Remember I have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me" and I have said YES to being chosen.
That is precisely the point, He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world. Who are the us??? Who did the choosing???
"For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world..." (Ephesian 1:4)
You said,
"I would like to know why so many people want to tell God what He can and cannot do, who He will and will not save? You seem to have a much higher opinion of yourself than you do of God."
First of all, the Bible is God's revelation to mankind about Himself. It is His Word to a fallen world. In it He tells us who He is, who we are, what He expects of us, why we have not met that expectation and the only remedy. I am not telling God what He can and cannot do, He is telling me.
Second, I would say the same of you. You have a higher opinion of your supposed direct word from God in which He communicated to you, than you do of His revelation to us that contradicts what you say repeatedly. What you are telling me is that God speaking to you directly supersedes His written revelation to us that He says is without error (Prov. 30:5)
You said,
"God did say, "My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts". Does it really upset you that much that God just might be more forgiving than you, more merciful than you and more loving than you?
Not at all. I know that to be the case. And I also know that God cannot lie, and He has disclosed to mankind that He will not save everyone.
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses,
'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desires or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." (Romans 9:14-18)
Why don't you read the whole chapter Thomas! While you are at it look up Acts 13:48. Pay attention to the phrase "those who were appointed for eternal life believed." That verse suggests that there are those who are not appointed for eternal life.
You said,
"Did you ever notice that the learned of Jesus's day were the ones that Jesus had the most trouble trying to break thru to their heart because they already knew it all and who was this carpenter's Son to speak to them that way? The self-rightious Jews of Jesus's day were sure it was only for them, the self-rightious Christians of today are sure it is only for them."
Well brother, I recognize my need for a Savior on the very grounds that I am a fallen human being, incapable of meeting God's standard by my own righteousness. It is not those who are well that need a physician. The problem with the Scribes and Sadducees was that they were incapable of recognizing their need of the grace and mercy of God. They were bent on doing it their way, in direct opposition to God's word. Are you sure that you are innocent of that crime?
You said,
"Have you ever thought of praying for God's Will, as in "Thy Will Be Done", rather than in what you think God's Will is?"
Yes, I have, because Jesus told us how to pray, and it is His will that will be done on earth as it is in heaven, not yours or mine.
You said,
"Anyway, Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth", He didn't say He would send a book or a theologian to guide me."
What you fail to recognize Thomas is that the Holy Spirit did teach the disciples/Apostles the truth and what He taught, the disciples/Apostles wrote down for our use today. That is why Peter could say,
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it..." (2 Peter 1:19)
What is He referring too? "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation..." (vs. 20)
Thomas, there are so many places in Scripture that warns us not to let anyone deceive us, and that in the last days there would be many false Christs deceiving and being deceived.
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people" (Matthew 24:11; 7:15-23)
One of the reasons that I know you are proclaiming a false Gospel (Galatians 1:6-8) is because what you say does not line up with the very Word of God. You do not have reverence for what He has said. Please, test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1)
I hope God will be merciful to you and open the eyes of your understanding.
August 3, 2007 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 3, 2007 22:28
To Peter Huff: If you want to be thankful to a loser go right ahead, I refuse to be thankful to a loser, God is not a loser. How many people in Egypt believe the Old Testament Moses? How many people believed Jesus when He was down here? God has a Plan and has had that Plan since before creation just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that He doesn't have it. As it says, "Remember I have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me" and I have said YES to being chosen. I would like to know why so many people want to tell God what He can and cannot do, who He will and will not save? You seem to have a much higher opinion of yourself than you do of God. God did say, "My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts". Does it really upset you that much that God just might be more forgiving than you, more merciful than you and more loving than you? Did you ever notice that the learned of Jesus's day were the ones that Jesus had the most trouble trying to break thru to their heart because they already knew it all and who was this carpenter's Son to speak to them that way? The self-rightious Jews of Jesus's day were sure it was only for them, the self-rightious Christians of today are sure it is only for them. Have you ever thought of praying for God's Will, as in "Thy Will Be Done", rather than in what you think God's Will is? Anyway, Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth", He didn't say He would send a book or a theologian to guide me. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
August 2, 2007 7:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 2, 2007 19:43
Thomas, here is a book that would help you to understand why God does not save all.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/truthcross.html
Or, in my opinion, one of the fines books written besides the Bible on what Christ has done that we cannot do, that you can find on-line, is "The Everlasting Righteousness" by Horatius Bonar.
August 1, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 1, 2007 14:16
pcoket mwine mralx ikrm hzrev lntmuhz ayunq
August 1, 2007 11:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 1, 2007 11:29
pcoket mwine mralx ikrm hzrev lntmuhz ayunq
August 1, 2007 11:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 1, 2007 11:28
pcoket mwine mralx ikrm hzrev lntmuhz ayunq
August 1, 2007 11:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 1, 2007 11:28
pcoket mwine mralx ikrm hzrev lntmuhz ayunq
August 1, 2007 11:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 1, 2007 11:28
Hello Thomas Baum,
I think that in some ways you are misguided my friend in Christ Jesus. You are still young in your faith, and, although your intentions are noble you do not know the Scriptures. When you say,
"It is God's WILL that all be saved"
Is God not capable of saving all then? After all He is the Almighty and only true God. When He declares (in Jesus His Son) that "He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:23) notice first off who is the One doing the action (as is the case in salvation throughout the entire Bible). Notice the imperative "will" and also the distinction "His people" in the verse. So when you say
"we are all brothers and sisters, whether we like it or not"
I disagree with you. The Lord Himself made the distinction.
"Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free [notice who is doing the action again], you will be free indeed....You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires...He who belongs to God hears what God says [I hope you hear that Thomas and that God continues to open your eyes so that you may know Him better]. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" (John 8: 34-36; 44; 47, 48)
Only those born anew or regenerated are His children, although, as the poet in Acts 17:29 said we are all His offspring, in the sense that God gives us all life and breathe and determines where we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:25, 28)
Remember Ephesians 1:5, 6 says that "In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will - to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves."
You see Thomas, at one time we were all dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1; Romans 3:10-12)and it took that grace and mercy of God to open our eyes to the light. Remember Thomas, "It is by grace you have been saved through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8)
Notice Thomas, over and over again that it is God who saves and redeems a people for Himself.
Remember Thomas that "we await eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:24)
Remember Thomas that it is "those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." (Romans 8:14; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Hebrews 127)
Remember Thomas that it does not depend on mans effort but on God's mercy for He says that He "will have mercy on whom [He has] mercy" (Romans 9:14; see also verse 16)
Remember Thomas that whoever God saves are saved completely.
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day...No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:39, 44)
Remember Thomas, that "He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them...because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 7:25; 10:14)
Those who trust in Him will never be put to shame Thomas, but why does not everyone trust in Him? Surely from these verses our God is able to save every man, woman and child. But you have admitted that such is not the case,
"It most definitely matters how we live, I did not say that hell is not real and that spiritual death is not real, quite the contrary"
So salvation, Thomas, is not universal. God saves a specific people to Himself that is countless by our standards (Revelations 5:9-12)but nevertheless, limited.
Remember Thomas when Jesus asked, "'Who then can be saved?' Jesus replied, 'What is impossible with men is possible with God."" (Luke 18:26, 27)
When you say,
"One place that it says that, "It is God's Will that all be saved is in 1 Tim 2, but it is all over the place if we have eyes to see."
Please , let's take the verses one by one starting with 1 Timothy 2
Please notice the verse in its context,
"I urge, thn, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - [here Paul qualifies who the everyone is] for Kings and all those in authority, [and here is his reason] that we may live peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good [that we should live godly and peaceful lives] and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men [i.e. kings and people of authority, as per the context] to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4)
Again Revelation is specific on this too.
"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seal, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9)
So the "all" spoken of in Scripture can be an all of distinction (all kinds of people) rather than an all of quantity, meaning every single one; people from every walk of life, so to speak, from every nation and tribe, both Jews and Gentiles, men and women, rich and poor.
In Titus chapter 2 Paul speaks of the grace of God which brings salvation appearing to all men, but does it mean every single man, woman and child on the face of the earth or every kind of person? Well the context before and after speaks of older men (vs 2), older women (vs 3), younger women (vs 4), younger men (vs 6),slaves (vs 9)and rulers and authorities (vs 3:1).
Is Paul speaking to every single younger and older person here? If I said that in my travels I have seen all men, you would know that I am not referring to every single man on the earth, but every nation of men as in kinds.
As for God speaking to you, although it is very possible, if what you say does not line up with His Word then you should not be saying it is from God.
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain (i.e. Scripture), and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place..." (2 Peter 1:19)
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)
Thomas, is your standard the Word of God (John 17:17), or your own subjective opinion?
Thanks for the chat. Take care.
July 30, 2007 7:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 30, 2007 19:00
To Peter Huff: That is the point of Jesus's death on the cross, which is part of God's Plan. Jesus took the sin and the sins of the entire human family upon Himself when He willingly died on the cross. It most definitely matters how we live, I did not say that hell is not real and that spiritual death is not real, quite the contrary. Remember when Jesus, on the cross, said, "My God, My God why have Thou forsaken Me?", think about it, some of what is written in the bible was coming true at that precise moment. I saw on another post that it said that satan created hell, satan created nothing at all, if someone goes to hell they will realize that they built it themselves and that they have no one to blame but themselves. Jesus won the keys to hell and death and He will use them in due time. The bible should help lead you to God, when God the Father came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000, I knew that it was all true, but just because it is true does not mean that it has not been distorted by many. When I was told in a dream, that I knew was from God, that only I could say it, I had no idea what it was only I could say, so I dove into bible studies of any and no denominations including Jewish bible studies. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except thru Me", He said to the Father not to God, remember God is a Trinity, that is why I said there could be many ways to Jesus. When I write, "Let Us make man in Our Own Image", what I am saying is that we are all brothers and sisters, whether we like it or not. We are, if we call ourselves christians, suppose to pick up our cross and do whatever we feel God is calling us or choosing us to do, that is what Jesus told us, isn't it? One place that it says that, "It is God's Will that all be saved is in 1 Tim 2, but it is all over the place if we have eyes to see. Thank you for responding and hang in there, we are all in this together. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
July 30, 2007 10:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 30, 2007 10:32
Thomas, are you telling me that every single person who ever lived is going to be saved (Hitler and Stalin included)?
If that is the case what was the point in Jesus' death on the cross? If God was going to save everyone of us then why was it necessary for Jesus to die? If God is going to save everyone of us then it doesn't matter how we live, right???
What do you really believe about God's Word. Is it inspired? Is it infallible? What is your authority for saying that,
" if you look at it and think about it there could be plenty of ways to Jesus instead of just the ways that we try to tell God how He can do things"
How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?
How do you read many ways out of "I am the Way"
or,
"no one comes to the Father except thru Me"
How does
"Let US make man in OUR IMAGE",
mean that all of us will be saved? Is that what you think those words mean?
When you say,
"It is God's WILL that all be saved"
Where does it say that in God's Word?
July 30, 2007 2:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 30, 2007 02:02
To Peter Huff: Time will tell. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", if you look at it and think about it there could be plenty of ways to Jesus instead of just the ways that we try to tell God how He can do things, basically this is one of the places where Jesus is letting us know that He is God in the Flesh. Jesus said plenty of things and there are many things written in the bible, a lot of people try to make God so small so that they can get Him to do their will, well it doesn't work that way, God has a Plan and it is for all of His children, ALL, page one, "Let US make man in OUR IMAGE", that means all of us. It is God's WILL that all be saved, maybe we should be praying for God's Will rather than our own. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
July 28, 2007 11:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 28, 2007 11:15
To Peter Huff: Time will tell. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", if you look at it and think about it there could be plenty of ways to Jesus instead of just the ways that we try to tell God how He can do things, basically this is one of the places where Jesus is letting us know that He is God in the Flesh. Jesus said plenty of things and there are many things written in the bible, a lot of people try to make God so small so that they can get Him to do their will, well it doesn't work that way, God has a Plan and it is for all of His children, ALL, page one, "Let US make man in OUR IMAGE", that means all of us. It is God's WILL that all be saved, maybe we should be praying for God's Will rather than our own. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
July 28, 2007 11:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 28, 2007 11:10
Hello again Thomas Baum,
When you say,
"Just trying to do what God chose me for, I am the New Testament Moses, God chose me, I said yes. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum."
How do you know that you are not a false prophet, as the Bible gives a pretty good account of one in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 or Jeremiah 14:14, 15; 29:8, 9.
When the Lord Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." How do you get universal salvation out of that?
July 19, 2007 10:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 19, 2007 22:58
Well Godfrey, it is actually the Word of God that calls you a fool.
Psalm 14:1, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (see also Ps. 38:1-4 or Ps. 10:4 good buddy)
I'm just answering you as the Bible tells me to answer you, as your folly deserves, so that you will not be wise in your own eyes (Proverbs. 26:5)
I'm showing you that although you think the Christian worldview is silly, the folly of your worldview can make no sense of the tough, meaningful questions in life. That's fine if you think your subjective standard has any meaning other than what you assign it to be, but it is another thing to make sense of it.
July 18, 2007 10:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 18, 2007 22:34
That's a lot of words to cover up the simple fact that you called me a fool. Whatever the moral status of the act, it is certainly an ad hominem attack, which is well known as faulty argument. It's also an insult, and I'm not going to hang around here for that.
July 17, 2007 12:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 17, 2007 00:51
Hi Godfrey,
Finally a couple of days off!
Matthew Henry's commentary explains it well,
"2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, “Thou empty fellow;” it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Pro_21:24), which tramples upon our brother - disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, Joh_7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; “Thou wicked man, thou reprobate.” The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that would suddenly (Psa_64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power."
Robertson's Word Pictures says, concerning the verse,
"“Raca” (Raka) and “Thou fool” (Mōre). The first is probably an Aramaic word meaning “Empty,” a frequent word for contempt. The second word is Greek (dull, stupid) and is a fair equivalent of “raca.” It is urged by some that mōre is a Hebrew word, but Field (Otium Norvicense) objects to that idea. “Raca expresses contempt for a man’s head=you stupid! Mōre expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel” (Bruce).
The text I quoted in Proverbs,
"Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, that he not be wise in his own eyes."
Matthew Henry comments,
"Pro 26:4-5 -
See here the noble security of the scripture-style, which seems to contradict itself, but really does not. Wise men have need to be directed how to deal with fools; and they have never more need of wisdom than in dealing with such, to know when to keep silence and when to speak, for there may be a time for both. 1. In some cases a wise man will not set his wit to that of a fool so far as to answer him according to his folly “If he boast of himself, do not answer him by boasting of thyself. If he rail and talk passionately, do not thou rail and talk passionately too. If he tell one great lie, do not thou tell another to match it. If he calumniate thy friends, do not thou calumniate his. If he banter, do not answer him in his own language, lest thou be like him, even thou, who knowest better things, who hast more sense, and hast been better taught.” 2. Yet, in other cases, a wise man will use his wisdom for the conviction of a fool, when, by taking notice of what he says, there may be hopes of doing good, or at least preventing further, mischief, either to himself or others. “If thou have reason to think that thy silence will be deemed an evidence of the weakness of thy cause, or of thy own weakness, in such a case answer him, and let it be an answer ad hominem - to the man, beat him at his own weapons, and that will be an answer ad rem - to the point, or as good as one. If he offer any thing that looks like an argument, an answer that, and suit thy answer to his case. If he think, because thou dost not answer him, that what he says is unanswerable, then give him an answer, lest he be wise in his own conceit and boast of a victory.” For (Luk_7:35) Wisdom's children must justify her.
John Gill comments,
"Pro 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly,.... The Targum is,
"but speak with a fool in thy wisdom;''
and the Syriac version,
"yea, speak with a fool according to thy wisdom;''
which would at once remove the seeming contradiction in these words to the former, but then they are not a true version; indeed it is right, and must be the sense, that when a fool is answered, as it is sometimes necessary he should, that it be done in wisdom, and so as to expose his folly; he is to be answered and not answered according to different times, places, and circumstances, and manner of answering; he is to be answered when there is any hope of doing him good, or of doing good to others; or of preventing ill impressions being made upon others by what he has said; when the glory of God, the good of the church, and the cause of truth, require it; and when he would otherwise glory and triumph, as if his words or works were unanswerable, as follow;
lest he be wise in his own conceit; which fools are apt to be, and the rather when no answer is given them; imagining it arises from the strength of their arguments, and their nervous way of reasoning, when it is rather from a neglect and contempt of them."
I regard you as made in God's image and therefore deserving of dignity.
For me, I did not answer you out of malice or angry, and I do not think you are stupid. Good chance is that you are a lot smarter than I am - the Lord knows - but your worldview is fatally flawed and lacks wisdom.
All I am doing is showing you that what you believe (your worldview is unsustainable) is foolish, it has the wisdom of the world which is really no wisdom at all.
I would say you are proud of your knowledge, whereas true knowledge starts with God because God's Word rests on God Himself as true. Humility starts with recognizing that you are not in control, but God is.
July 17, 2007 12:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 17, 2007 00:40
Mattthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
July 14, 2007 6:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 14, 2007 18:14
Hi Godfrey,
Surprised to hear from you again. When you said,
"Isn't there something in the Bible about saying "thou fool?" Some reference to the fires of Gehenna, as I recall."
For one thing, you need to get the context right in whom that applies to. Plus there are various uses of the word "fool." I could be referring to lack of moral judgment,understanding or wisdom or calling a person an idiot. Since you do not know where it is I will not comment further. If you want to quote chapter and verse I would be glad to reply further.
The Lord Jesus told a parable of foolish virgins (Matthew 25). The Apostle Paul called the Galatians fools (Galatians 3:1). God uses the term to describe the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1:18). Therefore, the clue is in the particular passage once you find it. If you still want to make that claim I would be glad to continue with the chat.
July 13, 2007 3:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 13, 2007 03:26
A reply to Godfrey's last post,
When I stated,
“I don't have the standard for good, God does, and yes, He is the only absolute and standard for determining good for it is what He is.”
Your reply,
"If you deny the possibility of any standard of good that emanates from the immanent world, then there’s no point trying to offer you one."
My point all along was how do you establish that standard? Unless you have an ultimate objective, absolute standard you cannot make sense of “good.” It just becomes a subjective opinion. You have yet to show me otherwise.
What makes your opinion valid? The way you think is “I do not believe in God and because I do not believe it is true God does not exist.” That is poor thinking that an infinitesimal mind can be so much of an expert to rule out the existence of God. What percentage of all knowledge do you or I know? Let’s be real.
You said,
"There’s nothing more absolute than life or death."
How do you know that? Is that your personal opinion or do you have an absolute to base it on?
I said,
“So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it?”
Your reply,
"I’m not interested in consensus. I’m interested in right and wrong. I don’t get my ideas by watching to see which way other people jump. If you’re interested, you can get much more on the subject of life as the standard of value in Ayn Rand’s _The Virtue of Selfishness._
Again, a non-answer. You don’t follow my argument. How do you establish right and wrong without an absolute standard? Your problem is that you weigh right and wrong by your own standard. Well, Godfrey, what makes your standard truer than my standard? How do you determine truth? Is this your own personal opinion/idea also? Do you just call something true or right because it appeals to your subjective emotional experience?
If you are not interested in consensus and you determine your own standard of right and wrong then you place yourself in God’s place. And when someone disagrees with you who’s then right? Are you always right? How do you know? What silliness.
When I asked,
“How do you determine reality?”
Your reply,
"You observe reality with your senses, and with the tools that extend the senses."
Really, which sense do you think with? Do you think with you sight? How about your smell? What does thinking taste like? What audible sound does thinking make? Can you touch thinking? How do you observe my thought if I do not talk to you?
When I said,
“From which of the senses can you observe logic from? And yet you use it to observe.”
Your reply,
"I’m not clear on what you think “logic” means. I can say that logic is not a model of thinking. The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association. Logic is a formal tool with formal rules that serves the purpose of checking thinking against fundamental observations of reality, to wit, existence, identity, and the excluded middle.
This is a most brilliant statement, "The human brain does not work by logic" as you logically put words together to convey a thought.
What I mean by logic is the process you use to make sense of anything. Without it all these words on this page would be meaningless. The human brain works by using logic in everything we do.
When I said,
“O, by the way you are certainly doing a "good" job in observing origins; life from non-life, non-material from material, intangible from tangible. O, where did you observe any of those?”
You said,
"I don’t think I follow the question. And I keep trying to tell you, I’m not interested in origins."
First, evolution claims we evolved from non-living, non-thinking processes.
Second, You claim you are not interested in origins, but you’re spending a lot of time on a faith based blog arguing about faith. I’m sure your reason for stating you're not interested is because your worldview is incapable of and unable to answer origins, as so many other things.
You say,
“My point is, you demand evidence, but you want to so tightly circumscribe what can be considered evidence that anything I would offer as proof is eliminated from consideration, while your airy assertions are to be considered rock solid. If you’re going to exclude me from the discussion, why have a discussion?”
So far what evidence have you given me? All I see is your personal opinions without any factual evidence to back them up?
When you say,
“I say for the last time, you can’t prove the truth of the Bible by referring to the Bible. That’s circular reasoning. I won’t come back to this point.”
Very convenient!
All reasoning eventually boils down to circular reasoning. Your reasoning keeps coming back to “because I say so.” You contend there is no god because you say so. Why do you say there no God? Because you say there is no evidence for God? Have you seen all the evidence? No, but the evidence you have seen is not convincing to you? Why is the evidence not convincing to you. Because you do not feel there is any evidence for God. And on we go.
The same applies with your reasoning on your standard for right and wrong, good and evil. It is all circular.
I said,
“...the writings of the early church fathers...”
Your reply,
“Who burned every document they disagreed with in the slightest, along with the people who held with those documents when they could capture them.
Again you make a statement without any proof to back it up. Who documented that? If every document was burned that disagreed with them then how did you ever come to find out this information?
You said,
"There is no archeological proof for the existence of any named individual in the Bible, other than a few men of power in the Roman Empire. And even there, the timelines are crossed up. And there is archeological proof that some of the places didn’t exist, including specifically Nazareth, which before the time of the crusades, was nothing but a mausoleum and a garbage dump. This is established. You can look it up. The word “Nazareth” seems to have originally been “nazirite,” which is altogether different."
Again, where is your proof? You throw out these smoke screens and empty claims. The problem of you citing proof or me citing a proof is we can both supply a lot of authors in support of our claim, but how do you ever establish which is right without an objective, absolute standard.
All evidence needs to be interpreted.
When I asked you to check out some of the evidence of Gary Habermas and former atheist Antony Flew in their debate on the Resurrection of Jesus @ www.garyhabermas.com. here is your reply,
“I certainly don’t have time to listen to this whole thing, but from what I saw of it, you would have to be a believer to start with to find Habermas’s argument compelling. He argues straight from the gospels, which, again, is no way to prove the gospels."
Again, this is evidence of your bias because you never give any evidence but you berate mine.
Your bias is something I have been claiming all along and is just further proof that the Bible is true.
You said,
"I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the other scholars you cite argue similarly."
Since it does not fit your worldview you are not even going to consider the argument. That only proves how closed minded you are, while your contending all the time how fair and open minded you are and that I’m the one who is closed minded.
I said,
“The reason scientist make no hypothesis about what went before is because they have no answer. “
Your reply,
If you can’t see the logical weakness of that statement, I think it’s futile to argue."
I do not think you have an argument for your claims. It is easier to brush off with bare assertions.
I presented you with some evidence stating that there were lies in basic elementary and high school textbooks in regards to evolution. Again you could not be bothered to refute any of the arguments if you even listened to them. Instead, here is what you said,
“This is a “creation science” site. Even judges, who aren’t scientists, can see that this isn’t science. The strategy is to throw up so many questions that the sky is clouded with them, and that people who don’t understand the science are confused by them. Questions are easy to pose. Scientific answers are not always easy to understand. If you’re interested in the science, here’s a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html”
When I stated,
“That is my point. If all you are and if all I am is a sum total of a bunch of material/physical chemicals reacting in some way, based on evolutionary random selection, how can a physical reaction produce something non-physical such as logic? Since we are two separate beings, what is to stop me fizzing one way and you another? If we are both fizzing differently, then how can we determine anything? Ever seen a rock determine anything?”
Here is your answer,
“I don’t have the answer to the how, but as I say, science is coming closer every day.”
Well, that is the delusion (to coin Richard Dawkins) you live under.
You continue,
“And all this “fizzing” business is just weird. The chemical reactions going on in the body, with the exception of gas in the bowel, do not resemble “fizzing” in any way whatsoever. The chemistry of the body is extremely precise, step-by-step, and highly controlled.”
It is just figurative language to describe what goes on in the brains of evolutionists. Each reacts in a blind, irrational way. If the world came into existence by blind chemical non-rational, non-thinking, non-cognitive processes then how do you get intelligent, cognitive thinking processes out of non-living matter? A stone does not think. A chemical reaction does not think.
When I criticized Steger you said,
“Why are you dragging Stenger in? If I was referring to Stenger, I would have told you. I am capable of independent thought.”
I drag him in because he is one of those people who had a great influence/impact in your life. Do you expect me to believe that he has not greatly influenced the way you think? Let’s be real. Why so touchy?
When I said,
“Why would I want to believe you? You cannot even establish a standard for good or right that makes sense.”
Your reply,
“Flat contradiction doesn’t disprove.”
You espouse a way of looking at the world that does not have the ability to define good and you want me to take you seriously?
When asking about what sign or miracle would you ever believe you said,
“Any miracle, meaning any suspension of the laws of physics, that you can actually, scientifically, demonstrate ever took place. It should be easy.”
Let’s again be realistic. If you ever saw the suspension of a natural or physical law you would find a reason to not believe it. The same was the case during the ministry of Jesus.
I stated,
“You're wrong; in interpreting origins no one was around at point "A" so point "A" has to be interpreted to arrive at points "B" to "Z."
Your response,
"I’M NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS! SCIENCE IS NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS!"
And yet your “Big Bang” or “Big Dud” was Science looking back at the origin of the universe. Again, you throw up a smoke screen to avoid the question. Your worldview cannot explain origins. It is one of the big puzzlements of an atheistic worldview; the inability to answer a meaningful question.
You said,
One CE? Any year within six years of it? What year was Christ supposedly born?"
So a Gregorian monk got a little mixed up in his division of history. Jewish and Roman calendars start at different times of the year. “The date we call A.D. 1 eventually became so well entrenched that changing the calendars proved impossible.” Jesus and the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, p. 188.
I said,
" There are two censuses mentioned in the New Testament in Luke 2:15 and Acts 5:37. There is also a description published by Gaius Vibius in A.D. 104...”
Your reply,
"I searched the internet for Gaius Vibius. I found two. Neither of them was alive in A.D. 104."
After you chastise me for using dictionary definitions you immediately go to the Internet for your references. Did you think I just made the quotation up?
Here is the quote and the source,
"Because of the approaching census it is necessary for all of those residing for any cause away from there own districts to prepare to return at once to their own governments, in order that they may complete the family administration of the enrollment." The Revel Bible Dictionary, p. 200.
You said,
“I find this highly unlikely. Especially as your author doesn’t seem to exist.”
When I criticized your logic and referred you to a web site to see how your evidence stacks up, you said,
“Habermas doesn’t have anything to do with logic.”
What do you know about logic? You have already ruled it out in your previous statements.
You said,
“And my statement has nothing to do with logic. It’s a simple historical fact. Logic doesn’t enter into it.”
When I said,
“Depending on what you read depends on the dates for the "Big Bang."
Your reply,
"I assure you that 14.3 billion years ago is the currently accepted date."
I love that answer. “I assure you…the currently accepted date.” That is great assurance. How long before it changes again?
You said,
“Incidentally, I’m not happy with the big bang theory myself. It has certain logical problems. “
I don't blame you, and there you go using logic again. I thought that “The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association.”
I said,
“First, you said that "evolution is arrived at after intense observation of the actual world." Yeah, the world we live in today, not what the conditions were like at the time of origin. That is speculation based on data. NO ONE WAS THERE.“
Your reply,
"SPECULATION BASED ON DATA? Now you want to discard data? You want to label all science as speculation?"
Your problem is that you refuse to see that any data needs to be interpreted. It does not come with instructions on it. How good the interpretation is depends on how thorough the research is. You can make any theory say what you want it to say. How can you say that the world we live in today is the key to interpreting the world at the time of the “Big Bang?”
Then you said,
“I think it’s time to close this discussion. If all science is out the window, if no data can be adduced, I have nowhere to stand.”
There again, you try to throw another smoke screen by “all science.” What science have you used? You are trying to your straw man arguments again to appeal to anyone who may read this.
You said,
“And you can’t claim to make any scientific argument. We’re left with nothing but assertion. Discussion is impossible.”
What evidence would you look at? You have not provided any factual evidence to refute my claims in your claims that Jesus Christ never existed or that the Bible is not historical. How scientific is that?
July 13, 2007 3:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 13, 2007 03:02
Isn't there something in the Bible about saying "thou fool?" Some reference to the fires of Gehenna, as I recall.
July 13, 2007 12:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 13, 2007 00:47
"Answer a fool as his folly desires so that he will not be wise in his own eyes."
Oh, good. Now I'm a fool. This is discussion?
July 13, 2007 12:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 13, 2007 00:45
God is real and He is a lot nicer than a lot of people that know His Name seem to think that He is. Talk about taking the Name of God in vain, so many people that call themselves christians really don't know didly-squat about God except for His Name. At least the ones that are condemning so many people when God Incarnate said "Father forgive them, they know not what they are doing", now some of the they sure do not know what they are saying. God is Love, Pure Love, not the spite-filled, revenge-seeking, egomaniac that you would think that He is from reading some of the garbage posted here and on some of the other postings from so called christians. God have Mercy on us all. By the way God wins total victory, satan loses, a tie is utterly unacceptable. Just trying to do what God chose me for, I am the New Testament Moses, God chose me, I said yes. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
July 10, 2007 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 10, 2007 10:43
God is real and He is a lot nicer than most people think that He is and that goes especially for some of those that know His Name. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
July 10, 2007 10:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 10, 2007 10:20
Godfrey,
I saw him do this to a Pagan on another thread. He tried to convince him?her? that atheists have no way of 'making sense of the world without borrowing from a Christian worldview'. At least the Pagan responder tried to tell him to let atheists speak for their own points of view and not to make assumptions.
Seems they, like you, have the good sense not to get involved any further. This guy seems to have his hands over his ears going 'lalala.'
July 10, 2007 12:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 10, 2007 00:08
Hi Godfrey,
Since you have wasted your time in an "On Faith" blog I would guess that you either are not quite satisfied with Atheism and are looking for something of greater substance, or you like stirring the pot.
Since Atheism is in vogue right now I'm going to respond to some of these comments, just for the record, whether you waste any more time over them or not to show you that what the Bible says is true, "Answer a fool as his folly desires so that he will not be wise in his own eyes." I am working 12 hour shifts until Monday so I will not have the time until then.
By the way, thanks for the chat!
July 9, 2007 10:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 9, 2007 22:43
Let me be clear:
I entered this discussion because I thought you were interested in honest discussion. Then you proceed to rule patristics, textual analysis, history, biology, and astrophysics out of court. You systematically reduce the discussion to assertion, then claim your assertions are superior because they come from God. This isn't discussion, and it isn't honest.
You continually demand proof, but deny the possibility of using data. This is contradictory, and SERIOUSLY dishonest.
I've wasted enough time on you, Huff. I won't be wasting any more.
July 9, 2007 1:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 9, 2007 01:41
I copied the discussion I haven’t answered yet into Word, and it came to 14 pages. That’s like trying to answer Niagra Falls. But I’ll touch on some of the salient points.
“I don't have the standard for good, God does, and yes, He is the only absolute and standard for determining good for it is what He is.”
If you deny the possibility of any standard of good that emanates from the immanent world, then there’s no point trying to offer you one.
“So Godfrey, how do you make an absolute out of that?”
There’s nothing more absolute than life or death.
“So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it?”
I’m not interested in consensus. I’m interested in right and wrong. I don’t get my ideas by watching to see which way other people jump. If you’re interested, you can get much more on the subject of life as the standard of value in Ayn Rand’s _The Virtue of Selfishness._
“How do you determine reality?”
You observe reality with your senses, and with the tools that extend the senses.
“From which of the senses can you observe logic from? And yet you use it to observe.”
I’m not clear on what you think “logic” means. I can say that logic is not a model of thinking. The human brain doesn’t work by logic. It works by association. Logic is a formal tool with formal rules that serves the purpose of checking thinking against fundamental observations of reality, to wit, existence, identity, and the excluded middle.
“O, by the way you are certainly doing a "good" job in observing origins; life from non-life, non-material from material, intangible from tangible. O, where did you observe any of those?”
I don’t think I follow the question. And I keep trying to tell you, I’m not interested in origins.
“And you, Godfrey, want to throw out the proof and discard the 2000 years of intense study and research of the thousands of men and women who have also learned Greek, Hebrew and Latin and in some cases used it as their mother tongue. Their writings also fill libraries and their research was conducted over the full period of their later life too.
“So what is your point?”
My point is, you demand evidence, but you want to so tightly circumscribe what can be considered evidence that anything I would offer as proof is eliminated from consideration, while your airy assertions are to be considered rock solid. If you’re going to exclude me from the discussion, why have a discussion?
“First and foremost, my proof is the Bible.”
I say for the last time, you can’t prove the truth of the Bible by referring to the Bible. That’s circular reaoning. I won’t come back to this point.
“...the writings of the early church fathers...”
Who burned every document they disagreed with in the slightest, along with the people who held with those documents when they could capture them. If you have the power to exclude the other arguments (which trick you’re trying on me, see above) then your argument doesn’t have much weight.
“Then there are archaeological proofs that confirm that these places mentioned in the Bible actually existed, as did the people.”
There is no archeological proof for the existence of any named individual in the Bible, other than a few men of power in the Roman Empire. And even there, the timelines are crossed up. And there is archeological proof that some of the places didn’t exist, including specifically Nazareth, which before the time of the crusades, was nothing but a mausoleum and a garbage dump. This is established. You can look it up. The word “Nazareth” seems to have originally been “nazirite,” which is altogether different.
“Check out his website for a great refutation of former atheist Antony Flew in their debate on the Resurrection of Jesus @ www.garyhabermas.com. Look under the video section for the free online debate if you want to see how your position stacks up.”
I certainly don’t have time to listen to this whole thing, but from what I saw of it, you would have to be a believer to start with to find Habermas’s argument compelling. He argues straight from the gospels, which, again, is no way to prove the gospels.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the other scholars you cite argue similarly.
“The reason scientist make no hypothesis about what went before is because they have no answer.“
If you can’t see the logical weakness of that statement, I think it’s futile to argue.
“For your information you can actually see some of the lies/contradictions in the textbooks if you go to www.drdino.com and look under videos on evidence that this former science teacher extracted from the textbooks. Can you refute the actual 25 lies he lists?”
This is a “creation science” site. Even judges, who aren’t scientists, can see that this isn’t science. The strategy is to throw up so many questions that the sky is clouded with them, and that people who don’t understand the science are confused by them. Questions are easy to pose. Scientific answers are not always easy to understand. If you’re interested in the science, here’s a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
“That is my point. If all you are and if all I am is a sum total of a bunch of material/physical chemicals reacting in some way, based on evolutionary random selection, how can a physical reaction produce something non-physical such as logic? Since we are two separate beings, what is to stop me fizzing one way and you another? If we are both fizzing differently, then how can we determine anything? Ever seen a rock determine anything?”
I don’t have the answer to the how, but as I say, science is coming closer every day. And all this “fizzing” business is just weird. The chemical reactions going on in the body, with the exception of gas in the bowel, do not resemble “fizzing” in any way whatsoever. The chemistry of the body is extremely precise, step-by-step, and highly controlled.
“According to you or at least your friend Steger (sic).”
Why are you dragging Stenger in? If I was referring to Stenger, I would have told you. I am capable of independent thought.
“Why would I want to believe you? You cannot even establish a standard for good or right that makes sense.”
Flat contradiction doesn’t disprove.
“So what sign or miracle would you ever believe Godfrey?”
Any miracle, meaning any suspension of the laws of physics, that you can actually, scientifically, demonstrate ever took place. It should be easy.
“You're wrong; in interpreting origins no one was around at point "A" so point "A" has to be interpreted to arrive at points "B" to "Z."
I’M NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS! SCIENCE IS NOT INTERESTED IN ORIGINS!
"Immediately you jump to the conclusion that I do not think science is valid at all. Not at all. The point I make is that when scientists look at origins..."
See immediately preceding.
“...which year was that?”
One CE? Any year within six years of it? What year was Christ supposedly born?
" There are two censuses mentioned in the New Testament in Luke 2:15 and Acts 5:37. There is also a description published by Gaius Vibius in A.D. 104...”
I searched the internet for Gaius Vibius. I found two. Neither of them was alive in A.D. 104.
"Because of the approaching census it is necessary for all of those residing for any cause away from there own districts to prepare to return at once to their own governments, in order that they may complete the family administration of the enrollment."
I find this highly unlikely. Especially as your author doesn’t seem to exist.
“Again, your logic is weak. You need to look at the videos on www.garyhabermas.com to see how well your argument stacks up.”
Habermas doesn’t have anything to do with logic. And my statement has nothing to do with logic. It’s a simple historical fact. Logic doesn’t enter into it.
Depending on what you read depends on the dates for the "Big Bang."
I assure you that 14.3 billion years ago is the currently accepted date. But you don’t look it up in a dictionary, for God’s sake. You look in current science. I’m not about to chase down all your internet references, but when were they posted?
Incidentally, I’m not happy with the big bang theory myself. It has certain logical problems. One example: it asserts that at a certain point in time, time started. This is a manifest contradiction. There are other problems.
“First, you said that "evolution is arrived at after intense observation of the actual world." Yeah, the world we live in today, not what the conditions were like at the time of origin. That is speculation based on data. NO ONE WAS THERE.“
SPECULATION BASED ON DATA? Now you want to discard data? You want to label all science as speculation? I think it’s time to close this discussion. If all science is out the window, if no data can be adduced, I have nowhere to stand. And you can’t claim to make any scientific argument. We’re left with nothing but assertion. Discussion is impossible.
July 9, 2007 1:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 9, 2007 01:14
Hi Godfrey,
Are you still checking in or am I wasting my time?
July 6, 2007 11:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 6, 2007 23:09
Hello Godfrey,
Actually, I should have said all but John were written before 70 A.D. My mistake, but even John was written before the turn of the century according to well researched scholars like W.F. Albright. It will take me a while to dig up quotes, but it can be done. And what we will be doing is pitting scholar against scholar, so I'm sure that you can pull the scholars to support your position as I can to support mine.
But from the manuscripts themselves can you show me the mention of the fall of Jerusalem taking place in Matthew, Mark or Luke (or any of the other significant historical events that led up to the destruction of Jerusalem, to my knowledge). Please feel free to point out any. Since you are disputing an historical record/materials, the Gospels, point out from those records where you draw your conclusions from. Or maybe you should show me where these Gospels are not considered historical data. Which "scholars" have determined this or the "fact" that Jesus was a mythical figure?
John Warwick Montgomery in History and Christianity, p.26-27, quoted Sir Frederic G. Kenyon writing on the New Testament documents,
"In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."
Then he goes on to compare other ancient manuscripts, such as those of Sophocles or Plato, etc.
Then, on A.T. Robinson Montgomery said,
"Moreover, as A.T. Robinson, the author of the most comprehensive grammar of the New Testament Greek, wrote, "There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 1,000 for the other early versions. Add over 4,000 Greek manuscripts and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. Besides all this, much of the New Testament can be reproduced from the quotations of the early Christian writers." p28-29
On the internal evidence Montgomery had this to say,
"...historical and literary scholarship continues to follow the dictum that the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself. This means that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies...." p.29
On the external evidence, Montgomery had this to say,
"Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves? Careful comparison of the New Testament documents with inscriptions and other independent early evidence has in the modern period confirmed their primary claims. For example, Sir William Ramsey came to the conclusion after years of painstaking archaeological and geological investigation of Luke's gospel. He rejected the negatively critical attitude to Luke taken by the 19th-century Tübingen school. He wrote, "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."
"Moreover, as to the authors and primary historical value of the Gospel accounts, confirmation comes from independent written sources. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis around A.D. 130, writes as follows on the basis of information obtained from the "Elder" (Apostle) John: "The Elder used to say also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however, in order..."
"Another superlative external testimony of the primacy of the Gospel accounts is provided by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who writes, "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews [i.e., Jews] in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure [i.e., death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord...himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia....."
"Specifically, present-day scholars date the important New Testament materials as follows: the Pauline letters, A.D. 51-62; Mark's Gospel, 64-70; the Gospel according to Matthew and Luke, 80-85; Acts, shortly after Luke...John's Gospel, no later than 100. It should be emphasized that the dates here given are in general the latest possible ones for the books in question; the is excellent reason for earlier dating in most cases. For instant, Luke-Acts should probably be dated prior to 64, since Paul almost certainly died in persecution by Nero, yet Acts does not record his death."
"As a sensitive barometer to the current archaeological-based trend towards even earlier dating of these documents, we have the statement of the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, W. F. Albright....: "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)." p 31-35
Godfrey, I am running out of time, but this weekend I will document more of why the Gospels are thought to be earlier than 70 A.D. after I re-read some of the materials I have on hand, if you are still interested. I also have a quote on Luke's Census from The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas, which I will record the page number here so that I can reference it later (page 173).
Let's see your proof.
Briefly, with the time remaining, I would also like you to answer why, in an evolutionary/atheistic world, there would be such a problem as evil, or for that matter good. To what objective standard do you make your appeal for any code of conduct?
With all the horrid and tragic events that will happen in your and my lifetimes that I'm sure neither one of us will recognize as good, what is the purpose in them happening? After all, unless you see Nature like our pagan friends do, as having it's own conscious, does Nature recognize a right and wrong; good and evil? It's just an evolutionary process, of which you are supposedly a part of, and therefore not subject to good or evil. Therefore why do you, a biological process (according to evolution) even make a distinction between good and evil? Survival of the fittest is the process, according to Darwin, that all life follows. Then why should you consider,
"Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil."
Is "good" not just looking out for your own best interests (as in survival of the fittest), or is that what you are doing by trying to improve and prolong life. Looking out for your own best interests? Why, for when you are dead none of this means anything anyway????
Well, my worldview has an answer for all of this, and you keep borrowing from it when you make distinctions between good and evil, and in the process contradicting the core of what evolution is based on, meaninglessness. A rock does not make these distinctions; it does not sit there and contemplate life. Yet supposedly both you and it all came about by a chance "Big Bang" billions of years ago.
The atheist has a lot of explaining to do.
Why would a tsunami be considered bad, since it is just a natural function (supposedly) common to all life and not within our ability to stop? It is just nature doing what nature does, without distinction.
July 4, 2007 3:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 4, 2007 15:13
It's three in the morning, so I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive answer now, but I do have to say that your assertion that the gospels were written before 70CE is nothing short of wild-eyed. All the authorities I've read, and I've read a bunch, say that Mark was written after 70CE, and the others after that, with John being well up in the second century, possibly as late as 165CE. This is so well known I'm surprised you would contradict it. Mark couldn't have been written before 70CE because he mentions the fall of the Temple, and that happened in 70.
July 4, 2007 3:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 4, 2007 03:14
Hi Godfrey,
I was thinking more about your statements below in answer to mine about the gospels being historical records, in which you said,
"No, they aren’t. They are inconsistent with known history in many ways, including known dates.
Well Godfrey, if that in itself is not one of the most illogical and untrue contentions that you have made to date then I'll be jiggered.
I’ve been to the British Museum of Natural History and seen fragments of texts and manuscripts that prove they are historical records. Secular, as well as biblical historians have agreed to that and to the facts that the gospels were written well within the lifetimes of the Apostles. They were the ones claiming to be eyewitnesses. Where are the historical records to say otherwise from that time period?
So when you say,
“The gospels are a collection of books mostly written to show that one person’s version of the myth was better than another's.”
Myths usually take time to develop and not usually within the span of time that the Gospels were established because others are there to refute such myths. From historical references we know that the Gospels were written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
If the resurrection of Jesus was myth, the whole Christian movement could have been squashed by the Roman authorities by producing Jesus' dead body. That would have stopped the apostles and others from proclaiming that someone who was put to death had been raised from the dead. Where is the literature to prove the resurrection never actually happened, during the founding of the early churches and the days and months after Pentecost? In one day 3000 people came to faith (Acts 2:41).
Well Godfrey, when you say,
"This is such a mish-mash of bad logic, misapprehension, misunderstanding, and incoherent flitting from point to point that I don't know if I want to answer it. Let me come back when I'm a little fresher."
Again, it is an easy thing to say. Hopefully you are willing to show me why you make these assertions.
I'm still waiting to see how you can arrive at a standard of "good" that is anything but your subjective opinion. Without an absolute standard it is impossible to make sense of.
You assert,
"My standard of good is life."
You also claim that your subjective standard is absolute. How do you determine from life that a subjective opinion is absolute? Is not a subjective opinion something that is taken from ones own mind and is particular to that particular person? I mean, you use the word "my" so from that I conclude that you are not talking from an objective standpoint, that being that it is not influenced/preceding from/by your own emotions or bias.
"Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil."
Then death is bad. But for me as a Christian I do not accept your definition. I believe that to die as a Christian is to be with God, which is the ultimate good. So already I question your absolute, since I've just listed an exception that comes from my subjective experience. So who is right about "good?" I say you are not, you say you are.
My measure of "good" is not myself or from myself. It is a standard above and outside of myself that makes sense of what "good" is.
Well, I was hoping for more from you, since I took the time and effort to answer each of your assertions, but I totally understand if that is as far as you can take it. If I do not hear from you again, take care and thanks for the chat.
July 4, 2007 2:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 4, 2007 02:50
Peter Huff,
This is such a mish-mash of bad logic, misapprehension, misunderstanding, and incoherent flitting from point to point that I don't know if I want to answer it. Let me come back when I'm a little fresher.
July 4, 2007 12:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 4, 2007 00:16
Hello Godfrey,
(It’s a long one)
When you say,
"What, you think you have the only absolute in the universe? My standard of good is life.”
I don't have the standard for good, God does, and yes, He is the only absolute and standard for determining good for it is what He is.
"God is not like man that He should lie, nor like the son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)
Or as the Apostle Paul put it,
"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness - a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at His appointed season He brought His word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior." (Titus 1:1-3)
You said,
"Whatever furthers or improves life (considering both the short and long term) is good. What hinders or destroys life is evil. There’s much room for discussion here of course. Keep in mind that this is a brief statement of a deep subject."
So Godfrey, how do you make an absolute out of that? As you yourself have said later in the post,
"When did we ever get a consensus?"
So where is the consensus on what improves life and what destroys it? As you have said, it boils down to discussion on a deep subject that you or I cannot possibly know, in the long run/big picture, of whether our actions are actually helpful or hurtful.
For instance, as a Christian I look upon the preaching of the gospel message as a good thing, whereas you look upon it as a bad thing. So which one of the two of us is doing a good thing? I believe it improves life for eternity whereas you believe it inhibits people and stops them from enjoying a fulfilling lifestyle in this present life.
Adolph Hitler viewed the extermination of Jews and others as a good thing for Germany.
For the Russian or Chinese communist, the advancement of the state is good. Therefore the extermination of millions to do so has been determine in the past to be in the best interests of the State.
Head hunting tribes in the South Pacific viewed the eating of human flesh as good, that is as long as it was not theirs, or a member of their tribal family.
So how do you determine "good" from lifestyle?
Eating a human enemy may be thought of as in the best interest of a tribe, an easy meal, or maybe an only meal if game is scarce.
The other thing about absolutes is since we are subjective beings, in that we see/evaluate things through our own eyes, or the eyes of someone else's standard, when two human standards, both claiming to be absolute are stating opposite beliefs, then it is impossible that they are both right. A cannot equal A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship