Question for Christians

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Except that most americans are already christians and are gonna blow you off like my catholic dad used to do to jehovah's witnesses. Bellows of "Go home you freaks!" come to mind. Most people are pretty set in what they're comfortable with. Perhaps if these people trying to spread the word didn't treat catholics and others like they weren't already christians, this wouldn't happen.

Ok, for one, most Americans could not tell you the exact answer to how to get to heaven as described in the Bible. Some will claim to be Christian, but in video surveys held by BIMI and the ABWE (Two missionary boards), those people would also answer that they are a "good person" or that God would never send someone to hell. This is not what the Bible says. The Bible says in Ephesians 2 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. Based on the findings that around 3/4 of the USA do not answer this question in a biblically correct way, we need to be out there.

Quote by: Jillamanda I'm an atheist - how is a non existent god going to send me to a non existent place? . Hey, I've never had an atheist come to my door trying to convert me either. What are JWs and Mormons are if they aren't Christians?

A.) we are discussing what they believe, not what you believe.
B.) JWs, as you call them, believe in the election of the saved. This flies in the face of Ephesians 2 where it describes God's grace and the fact that God is not willing that any should fail to choose him.
C.) Mormons only believe the Bible as far as they have deemed it accurately translated. They also completely ignore, as do Roman Catholics, the fact that there is only one inspired book and that is the Bible.
D.) Atheists will never come to your door to try and convert you. This is because atheists have no possible way to avoid the oblivion that is inevitable without a possibility of a God. This is what led to Nihilism, which states that we are a zero between two oblivions. One famous nihilist stated that in the light of this, the only real philosophical quandary is, "How do I commit suicide?" So, either way, whether you are right or I am, you won't be let down, because either way, if you don't believe in some God, you end up in oblivion. Not exactly a good outlook now is it?

[Jack]

you end up in oblivion

You're right, sort of.
Oblivion:
# the state of being disregarded or forgotten
# obliviousness: total forgetfulness

I'd agree after death, at some point, all those conditions are met. Nothing supernatural about that. When you're dead, you're dead.

[Jillamanda]

Quote by: dthmstr254 So, either way, whether you are right or I am, you won't be let down, because either way, if you don't believe in some God, you end up in oblivion. Not exactly a good outlook now is it?

Oblivion? What happens there and who's going to send me?

[Gods_Mercenary]

oblivion, non existence, you'll be, quite simply, dead.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ok, for one, most Americans could not tell you the exact answer to how to get to heaven as described in the Bible. Some will claim to be Christian, but in video surveys held by BIMI and the ABWE (Two missionary boards), those people would also answer that they are a "good person" or that God would never send someone to hell. This is not what the Bible says. The Bible says in Ephesians 2 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. Based on the findings that around 3/4 of the USA do not answer this question in a biblically correct way, we need to be out there.

and they'll get extremely annoyed when you treat them like any other pagan. It reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt trying to Christianize the Catholic Filipinos.

[Deus_ultima]

Quote by: abub they're the only ones who can gain access into the christian heaven, yes. all others will be damned to live out eternity in some other place.

Like Cleveland?

[Jillamanda]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary oblivion, non existence, you'll be, quite simply, dead.

No surprises there. When does the fire and brimstone start?

[loser]

But you're forgetting one thing. Non religious people are non religious. Speaking personally, when I'm dead, I'm dead. Never in my entire life have I believed in the hereafter, so threatening me with no hereafter is an empty threat indeed.

Yes, but I was appealing to the (his) scientific side and not the religious side in the text that you quoted. He had attested that it was religious fanatics that were waiting on the spaceship (obviously a reference to the Heaven's Gate cult). I was pointing out that spaceships were no longer the stuff of science fiction and were, instead, a feasible likelihood.

I see God in scientific terms: a super-advanced intelligent, alien life-form. Therefore, the description of the space ship measuring 1400 miles cubed that is found in Revelation I take lterally and not metaphorically. A spaceship of this size is unfathomable and incredulous but, yet, not impossible...or unlikely.

I once heard an expert on schizophrenia lecture on the subject.

Was he a schizo? If not, by his own definition, he was NOT an expert...but I know what you mean.

You are acting on a belief, you have nothing tangible to support it and yet you condemn people who won't go along with it.

Whoa, wait a minute, before we get too far out in left field. Let me make some corrections.

First, let me say EMPHATICALLY that I don't condemn anyone. I make think that you are as dumb as dirt (one of my new favorite sayings) and I may even condemn your language or your logic but I won't condemn you. People are basically a product of their environment times their genetics. IOW, they mostly can't help the way they think or talk. Notice that I said "mostly". Some ignorance just can't be excused.

I am vitriolic, to be sure. I am assertive, sometimes condescending and often even arrogant. I can't help it...I'm a product of my environment (they call me Mr. Wizard) and my genetics (I'm a blueblood). :-) In spite of all of that, I am NOT judgmental. Though I may consider myself smarter than everybody else, I don't think that I am better than anyone...even George Bush.

Next, let me assure you that I am a scientist, first and foremost. If any religious thought or belief conflicted with my scientific understanding, I would discard it immediately. As a lover of chemistry (my major), I was always using chemistry 'magic' in my presentations, whether in Speech or Science class. The magic 'tricks' that I can still perform using simple chenical reactions are impressive, indeed. For this reason, there's not much that surprises me or causes me to disbelieve. I know that there are always explanations for the unexplainable...a cause for every effect.

...in fact I'd even give that some consideration, unless, of course, he was born of a virgin etc

Are you saying that you don't believe that a virgin can give birth? You are joking, aren't you? Artificial insemination really isn't that difficult, after all.

No surprises there. When does the fire and brimstone start?

It starts right here on Earth:



Brimstone (meaning "melted earth"), fire, and smoke are synonymous with magma from within the earth, usually expressed in volcanos or rifts between tectonic plates.

[Jack]

I see God in scientific terms: a super-advanced intelligent, alien life-form. Therefore, the description of the space ship measuring 1400 miles cubed that is found in Revelation I take lterally and not metaphorically. A spaceship of this size is unfathomable and incredulous but, yet, not impossible...or unlikely.

Gods that don't require supernatural beliefs or superstition...these types of gods I can contemplate.

[agustine]

To Mr. loser. With respect to your comment

As I will state once again, the Trinity is a construct of the RCC and is not taught by scripture.

You, sir, are sorely mistaken. The very nature of the triune God is clearly taught in scripture. Now, I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a non-denominational protestant, however, theologically, I am a Calvinist. Yet, as all Calvinists do, I also subscribe wholeheartedly to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Why? Because the concept is taught within scripture. You alluded in your quote to the Athanasian Creed. Are you aware of the fact that Athanasius refuted Arius’ subordinationist heresy by scripture? Briefly moving to the substance of scripture, take for example John 1:1: “En arxh ho logov, kai ho logov prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn o logov.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Within the text of the passage the Spirit distinguishes the Word from God in the first instance, and then identifies the Word as God. The Spirit then moves the Apostle John to use the Greek word “Pros” for “with” instead of “sun” {pronounced “soon”} or “meta”. Why? Because the word “Pros” denotes a relationship distinguished as “face-to-face” instead of “along side of” (meta) or “among a group” (sun). Interesting….. How then can something be distinguished from another and yet be identified as the very thing from which it is being distinguished? Moreover, does the Spirit identify the “logov” or “Word”? I believe it does…. “Kai ho logov sarc egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin, kai eqeasameqa thn docan autou, docan wv monogenouv para patrov, plhrhv xaritov kai alhqeiav.” John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Occasionally, it becomes difficult for individuals unacquainted with the broad context of the scripture, or those inclined to compartmentalize passages, to distinguish the Lord from a creature upon reading the foregoing. The culprit is often the translation of the Greek “monogenouv” or “monogenes” into the English “only begotten” as denoting anything other than a creature. Despite the meaning of the word “monogenes” denoting a distinction of something from everything else, the proverbial “one and only,” the Hebrew rendering within the B’rit Chadashah or New Covenant is more pointed. The B’rit Chadashah is the descriptive given to the New Testament by Messianic Jews. In the Besorat HaGe’ulah - meaning the “Good News of Redemption” - or the Gospels, John 1:14, the “only begotten” is rendered “Ben Yachid” or “one and only Son”. The clear import of the conjunction places particular emphasis on the uniqueness of the Lord. First, as the pre-existent one who is distinguished from God and yet at the same time is God, and, Second, transitions to the temporal reality of His physical manifestation. The description extends also to the glory with which He possessed while manifested in the flesh, and that with which He possessed while with the Father. See John 17:5 “kai nun docason me su, pater, para seautw th doch ho eixon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi.” “"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Yet, the Lord of Hosts, Adonai Tseva’ot, declared in Isaiah 42:8: “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another…..,” or in Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.” One can conceivably go on for quite sometime. By the way Mr. loser, I am curious, are you a Russelite? or a subordinationist after the order of Arius or Servetus? or a modern Sabellianist after the order of the Oneness Pentecostals? I am curious as to the basis of your denunciation of the Trinity.

Thank you

Augustine

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Jillamanda Oblivion? What happens there and who's going to send me?

Based on atheistic beliefs, we are but an event between two oblivions.

If you are right, nature sends you there, and if I am right, since you don't accept Christ, your sins send you there. If you want to see the naturalistic side of this, look up nihilism online.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood You're right, sort of. Oblivion: # the state of being disregarded or forgotten # obliviousness: total forgetfulness I'd agree after death, at some point, all those conditions are met. Nothing supernatural about that. When you're dead, you're dead.

However, Looking at the last #, Hell is simply that. Hell is where one is forgotten by time and has been forgotten by the chance of salvation. He was remembered by God until he died without Christ. However, in a way, the flames and worms and all that it is described as in the Bible are all nothing in comparison to the fact that one will continue to remember the chances and opportunities of salvation they had in their life, according to the Bible.

[Chandler Frank]

Thank you Augustine

Commendations on the previous post. Although if you could split it up and make it a little easier to read...
(By the way - I was about to comment on the same thing, but you did rather well, so I'll keep my argument til later)

[agustine]

To Chandler Frank. Thank you sir for the kind comments. I, nevertheless, apologize for your difficulty in reading the post. I had to move quickly insofar as I was scheduled to meet with someone.

God Bless

Augustine

[arielmessenger]

It won't be too much longer before most all bible scholars agree that the New Testament Jesus Christ never was a human being, always was a heavenly one composed of words. "In the beginning was the Word.." "and the Word was made flesh"..

But here is the real clue to Jesus Christ's non-human existence: this "Q" saying re the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus.

"For I say to you, among those born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."--Gospel of Luke

Jesus is telling us he is not born of woman. "His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit."--Gospel of Philip

So that leaves Christianity with the New Testament Story of Jesus and an unknown historical Jesus that inspired it.

As for the Trinity concept, it's finished now that Ariel informs us God's going for the Holy Family these days, and if there's a Son of God you can bet there's going to be a Daughter too!

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: arielmessenger It won't be too much longer before most all bible scholars agree that the New Testament Jesus Christ never was a human being, always was a heavenly one composed of words. "In the beginning was the Word.." "and the Word was made flesh".. But here is the real clue to Jesus Christ's non-human existence: this "Q" saying re the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. "For I say to you, among those born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."--Gospel of Luke Jesus is telling us he is not born of woman. "His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit."--Gospel of Philip So that leaves Christianity with the New Testament Story of Jesus and an unknown historical Jesus that inspired it. As for the Trinity concept, it's finished now that Ariel informs us God's going for the Holy Family these days, and if there's a Son of God you can bet there's going to be a Daughter too!

This was dealt with in the Bible, in the book of Galatians. Unless they throw that book out of the Bible, I doubt what you are saying will happen. How will they deal with the fact that Paul, writer of a huge piece of the New Testament, was against that from its beginning.
Note that the Gospel of Phillip was not in existence until at least 100 years after Philip's death. Also, contrary to the Nag Hammadi, the piece was written in Coptic, not in Greek. With the lies starting from the beginning with the supporters, I would trust what the facts say.

[agustine]

To arielmessenger. With respect to your comment

Jesus is telling us he is not born of woman. "His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit."--Gospel of Philip

I do not know why you would quote from the Gnostic writing of Philip in such a way as to hold it as authoritative. I do not know how well you are acquainted with this material; yet for the purpose of brevity and with the intention of not delving into too great a detailed expository, the Gnostic writing of Philip is a much later writing than the canonical Gospels. The oldest extant manuscript is written in Coptic. The incidental details are almost always entirely wrong, and its theological content betrays a distinctive Hellenistic Gnosticism, which is entirely antithetical to Orthodox Judaism, the very root and foundation of Christianity. The earliest known source material provides a decidedly different illustration of the Lord. Also, the extra-biblical sources are quite agreeable with the biblical account. With respect to your comment

It won't be too much longer before most all bible scholars agree that the New Testament Jesus Christ never was a human being, always was a heavenly one composed of words.

Have you ever read the Tanakh? otherwise known as the Old Testament. One of the most recurrent phrases is "Devar Hashem" or "the Word of the Lord....came to...." The quote "Word" always pertains to the temporal manifestation of the Lord. After the incarnation, "ho logov sarc egeneto....." or the "Word" becoming flesh, the source materials clearly enough indicate that the incarnate Word was seen, heard and touched. He ate, was hungered, wept, angered, suffered, bled, etc.... Sounds quite physical to me. With respect to your comment

this "Q" saying re the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus.

I think you may be in over your head here. Allow me to pose the following question: What is Q? Let me save you the suspense. You don't know. I don't know. Scholars don't know. Why? Because it does not exist. Upon discussing the synoptics certain so-called scholars have a tendency to invoke Q as their source material. When asked what specifically Q is, or even how they would begin to identify Q, they simply retreat into unintelligible musing. Not one scholar, not one has ever produced one document, not one demonstrating the existence of the phantom Q. With respect to your comment

So that leaves Christianity with the New Testament Story of Jesus and an unknown historical Jesus that inspired it.

My suspicions are confirmed. With respect to your comment

As for the Trinity concept, it's finished now that Ariel informs us God's going for the Holy Family these days, and if there's a Son of God you can bet there's going to be a Daughter too!

I wouldn't even know where to begin with that comment. By the way, do you always refer to yourself in the third person?

Augustine

[arielmessenger]

[quote=agustine;349519]To arielmessenger. With respect to your comment I do not know why you would quote from the Gnostic writing of Philip in such a way as to hold it as authoritative. I do not know how well you are acquainted with this material; yet for the purpose of brevity and with the intention of not delving into too great a detailed expository, the Gnostic writing of Philip is a much later writing than the canonical Gospels."

Oh, there's no doubt the Gospel of Philip is later than say the NT Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and probably John, but Luke? Luke's writings cannot be traced back any earlier than the Gospel of Philip. And the Gospel of Thomas is by most Bible scholars standards now co-current with the writing of Mark making it as old as any NT writings save Paul's.

"The oldest extant manuscript is written in Coptic. The incidental details are almost always entirely wrong, and its theological content betrays a distinctive Hellenistic Gnosticism, which is entirely antithetical to Orthodox Judaism, the very root and foundation of Christianity."

Yes, the Nag Hammadi Library was found in Egypt after all where they spoke the Coptic language. How strange is that? Were the Greek New Testaments a fraud because they aren't written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

"The earliest known source material provides a decidedly different illustration of the Lord. Also, the extra-biblical sources are quite agreeable with the biblical account."

Do you know who Jesus Christ is of the Gospels? If you do, you're ahead of most Bible scholars.

"With respect to your comment Have you ever read the Tanakh? otherwise known as the Old Testament. One of the most recurrent phrases is "Devar Hashem" or "the Word of the Lord....came to...." The quote "Word" always pertains to the temporal manifestation of the Lord. After the incarnation, "ho logov sarc egeneto....." or the "Word" becoming flesh, the source materials clearly enough indicate that the incarnate Word was seen, heard and touched. He ate, was hungered, wept, angered, suffered, bled, etc.... Sounds quite physical to me."

When archeologists cannot find traces to support religious myths what does this tell us logically? The Tanakh is filled with Jewish myths but those who take them as real history have only themselves to blame when real history revolts as we see it doing in modern Israel where Jews have tried to force their myths of origin onto the world. God and the world are reacting to this false imposition of ancient men's ideas onto our modern world.

"With respect to your comment I think you may be in over your head here. Allow me to pose the following question: What is Q? Let me save you the suspense. You don't know. I don't know. Scholars don't know. Why? Because it does not exist. Upon discussing the synoptics certain so-called scholars have a tendency to invoke Q as their source material. When asked what specifically Q is, or even how they would begin to identify Q, they simply retreat into unintelligible musing. Not one scholar, not one has ever produced one document, not one demonstrating the existence of the phantom Q."

Critics of modern bible scholarship always think that because scholars can't show a separate "Q" Gospel that there is no basis for "Q" at all which is entirely false. The "Q" Sayings are there in Matthew, Luke, Thomas, and Mark, some John, and they are the same statements, as if the Gospel writers were each looking at the same now lost Sayings Gospel that contained all the "Q" sayings. With the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, another Sayings Gospel, "Q" theory is even more reinforced and most bible scholars now include the Gospel of Thomas as the 5th Gospel.

"With respect to your comment My suspicions are confirmed. With respect to your comment I wouldn't even know where to begin with that comment. By the way, do you always refer to yourself in the third person?"

Augustine, gone are the days when Pauline Christianity could claim to be the Only Christian theology around. God has resurrected the Gnostic Christian past because only the Path of Gnosis of God is legitimate--Pauline Christian theology resting on vicarious atonement is doomed to dethronement by all intellectuals who discover the Mystery Religion roots of Paul's revision of Jesus' teachings.