stuff from main forum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay. But where's the fruits spoken of in Gal. 5? Is one of them exclusivity?

Have you seen this featured quote? I like it!

When the Christian asserts his faith in the divine origin of his Bible, he does not mean to deny that it was composed and written by men or that it was given by men to the world. He believes that the marks of its human origin are ineradicably stamped on every page of the whole volume. He means to state only that it is not merely human in its origin. -- Warfield

Compare him to Bart Ehrman, another Princeton grad. That's a good indicator of what has happened to our universities over the last century.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you seen this featured quote? I like it!

When the Christian asserts his faith in the divine origin of his Bible, he does not mean to deny that it was composed and written by men or that it was given by men to the world. He believes that the marks of its human origin are ineradicably stamped on every page of the whole volume. He means to state only that it is not merely human in its origin. -- Warfield

Compare him to Bart Ehrman, another Princeton grad. That's a good indicator of what has happened to our universities over the last century.

Ehrman doesn't claim that the Bible has more than human origins because, he doesn't know one way or the other. And neither did Warfield.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ehrman doesn't claim that the Bible has more than human origins because, he doesn't know one way or the other. And neither did Warfield.

Harold, do you actually read/listen to Ehrman? I wonder sometimes because you don't seem to know what the man actually speaks about. The man says THERE IS NO GOD, GOD DOES NOT EXIST. To Ehrman, the Bible is all a literary joke played upon the gullible people like me, Ohio, his best friend and his wife. I hate to crush your hero in front of the public...but he NEVER, EVER says "he doesn't know one way or the other"...he says THERE IS NO GOD AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO GOD'S WORD. THE BIBLE IS A LITERARY JOKE, A HOAX played upon the uneducated, unwashed masses who haven't had the time, money or interest to delve into the thousands of uncrossed "t"s and undotted "i"s throughout the biblical manuscripts. But even he, the Grand Puba of Christian traitors, ADMITS THAT THERE IS NOT ONE, NOT ONE "DISCREPANCY" in any of the New Testament manuscripts that even slightly takes away from, much less negates, any of the major tenets of the Christian faith.

But hey, that would pretty much make him welcome here on Alt Views!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, do you actually read/listen to Ehrman? I wonder sometimes because you don't seem to know what the man actually speaks about. The man says THERE IS NO GOD, GOD DOES NOT EXIST. To Ehrman, the Bible is all a literary joke played upon the gullible people like me, Ohio, his best friend and his wife. I hate to crush your hero in front of the public...but he NEVER, EVER says "he doesn't know one way or the other"...he says THERE IS NO GOD AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO GOD'S WORD. THE BIBLE IS A LITERARY JOKE, A HOAX played upon the uneducated, unwashed masses who haven't had the time, money or interest to delve into the thousands of uncrossed "t"s and undotted "i"s throughout the biblical manuscripts. But even he, the Grand Puba of Christian traitors, ADMITS THAT THERE IS NOT ONE, NOT ONE "DISCREPANCY" in any of the New Testament manuscripts that even slightly takes away from, much less negates, any of the major tenets of the Christian faith.

But hey, that would pretty much make him welcome here on Alt Views!

Your entire paragraph is a "literary joke" and it is based on hearsay since you must not really be familiar with his writings but have listened to others. I don't have a problem with lodging remarks against Ehrman if they are factually true. You just don't know what you are talking about in regards to assessing Ehrman's viewpoints.

Ehrman explains why he is an agnostic (not an atheist) in one of his books, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question---Why We Suffer He asks the question:
"If there is an all-powerful and loving God in this world, why is there so much excruciating pain and unspeakable suffering?....It was what made me begin to think about religion when I was young, and it was what led me to question my faith when I was older. Ultimately, it was the reason I lost my faith. (God's Problem, p. 1)" Note that Ehrman doesn't say it was because of his belief in inerrancy that he lost his faith. He has stated that the opposite is true, that he remained a Christian even though he did not believe the Bible was inerrant. But as awareness stated, Ehrman is an agnostic, he just doesn't know one way or the other. I find it interesting that Christians in the first century were considered atheists by the Romans because they wouldn't believe in the pagan gods. I guess in that sense we are all atheists. I would add that this is not Ehrman's typical textual critical book but more of a personal outlook based on his world view in the context of Judeo-Christianity.

I haven't read in any of his books or tapes that "there is no God, God does not exist" (maybe you could help me out here with a quote from Ehrman to support your statement). Certainly, he doesn't agree that the Bible is inerrant portraying God. However, to the chagrin of mythologists who deny that Jesus ever existed he wrote a book showing that Jesus did exist on this earth in his book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. He was pummelled by atheists and other mythologists for writing this book and they argued that Jesus never existed and was just a myth.

From a NT textual critic standpoint he has never said that the NT textual changes impact basic tenets of the Christian faith because he has always maintained that he does not get into issues of faith since those are theological issues. In other words, he has never written a book on NT theological doctrines because that is not his forte. He notes scriptures such as the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 which he among most scholars indicate was inserted by scribes who were trying to add NT verses which supported the Trinity. He never states that eliminating those verses disproves the doctrine of the Trinity. Ehrman is a NT textual critic and NT historian and he does not pontificate about doctrines of the Bible since he is not a theologian. If theologians determine that certain passages of the Bible were added later it is up to them to determine whether those affects fundamental doctrinal tenets since that would be a matter of faith. Ehrman doesn't go there regarding issues of faith when it comes to textual criticism.

I can understand what appears to be malignant dislike towards the man by Christians. As one fundamentalist Christian, Kyle Butte, M.A., stated, who had debated Ehrman. "Dr. Ehrman has done as much or more than any single individual in modern times to destroy the Christian faith of literally thousands of people, young and old alike, across the globe." Ehrman disagrees with his assessment as to his influence. I can certainly see if someone was on the edge his books could be influential in some respects and certainly Biblical critics have seized upon some of them. However, his ideas have been more influential in the classrooms across the U.S. with his textbooks which are distributed country-wide and are remarkable books e.g. After The New Testament, A Reader in Early Christianty or The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Fifth Edition (2012)...Sixth Edition is coming out this summer.

In any case, I am more influenced by the writings of James Luther Adams and Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher regarding the Bible than Ehrman. However, Ehrman is an interesting flashpoint when quoting his works on this forum.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wrong forum Harold. Way out there my man...even for Alt Views...way out there. But if you want to continue on about Native American Shamans, the Great Spirit and such I might consider letting you ramble on about such nonsense over there in la la land. Give these last few posts a look here and then kiss them goodbye....

So some exLCers are anathema on LCD ... even if they once were elders. Curiouser and curiouser Alice.

[awareness]

Hey UntoHim, where's my shaman post? That was a masterpiece of inspiration. I really experienced Christ while writing it. And you rejected it. Scary.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ehrman doesn't claim that the Bible has more than human origins because, he doesn't know one way or the other. And neither did Warfield.

The Apostle Paul confronted characters like Bart Ehrman in his day, and this is what he told Timothy ...

Hold on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. (1.18-19)

Later on Paul told Timothy how the words of these ones like Hymenaeus affect others ...

But avoid profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of such is Hymenaeus. (2.16-17)

The single most important thing that God's enemy attacks is our faith. That is why we so desperately need to wield the shield of our faith. Once the devil gets our faith, he gets everything. Ones like Bart Ehrman undermine the faith of many. In this regard, Ehrman is no different than that subtle serpent in the garden, promising the hidden knowledge while sowing seeds of doubt. In the guise of Christian scholarship, he attacks the very foundation of our Christian life. Since he is in academia, he is especially influential, his teachings spreading like gangrene, and all for filthy lucre, going after our young people when they are most vulnerable.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Apostle Paul confronted characters like Bart Ehrman in his day, and this is what he told Timothy ...
Later on Paul told Timothy how the words of these ones like Hymenaeus affect others ...
The single most important thing that God's enemy attacks is our faith. That is why we so desperately need to wield the shield of our faith. Once the devil gets our faith, he gets everything. Ones like Bart Ehrman undermine the faith of many. In this regard, Ehrman is no different than that subtle serpent in the garden, promising the hidden knowledge while sowing seeds of doubt. In the guise of Christian scholarship, he attacks the very foundation of our Christian life. Since he is in academia, he is especially influential, his teachings spreading like gangrene, and all for filthy lucre, going after our young people when they are most vulnerable.

You love to quote this verse in 1 Tim. 1:18-19, "Hold on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme." Let's be clear about one thing, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are widely regarded by scholars as not written by Paul. You keep saying "Paul wrote" but he most likely didn't. Secondly, 1 Timothy was written because of the influence of the gnostics 1 Tim 1:4 "...and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies..." Most of the gnostics at the time were ascetic and the genealogies he was referencing were related to Gnostic Christians who developed elaborate mythologies that traced the genealogies of divine beings all the way back to the one true God. Note that in 1 Tim. 4:3 he refers to false teachers because they "forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods." You can't just pull various verses written 2000 years ago and think they necessarily apply to anyone today. I guess you approve of 1 Tim 2:11-15, "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man..." In any case, it's important to understand the context of the scriptures rather than just quote them helter skelter and think they are meaningful.

You're spending too much time worrying about Ehrman's influence on faith when it is the lukewarm Christians who are wreaking the most damage on Christian faith today as well as those who say they are alive but are dead e.g. the politically radical right fundamentalist Christians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

You love to quote this verse in 1 Tim. 1:18-19, "Hold on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme." Let's be clear about one thing, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are widely regarded by scholars as not written by Paul. You keep saying "Paul wrote" but he most likely didn't. Secondly, 1 Timothy was written because of the influence of the gnostics 1 Tim 1:4 "...and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies..." Most of the gnostics at the time were ascetic and the genealogies he was referencing was related to Gnostic Christians who developed elaborate mythologies that traced the genealogies of divine beings all the way back to the one true God. Note that in 1 Tim. 4:3 he refers to false teachers because they "forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods." You can't just pull various verses written 2000 years ago and think they necessarily apply to anyone today. I guess you approve of 1 Tim 2:11-15, "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man..." In any case, it's important to understand the context of the scriptures rather than just quote them helter skelter and think they are meaningful.

You're spending too much time worrying about Ehrman's influence on faith when it is the lukewarm Christians who are wreaking the most damage on Christian faith today as well as those who say they are alive but are dead e.g. the politically radical right fundamentalist Christians.

Am I now being lectured by a Unitarian Universalist preacher?

And "scholars" have proven that the Apostle Paul did not write to Timothy?

And you know which Christians are living and which are dead?

And only you know who is quoting verses out of context?

And you are convinced that scripture verses can not apply today?

And yes, I love Paul's admonition to "hold faith and a good conscience." Perhaps you should too.

[UntoHim]

For the record I think Bart Ehrman is a brilliant, witty and extremely gifted and engaging fellow. And how do I know this? Not from reading books written 5 or 10 years ago, but by listening to MANY hours of his actual speaking. (including his many debates with Christian apologists and scholars - but most of these cover a lot of technical matters of scriptural criticism) You guys apparently only have book knowledge about the man. I don't have to guess or go by a book he wrote years ago, I actually listen CLOSELY to what the man says about what he NOW BELIEVES about God.

It took me all of SECONDS, less than a minute, to find the following which has been on the open Internet for about 6 months. I already knew of it's existence because I've listened to just about everything Ehrman has spoken which is available. I don't read his books because I prefer to study textual criticism from scholars who don't think the New Testament is a literary hoax, that the early disciples were hallucinating, and that Jesus Christ's body was left for wild animals to ravage


"Agnostism has to do with epistemology - what you know. Atheism has to do with belief, what you what you believe.
I actually consider my self to be BOTH an agnostic AND an atheist. I'm an agnostic because if somebody says to me 'is there a greater power in the universe' my response is 'how the hell would I know!' I don't know. So I'm an agnostic. If somebody were to ask me 'do you believe in the God of the Bible do you believe in a god who interacts with the world, who intervenes in the world, who answers prayers, do you believe in the supernatural divine being?', 'NO! I DON'T BELIEVE IT! I DON'T BELIEVE IT SO I'M AN ATHEIST, But I don't know so I'm an agnostic.'" End of Quote

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Am I now being lectured by a Unitarian Universalist preacher?

And "scholars" have proven that the Apostle Paul did not write to Timothy?

And you know which Christians are living and which are dead?

And only you know who is quoting verses out of context?

And you are convinced that scripture verses can not apply today?

And yes, I love Paul's admonition to "hold faith and a good conscience." Perhaps you should too.

I don't seem to be the one trying to preach. I am a Unitarian Christian which I have explained numerous times. I am a Christian as much or more than you. No, I am not a fundamentalist Christian nor do I want to be associated with them. Yes, scholars today have proven as much as the guys 1500 years ago who "proved" that Paul wrote those epistles---- that they are not written by Paul. As far as who is living or dead you seem to think you have the inside track. I only know what people have told me and how they have been affected by the hate of some Christians. Of course you are quoting out of context...those are referencing gnostics back 2000 years ago. Yes, scriptures can apply today it's just that the ones you keep quoting don't have any relevance to the way you are trying to apply them except maybe for you. If they make you feel good go ahead and quote them.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For the record I think Bart Ehrman is a brilliant, witty and extremely gifted and engaging fellow. And how do I know this? Not from reading books written 5 or 10 years ago, but by listening to MANY hours of his actual speaking. (including his many debates with Christian apologists and scholars - but most of these cover a lot of technical matters of scriptural criticism) You guys apparently only have book knowledge about the man. I don't have to guess or go by a book he wrote years ago, I actually listen CLOSELY to what the man says about what he NOW BELIEVES about God.

It took me all of SECONDS, less than a minute, to find the following which has been on the open Internet for about 6 months. I already knew of it's existence because I've listened to just about everything Ehrman has spoken which is available. I don't read his books because I prefer to study textual criticism from scholars who don't think the New Testament is a literary hoax, that the early disciples were hallucinating, and that Jesus Christ's body was left for wild animals to ravage.

"Agnostism has to do with epistemology - what you know. Atheism has to do with belief, what you what you believe.
I actually consider my self to be BOTH an agnostic AND an atheist. I'm an agnostic because if somebody says to me 'is there a greater power in the universe' my response is 'how the hell would I know!' I don't know. So I'm an agnostic. If somebody were to ask me 'do you believe in the God of the Bible do you believe in a god who interacts with the world, who intervenes in the world, who answers prayers, do you believe in the supernatural divine being?', 'NO! I DON'T BELIEVE IT! I DON'T BELIEVE IT SO I'M AN ATHEIST, But I don't know so I'm an agnostic.'" End of Quote

That is a good quote and thanks but it basically says which I mentioned that is he is an atheist to a supernatural divine being because he doesn't believe but then he qualified it by saying he doesn't know so he is an agnostic. Admittedly a little confusing but I have heard him say repeatedly even recently that he is an agnostic so that is where I am coming from.

I have listened to most if not all of his talks or debates online but having read his books helps me better understand where he is coming from. In fact, I have listened to many of his Great Courses lectures: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/profe...pPkaAqvh8P8HAQ If you scroll down the list you'll see that he does a lot more than teach NT at UNC, write scholarly books to include college textbooks and tradebooks, debate, write a blog: http://ehrmanblog.org/ etc. Thus, you can't just pick up his ideas from the debates. I agree with you that he can be problematic for Christians, however. I just don't think he can be written off as an atheist whose ideas are dismissed summarily.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't seem to be the one trying to preach. I am a Unitarian Christian which I have explained numerous times. I am a Christian as much or more than you.

You are more Universalist than Unitarian, which at least believe that God
is one.

So you are more than a Christian than me, yet you don't even believe that Paul wrote his own epistles to Timothy?

Hmmm! Sounds like you have gone to the school for false prophets.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

'NO! I DON'T BELIEVE IT! I DON'T BELIEVE IT SO I'M AN ATHEIST, But I don't know so I'm an agnostic.'" End of Quote

Not the greatest authority, but Wikipedia says ole Bart is an Agnostic, Humanist, and Atheist.

Bart has put himself at the top of all opposition to Jesus Christ, His word, His gospel, and His people. Not the kind of position I would relish. But the pay, prestige, and earthly fame for him I'm sure is quite good.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not the greatest authority, but Wikipedia says ole Bart is an Agnostic, Humanist, and Atheist.

Bart has put himself at the top of all opposition to Jesus Christ, His word, His gospel, and His people. Not the kind of position I would relish. But the pay, prestige, and earthly fame for him I'm sure is quite good.

This is Ehrman's big problem; that he didn't keep his findings within Academia; that he's very gifted at reaching the masses, the lay people.

And the one thing he proves beyond a shadow of doubt is that the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

This is very troubling to those that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So they wish to just dismiss Ehrman out of hand.

But Ehrman doesn't go away. And that's a big big problem for them and they hate him (one of their neighbors, btw).

And so far, even theologically believing scholars that debate him can't prove him wrong. But it's very entertaining to watch them try. Cuz one thing about Ehrman is that he's very knowledgeable concerning the Bible, the manuscripts, and all documentation from early Christianity. Consequently, he's a force to be dealt with. Good luck with that. His voice will last long after our voices are gone and forgotten.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

And so far, even theologically believing scholars that debate him can't prove him wrong.

The problem is not the things you state afterward. It is the fact that the truth of the Bible is in faith. It is not in scientifically and apologetically provable points. If it were, there would be no need for faith.

The extent to which "inerrant" can be said about the Bible is a matter of faith, not provable fact. Therefore the use of the word is essentially irrelevant. Those who insist on it are typically applying it to more than just the belief that it came from God. Typically to their understanding of what it means.

The correctness or incorrectness of Ehrmann in terms of a debate of apologetics is nearly meaningless. We can't prove a 6-day creation, a 6,000 year creation, or a 6-billion year creation with or without divine intervention. And neither can he. That is the one thing he clearly states over and over. He does not believe, but he cannot prove why.

Neither can we. We either believe or we don't. It remains faith no matter how smart our apologists become. No matter if they manage to convince Ehrmann to return to the fold.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are more Universalist than Unitarian, which at least believe that God
is one.

So you are more than a Christian than me, yet you don't even believe that Paul wrote his own epistles to Timothy?

Hmmm! Sounds like you have gone to the school for false prophets.

You really don't understand UU and I am sure you are not really interested. I am a Unitarian Christian in the same vein as James Luther Adams. Universalism is new to Unitarianism in the 1961 merger and was much smaller. To me deeds not creeds are the most important. I care less about what you "believe" and more about what you "do".

If Paul didn't write the epistle he didn't write it and it doesn't matter if I or you believe it or not. If you have faith that they were written by Paul so be it but if we really want to care about facts then that is another matter. From what you have said you have faith that Paul wrote it which is fine but that is not my perspective. It seems like we often talk apples compared to oranges because everything you say is based on faith and not whether it is factually correct. I just can't go that route. To me that is the route of WL and the LC. Just believe because a bunch of guys back in the 5th and 6th century put together the Bible and said that Paul wrote those books. Well, we have more information now so we know he most likely didn't write 6 of the 13 books attributed to him. We also know the earth isn't flat because we found new information which shows that the earth is a sphere but you can still have faith that it is flat.

Whether it's the books of the Bible or the Church Father's writings etc they shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value but studied in context. They may or may not have relevance today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is Ehrman's big problem; that he didn't keep his findings within Academia; that he's very gifted at reaching the masses, the lay people.

And the one thing he proves beyond a shadow of doubt is that the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

This is very troubling to those that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So they wish to just dismiss Ehrman out of hand.

But Ehrman doesn't go away. And that's a big big problem for them and they hate him (one of their neighbors, btw).

And so far, even theologically believing scholars that debate him can't prove him wrong. But it's very entertaining to watch them try. Cuz one thing about Ehrman is that he's very knowledgeable concerning the Bible, the manuscripts, and all documentation from early Christianity. Consequently, he's a force to be dealt with. Good luck with that. His voice will last long after our voices are gone and forgotten.

Can you show me the error that Ehrman has proved without a shadow of a doubt?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

You really don't understand UU and I am sure you are not really interested. I am a Unitarian Christian in the same vein as James Luther Adams. Universalism is new to Unitarianism in the 1961 merger and was much smaller. To me deeds not creeds are the most important. I care less about what you "believe" and more about what you "do".

If Paul didn't write the epistle he didn't write it and it doesn't matter if I or you believe it or not. If you have faith that they were written by Paul so be it but if we really want to care about facts then that is another matter. From what you have said you have faith that Paul wrote it which is fine but that is not my perspective. It seems like we often talk apples compared to oranges because everything you say is based on faith and not whether it is factually correct. I just can't go that route. To me that is the route of WL and the LC. Just believe because a bunch of guys back in the 5th and 6th century put together the Bible and said that Paul wrote those books. Well, we have more information now so we know he most likely didn't write 6 of the 13 books attributed to him. We also know the earth isn't flat because we found new information which shows that the earth is a sphere but you can still have faith that it is flat.

Whether it's the books of the Bible or the Church Father's writings etc they shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value but studied in context. They may or may not have relevance today.

You are much a "victim" of faith as I am. You believe in Ehrman's gospel, and the gospel of the high critic scholars. To me that is not a safe faith. That is just sinking sand. I would rather not trust in those scholars who view the facts in the darkness of their own unbelieving minds. Your faith is also built on good works. Good works cannot save you. They may assuage your conscience temporarily, but only believing in the sacrificial death of Jesus, the Son of God, can our debt of sin to the law be taken care of. Sounds like you have merely substituted James Luther Adams for Witness Lee. That explains a lot. You believe Paul didn't write his epistles because some modern scholar told you so. I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you show me the error that Ehrman has proved without a shadow of a doubt?

There's way more of them than words in the New Testament ... and yes, some just insignificant human error in copying. But others significant.

There's no need to list them, to prove errancy. Cuz just one error means it's not inerrant. And the manuscripts we use to translate the books are filled with errors.

So no one, that's informed, can claim with a clear conscience that the Bible we have today is inerrant.

Only those not informed can claim that, or those that simply wish to deny the facts.

In the end what does it matter if it's errant? Just, be honest about it, admit it, and go on past the errors. Errancy doesn't dismiss the New Testament at all.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are much a "victim" of faith as I am. You believe in Ehrman's gospel, and the gospel of the high critic scholars. To me that is not a safe faith. That is just sinking sand. I would rather not trust in those scholars who view the facts in the darkness of their own unbelieving minds. Your faith is also built on good works. Good works cannot save you. They may assuage your conscience temporarily, but only believing in the sacrificial death of Jesus, the Son of God, can our debt of sin to the law be taken care of. Sounds like you have merely substituted James Luther Adams for Witness Lee. That explains a lot. You believe Paul didn't write his epistles because some modern scholar told you so. I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

I don't care what Ehrman states. I said I don't care about "creeds" but "deeds". If it was just Ehrman I would agree with you but I have previously mentioned several conservative Christian scholars such as Daniel Wallace and Larry Hurtado who have stated the same thing. Like I said, if it was just Ehrman I would agree with you. I just don't read Ehrman and say amen. I read a lot of other authors and scholars. It just seems like Ehrman gets everyone's dander up.

Substituting JLA for WL is an ill informed statement. I appreciate JLA's point of view but he would never insist on anyone accepting his perspective. Not only was he a professor at Harvard, University of Chicago, etc, author, theologian but a pastor of a couple of Unitarian Churches for 40 years. He has a unique perspective.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't care what Ehrman states. I said I don't care about "creeds" but "deeds".

That goes without saying. Who cares for creeds? And James has said, "faith without works is dead." You needed the UU cult for that?

Originally Posted by Dave

We also know the earth isn't flat because we found new information which shows that the earth is a sphere but you can still have faith that it is flat.

I just love how liberals and unbelievers use this stupid example to belittle God's way of faith. From man's earliest times he knew definitively that the earth was a sphere revolving the sun. The Pope comes along and says it's flat. Flat earth was never once a matter of faith for God's people. It was a mandate for catholics under fear of papal repercussions.

Originally Posted by Dave

If Paul didn't write the epistle he didn't write it and it doesn't matter if I or you believe it or not. If you have faith that they were written by Paul so be it but if we really want to care about facts then that is another matter. From what you have said you have faith that Paul wrote it which is fine but that is not my perspective.

I'd like to see these "facts" you believe in. And I want definitive scientific evidence, not just some opinion by liberal scholars making a buck off God. Science demands that the test can be repeated in a laboratory, so for you to stand against the Christian church of the last two millennia, I need something foolproof.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's way more of them than words in the New Testament ... and yes, some just insignificant human error in copying. But others significant.

There's no need to list them, to prove errancy. Cuz just one error means it's not inerrant. And the manuscripts we use to translate the books are filled with errors.

So no one, that's informed, can claim with a clear conscience that the Bible we have today is inerrant.

Only those not informed can claim that, or those that simply wish to deny the facts.

In the end what does it matter if it's errant? Just, be honest about it, admit it, and go on past the errors. Errancy doesn't dismiss the New Testament at all.

Your statements are ignorant at best. I am informed, and I can say definitively with a clear conscience that the Bible we have today is inerrant. I just love your arguments. They sound like the guy who says, "everybody knows the sky is green, just look at the facts."

Obviously we have different definitions of "error" and "inerrant." You are looking for a missing jot or tittle, and then throwing out the Bible. I am looking for errors, and all I see is the word of God.

Have you ever done an in-depth study on the prophecies concerning Jesus? Have you ever studied the odds of all these prophecies becoming true in jesus? That is just one course of study in the Bible that would give you a whole new appreciation for God's word.

Unfortunately you seem to only enjoy reading the internet and finding the latest "problem" with scripture. It sure takes a lot more faith than I can muster up to believe all that the web says about the Bible. I prefer the honest facts of history, however.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That goes without saying. Who cares for creeds? And James has said, "faith without works is dead." You needed the UU cult for that?

You seem consumed with creed, dogmas, doctrines, inerrancy etc. The only group which has ever called the UU a cult is the one founded by Walter Martin. Wasn't that the same group who said "We Were Wrong" and apologized to the Local Church for listing them as errant? I need your definition of a cult before I can respond adequately. Also, are you currently a member of a church which you attend regularly and pledge funds? What kind? For all I know you are attending a cultish church or not attending one at all. I have at least said what church I attend on a regular basis and support.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just love how liberals and unbelievers use this stupid example to belittle God's way of faith. From man's earliest times he knew definitively that the earth was a sphere revolving the sun. The Pope comes along and says it's flat. Flat earth was never once a matter of faith for God's people. It was a mandate for catholics under fear of papal repercussions.

It was just an example. Here is another one if you don't like that one. The earth is the center of the universe and everything is revolving around it. Copernicus was persecuted for discovering that we were traveling around the sun and that the earth was not the center. Again, if you believe, and there may well be those who still believe that the earth is the center of the universe based on the Bible. It's all a matter of faith as to what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'd like to see these "facts" you believe in. And I want definitive scientific evidence, not just some opinion by liberal scholars making a buck off God. Science demands that the test can be repeated in a laboratory, so for you to stand against the Christian church of the last two millennia, I need something foolproof.

I said that Daniel Wallace and Larry Hurtado have expressed the same idea among others that 6 of the 13 books of Paul (actually it is 7 out of 14 if you include Hebrews) were not authored by him. Those are facts. I am not going to do your homework for you. Here is a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is not the things you state afterward. It is the fact that the truth of the Bible is in faith. It is not in scientifically and apologetically provable points. If it were, there would be no need for faith.

The extent to which "inerrant" can be said about the Bible is a matter of faith, not provable fact. Therefore the use of the word is essentially irrelevant. Those who insist on it are typically applying it to more than just the belief that it came from God. Typically to their understanding of what it means.

The correctness or incorrectness of Ehrmann in terms of a debate of apologetics is nearly meaningless. We can't prove a 6-day creation, a 6,000 year creation, or a 6-billion year creation with or without divine intervention. And neither can he. That is the one thing he clearly states over and over. He does not believe, but he cannot prove why.

Neither can we. We either believe or we don't. It remains faith no matter how smart our apologists become. No matter if they manage to convince Ehrmann to return to the fold.

This was level headed bro OBW. Thanks.

I realize that some believers in inerrancy base their faith on it. And also, if convinced it is errant their faith falls like a house of cards. This, I think, is bro Ohio's concern ... that people's faith is being shipwreck by pointing out the Bible is errant.

If so then wasn't their faith misplaced? The book tells of Abraham, the father of faith. Did the Bible have anything to do with Abraham's faith? Wasn't his faith in God?

Belief in inerrancy, that I've seen, results in extraordinary faith in the book ... almost like it's a divine magical book. I know because I once believed this. And I was once among those that would close their eyes, randomly open the Bible and point. The verse they pointed at was God's living message to them.

Sure that's extreme. It turns the Bible into a talisman. It's a sign of immaturity and ignorance. What they believe about inerrancy should be discounted. They have funny faith.

But then mature educated adults consider the Bible so magical that they can run computer algorithms on the book, that they claim reveals hidden messages buried in the Bible, that can predict the future. If you're not familiar with it its called The Bible Code : http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Code.../dp/0684849739

Lots in the past have been just as obsessed with finding buried code from God in the Bible. It's an inordinate obsession with the the book. It's putting the book right up there with God.

I think we all do this. I think we see things that aren't there. Or see, irrationally, that every word is written by God. It's the same kind of magical thinking and believing as, closing the eyes and pointing.

I think it's misplaced faith, and elevating the Bible to where our rightly placed faith shouldn't allow.

So if discovering the Bible as errant results in a loss of faith, that faith wasn't worth holding to in the first place. It is faith in the wrong thing, and cheats faith in God, where it belongs.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you ever done an in-depth study on the prophecies concerning Jesus? Have you ever studied the odds of all these prophecies becoming true in jesus?

Vaticinium ex eventu

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

So if discovering the Bible as errant results in a loss of faith, that faith wasn't worth holding to in the first place. It is faith in the wrong thing, and cheats faith in God, where it belongs.

The first part of this is very observant. In fact the Lord Jesus said something very similar to some of the Jews in his day:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life(John 5:39,40)
Quite a striking thing to be said by a Jewish rabbi! The Torah was certainly "inerrant" to the vast majority of 1st century Jews, at least in the sense that they were the true, accurate and inspired words of God, yet Jesus Christ seemed to be bursting their bubble by healing on the Sabbath.

I think there is little doubt that the Pharisees were the "Fundamentalists" of Jesus' day. If you guys here are Alt Views were alive back then, I'm sure you would label the Pharisees and Scribes as "Inerrants" and "Bible Thumpers"....and you know what...that's pretty much what Jesus Christ called them out on as well, albeit he called them out in the language of the day: "Wow to you...Hypocrites!" - "you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people's faces. You won't go in yourselves, and you don't let others enter either." "You search the Scriptures".

Originally Posted by awareness

It is faith in the wrong thing, and cheats faith in God, where it belongs.

Here is where the rubber meets the road, Harold. You're right about people having misplaced faith in the black and white, printed letters of the Bible, and I've shown you where Jesus Christ said basically the same thing. But I'm going to hold your feet to fire again....WHAT GOD? "cheats faith in God"....WHAT GOD? Who is he? Where is he? Does he have a name? Is he a god who is alive? Is he a speaking god or is he a deaf and mute god? Inquiring minds want to know, my man! If you are going to be so bold to proclaim that these poor, poor Fundamentalists and inerrants have misplaced teachings and practices that "cheats faith in God", then surely you can tell us a little something about this G(g)od of yours.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Vaticinium ex eventu

Old and worn out response, never matching the facts of history, and similar to the serpent's word in the garden, "Has God really said?"

http://www.gbcwilmington.org/home/18...umExEventu.pdf

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Old and worn out response, never matching the facts of history, and similar to the serpent's word in the garden, "Has God really said?"

http://www.gbcwilmington.org/home/18...umExEventu.pdf

Great quote. But, we aren't in the garden anymore. The facts of history can seldom be verified with anything approaching certainty. In the realm of science many biblical assertions have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. In the realm of ethics, there are deeply disturbing elements in the Bible such as the so-called Holiness Code, genocidal commandments, the acceptance of slavery, and the subjugation of women as chattel. Your test of faith involves believing the fantastical. Credulousness or gullibility becomes the great virtue of faith. Yet it was our credulity that led us to follow the great Witness Lee and ignore the evidence that his way was off. The Bible is justified because, flawed instrument that it is, it nevertheless points to God the Be All and End All of everything. That's where I put my faith. I think that's where Jesus put his faith as well. He reinterpreted the scriptures for his age. We are being called by our moment in history to do the same. But nobody else can do it for you, you have to do it for yourself. I don't expect you to take my way nor will I take yours or anyone else's here. This ain't the Local Church either. We all know from experience that way of following the herd doesn't work.

[zeek]

Ohio--The paper is correct about the naturalistic presupposition of Vaticinium ex eventu as a hermeneutic for interpreting prophesy. But, it supports the principle of supernaturalism which flies in the face of empirical evidence. In the end, the author appeals to fear...fear of judgment by an angry unreasonable God who would have us cut off our brains to get into the kingdom. The test is higher for us then it was in Jesus' age because we know more. I already stated my position in the previous post. My God is greater than that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Great quote. But, we aren't in the garden anymore. The facts of history can seldom be verified with anything approaching certainty. In the realm of science many biblical assertions have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. In the realm of ethics, there are deeply disturbing elements in the Bible such as the so-called Holiness Code, genocidal commandments, the acceptance of slavery, and the subjugation of women as chattel. Your test of faith involves believing the fantastical. Credulousness or gullibility becomes the great virtue of faith. Yet it was our credulity that led us to follow the great Witness Lee and ignore the evidence that his way was off. The Bible is justified because, flawed instrument that it is, it nevertheless points to God the Be All and End All of everything. That's where I put my faith. I think that's where Jesus put his faith as well. He reinterpreted the scriptures for his age. We are being called by our moment in history to do the same. But nobody else can do it for you, you have to do it for yourself. I don't expect you to take my way nor will I take yours or anyone else's here. This ain't the Local Church either. We all know from experience that way of following the herd doesn't work.

I entered the LRM only believing in God and His word. I was not saved in the LC's, but rather was dynamically saved in my bedroom one night while all alone reading the Bible. That experience of Christ was so life-changing to me personally that every person I subsequently encountered without exception had to take notice. At the time I would say to others that I kept only two things from my Catholic upbringing and education: Jesus is God, and the Bible is His word.

The following year I went to my first meeting in the church in Cleveland. That experience of Christ was exactly the same within as the night of my initial salvation. That was the reason why I stayed in the LRC. Somewhere along the line, while living in the LC's, I was actively indoctrinated by Lee and his minions, like the rest of all'ya'all, to put some of that faith in Witness Lee and his movement. Well ... the Lee bubble has burst, and I'm somewhat back to where I was when I started: Jesus is God, and the Bible is His word.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Old and worn out response, never matching the facts of history, and similar to the serpent's word in the garden, "Has God really said?"

http://www.gbcwilmington.org/home/18...umExEventu.pdf

The guy is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church in CA. What would you expect? However, he does make a point that I agree with: "...the liberal critic may object to the so-called circular reasoning of appealing to Scriptures as proof for the authority of those same Scriptures." p. 8. Well yeah don't you think so...

You keep bringing up the serpent in the garden. Do you mean the serpent in the garden who apparently spoke the Hebrew language to Eve who also understood the Hebrew language along with Adam and God who also spoke and understood Hebrew? or were they using telepathy. Here is the "answersingenesis.org" response to the language issue in Genesis which supports your cause (pretty powerful stuff--almost as good as the paper you noted)...they have the creation museum advertised which you might want to see as well...although it is in Kty:

"When God created the first human beings—Adam and Eve—He created them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). This likeness unquestionably included the ability to engage in intelligible speech via human language. In fact, God spoke to them from the very beginning of their existence as humans (Genesis 1:28-30). Hence, they possessed the ability to understand verbal communication—and to speak themselves!

God gave very specific instructions to the man before the woman was even created (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam gave names to the animals before the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:19-20). Since both the man and the woman were created on the sixth day, the creation of the man preceded the creation of the woman by only hours. So, Adam had the ability to speak on the very day that he was brought into existence!

That same day, God put Adam to sleep and performed history’s first human surgery. He fashioned the female of the species from a portion of the male’s body. God then presented the woman to the man (no doubt in what we would refer to as the first marriage ceremony). Observe Adam’s response: ‘And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man”’ (Genesis 2:23).

Here is Adam—less than twenty-four hours old—articulating intelligible speech with a well-developed vocabulary and advanced powers of expression. Note also that Eve engaged in intelligent conversation with Satan (Genesis 3:1-5). An unbiased observer is forced to conclude that Adam and Eve were created with oral communication capability. Little wonder, then, that God said to Moses: ‘Who had made man’s mouth? ... Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say’ (Exodus 4:11-12)."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I entered the LRM only believing in God and His word. I was not saved in the LC's, but rather was dynamically saved in my bedroom one night while all alone reading the Bible. That experience of Christ was so life-changing to me personally that every person I subsequently encountered without exception had to take notice. At the time I would say to others that I kept only two things from my Catholic upbringing and education: Jesus is God, and the Bible is His word.

The following year I went to my first meeting in the church in Cleveland. That experience of Christ was exactly the same within as the night of my initial salvation. That was the reason why I stayed in the LRC. Somewhere along the line, while living in the LC's, I was actively indoctrinated by Lee and his minions, like the rest of all'ya'all, to put some of that faith in Witness Lee and his movement. Well ... the Lee bubble has burst, and I'm somewhat back to where I was when I started: Jesus is God, and the Bible is His word.

My Christian history is similar. My parents were Presbyterians who were not especially religious. In 1969 I had converted to evangelicalism and in 1973 got involved with the LC. I participated in the LC for about 13 years. I don't have a dogmatic creedal proposition regarding Jesus and the Bible like you that I feel compelled to believe. Isn't it kind of absurd to suppose that my eternal destiny will be determined by whatever is going through my mind about these issues when I die?

I have an understanding how the title "Son of God" and even "God" can be applied to Jesus. I think he showed us how to be a Son of God. His life expressed the character of a God of love and forgiveness rather than that of a God of wrath and retribution. In that sense Jesus represents God.

The Bible can be a source of wisdom and salvation. But, much is determined by how it is interpreted subjectively in the same way that a poem or a Beatle song can have multiple interpretations. Hence, the vast internecine warfare of Christianity including the debate here on this forum.

Again, I respect your viewpoint and I don't expect you to adopt my view. I would request the same from you and others who disagree with me. I'd like to be able to discuss these matters without each side denigrating the other. That, at least is what I am trying to do. I expect to be called on it if people think I'm attacking them personally. Then maybe we can talk about it and everybody learns. We didn't have an opportunity for open dialogue in the LC. That's why I won't be going back.

I think sometimes you and UntoHim are so emotionally invested in your POV regarding the Bible that you take it as a personal affront when someone thinks about it differently. That's why UntoHim invented Alternative Views, IMO. Yes? No?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't have a dogmatic creedal proposition regarding Jesus and the Bible like you that I feel compelled to believe. Isn't it kind of absurd to suppose that my eternal destiny will be determined by whatever is going through my mind about these issues when I die?

I treasure the Bible as if it were the last will and testament of my long lost Grandfather, a great and noble man, who gave own his life for my freedom, and who wrote all his descendents before he died. This is why I get a little perturbed when my other cousins take pot shots at ole Gramps, and get all hung up about the actual writing of the will, since there are missing commas, undotted I's, and uncrossed T's. These cousins of mine whine about their terrible life, they diss Grandpa's blessed name and his heroic story, and continue to find fault with the will he left us all. Some of my more "brilliant" cousins even refuse to accept that Grandpa even lived, since they have no real "proof" of it, except that they happen to be alive. Duh! I feel insulted at times that they feel this way, and get frustrated when they refuse to accept my endless assurances that Grandpa is real and his testament is legitimate. It's like they are missing out on so much because they refuse to believe that any of it is actually true. I am afraid if Grandpa ever sees these cousins, he will hold them up to the same scrutiny which they placed on his will.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I treasure the Bible as if it were the last will and testament of my long lost Grandfather, a great and noble man, who gave own his life for my freedom, and who wrote all his descendents before he died. This is why I get a little perturbed when my other cousins take pot shots at ole Gramps, and get all hung up about the actual writing of the will, since there are missing commas, undotted I's, and uncrossed T's. These cousins of mine whine about their terrible life, they diss Grandpa's blessed name and his heroic story, and continue to find fault with the will he left us all. Some of my more "brilliant" cousins even refuse to accept that Grandpa even lived, since they have no real "proof" of it, except that they happen to be alive. Duh! I feel insulted at times that they feel this way, and get frustrated when they refuse to accept my endless assurances that Grandpa is real and his testament is legitimate. It's like they are missing out on so much because they refuse to believe that any of it is actually true. I am afraid if Grandpa ever sees these cousins, he will hold them up to the same scrutiny which they placed on his will.

Looks like you have figured out an imaginative way to upset yourself. Your way of looking at the situation also seems to elevate you in the scheme of things to the point that you are an emotional proxy for the Almighty. Your post answers Sheryl Crow's musical question: "If it makes you happy then why are you so sad?" I try to take the emotional sensitivity of folks like you into consideration when I post so that I won't upset you, but, I'm not going to stuff my viewpoint like I did when I was in Lee's Local Church. Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Looks like you have figured out an imaginative way to upset yourself. Your way of looking at the situation also seems to elevate you in the scheme of things to the point that you are an emotional proxy for the Almighty. Your post answers Sheryl Crow's musical question: "If it makes you happy then why are you so sad?" I try to take the emotional sensitivity of folks like you into consideration when I post so that I won't upset you, but, I'm not going to stuff my viewpoint like I did when I was in Lee's Local Church. Sorry.

You're a funny guy, who seems to know nearly nothing about the Lord or His word. Obviously your experiences of God and His word, both before, during, and after the LC are different that my own.

The Bible tells us to rejoice, and also rewards those who mourn. Apparently you never understood what this means, and have concluded that i must be a little crazy or mentally ill, and need to sing Crow's song. Thanks.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You're a funny guy, who seems to know nearly nothing about the Lord or His word. Obviously your experiences of God and His word, both before, during, and after the LC are different that my own.

The Bible tells us to rejoice, and also rewards those who mourn. Apparently you never understood what this means, and have concluded that i must be a little crazy or mentally ill, and need to sing Crow's song. Thanks.

I was just going by what you said which included that the way you see things makes you perturbed, that you feel it is your duty to defend the Almighty God from insults, that you feel personally insulted by what people say about God, that you feel frustrated, and you worry about people's future. Sounds like you have a way of seeing things that makes you unhappy. Now it seems you that you are identifying your perspective with the Bible's whereas I notice people read the Bible, come to various conclusions and then claim that theirs is the right way. Why except for hubris, would we suppose that we are any different from the rest? I didn't say you were crazy or mentally ill. That was a conclusion you jumped to. My guess is it probably upset you again. But, hey, if that's the way you want to go, go for it.

I don't think it is reasonable to judge what I experienced before or during the Local Church 29 years ago by my point of view now, because I have a lot more experience and think differently now. I can only guess why you may have wished to do that which might be the typical evangelical preoccupation with whether or not I am saved. Since you can't possibly know that about yourself, I think it's a waste of time to worry about whether others are.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since you can't possibly know that about yourself, I think it's a waste of time to worry about whether others are.

I don't know if caring about each other is a waste of time.

My bro inlaw asked me why I don't go to church any more. I said, because what's the point in disturbing those good church going people? I don't disturb them because I care about them.

But then again, based upon something Jesus is said to have said in the Gospel of Thomas maybe I should rethink going to church:

2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. 2When they find, they will be disturbed. 3When they are disturbed, they will marvel, 4 and will rule over all."
Thomas (2014-03-01). The Gospel of Thomas: Unabridged (Kindle Locations 7-10). . Kindle Edition.

So disturbing others might not be such a bad thing. Jesus said it's good to be disturbed. It's a result of our seeking. If we don't seek we won't be disturbed. If we do, we will be disturbed. I more with Alanis Morissette than Sheryl Crow:

"I recommend getting your heart trampled on to anyone ...
You live you learn
You love you learn
You cry you learn
You lose you learn
You bleed you learn
You scream you learn ..."

And boy can I tell you that my religious journey, from diapers in the Baptist church, thru the local church, and up to now, has had plenty of disturbances. And yes, as Jesus is said to have said in TGoT I have marveled.

Mostly at my ignorance.

So we have disturbed our bro Ohio. We've touch tender matters close to his heart.

It makes me feel bad. I love bro Ohio. I don't wish to injure his heart. I sincerely apologize for my part in it.

But aren't we here just talking and sharing. It's not possible to apologize for being me?

And besides, bro Ohio has opened up, and provided real reasons for believing and feeling as he does. After all, he found and produced the link to refute my Vaticinium ex eventu. That's the kind of thing we're here for, as far as I'm concerned. I may not agree with pastor Bargas' apologetics but I did appreciate that he was addressing the contention about prophecies in the Bible.

So I say, "Way to go bro Ohio. Thanks for that. It was a good find. Thanks for linking it ... and for contributing." I realize that it's not easy being down here in the Valley of Hinnom.

[awareness]

I couldn't let this one just slide by ....

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Here is where the rubber meets the road, Harold. You're right about people having misplaced faith in the black and white, printed letters of the Bible, and I've shown you where Jesus Christ said basically the same thing. But I'm going to hold your feet to fire again....WHAT GOD? "cheats faith in God"....WHAT GOD? Who is he? Where is he? Does he have a name? Is he a god who is alive? Is he a speaking god or is he a deaf and mute god? Inquiring minds want to know, my man! If you are going to be so bold to proclaim that these poor, poor Fundamentalists and inerrants have misplaced teachings and practices that "cheats faith in God", then surely you can tell us a little something about this G(g)od of yours.

Now aren't you as cute as you possibly can be ... asking me about "this G(g)od of yours." Ya got me rolling on the floor. Like God could be mine. Methinks ye seek to entrap me, like the Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus.

And you the pitchman for the book where God tells Moses "I am that I am" (or "I Will Be What I Will Be.").

Still you're loads of fun bro UntoHim. Thanks for the laughs. Like I can give you a definition of God. Isn't that why we have Jesus? So we can point at God? ... and the Bible, for something we can point to?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know if caring about each other is a waste of time.

How is that relevant to what I stated?

My bro inlaw asked me why I don't go to church any more. I said, because what's the point in disturbing those good church going people? I don't disturb them because I care about them.

I care about people and animals and I work to reduce their suffering. I have been for most of my life. That's why I worked with the disabled and the emotionally disturbed for 37 years. That's why I take care of animals, advocate for animal rights every day and abstain from eating meat.

But then again, based upon something Jesus is said to have said in the Gospel of Thomas maybe I should rethink going to church:

2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. 2When they find, they will be disturbed. 3When they are disturbed, they will marvel, 4 and will rule over all."
Thomas (2014-03-01). The Gospel of Thomas: Unabridged (Kindle Locations 7-10). . Kindle Edition.

So disturbing others might not be such a bad thing. Jesus said it's good to be disturbed. It's a result of our seeking. If we don't seek we won't be disturbed. If we do, we will be disturbed. I more with Alanis Morissette than Sheryl Crow:

"I recommend getting your heart trampled on to anyone ...
You live you learn
You love you learn
You cry you learn
You lose you learn
You bleed you learn
You scream you learn ..."

And boy can I tell you that my religious journey, from diapers in the Baptist church, thru the local church, and up to now, has had plenty of disturbances. And yes, as Jesus is said to have said in TGoT I have marveled.

Mostly at my ignorance.

So we have disturbed our bro Ohio. We've touch tender matters close to his heart.

My goal is not to disturb people but to understand them and help them when I can [empathy and compassion]. Look around, they're plenty disturbed already.

It makes me feel bad. I love bro Ohio. I don't wish to injure his heart. I sincerely apologize for my part in it.

But aren't we here just talking and sharing. It's not possible to apologize for being me?

And besides, bro Ohio has opened up, and provided real reasons for believing and feeling as he does. After all, he found and produced the link to refute my Vaticinium ex eventu. That's the kind of thing we're here for, as far as I'm concerned. I may not agree with pastor Bargas' apologetics but I did appreciate that he was addressing the contention about prophecies in the Bible.

Right, no matter that I refuted his argument.

So I say, "Way to go bro Ohio. Thanks for that. It was a good find. Thanks for linking it ... and for contributing." I realize that it's not easy being down here in the Valley of Hinnom.

Right, it was a valiant attempt. I appreciate it too.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

So I say, "Way to go bro Ohio. Thanks for that. It was a good find. Thanks for linking it ... and for contributing." I realize that it's not easy being down here in the Valley of Hinnom.

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, it was a valiant attempt. I appreciate it too.

Unfortunately I don't think it was a very profound effort at all. He provides a document from a Baptist pastor who has no more credibility than any other Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist etc minister when it comes to a scholarly presentation. Very weak effort at best but then again what would one really expect. I guess I understand since our expectations are not very high so in that vein it was a valiant attempt. One step at a time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Unfortunately I don't think it was a very profound effort at all. He provides a document from a Baptist pastor who has no more credibility than any other Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist etc minister when it comes to a scholarly presentation. Very weak effort at best but then again what would one really expect. I guess I understand since our expectations are not very high so in that vein it was a valiant attempt. One step at a time.

Hey bro Ohio disagreed with Vaticinium ex eventu and gave it shot.

What I found funny was the last line:

"May God save the critic before that day."

He's talking about prophecy, and in the last book of the Bible, filled with prophecy, God has no patience with critics. In fact, He's got bowls of wrath to poor out on all his critics ... unless, of course, before that wrath comes God manages to save the critic.

The whole idea struck my funny bone.

Of course preacher Bargas can't prove or disprove Vaticinium ex eventu. No one can. We can't go back to when the prophecy was written. The proof in the pudding, so to speak, will be the eventual fulfillment prophecy that hasn't happened yet. We'll know that, maybe, in the sweet by and by. I just think we can't figure out prophecy. Every attempt so far has failed.

[OBW]

I decided that putting this in the testimonies portion of the main forum was not a good idea. But this is getting to be a bit irksome.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Please speak for yourself. At least I can read Indiana's informative writings, your's however are more un-new, un-fresh, un-bubbly, and more critical than Lee ever was.

Not half as personally critical as you are of me.

I said generically "we." I wasn't talking to you. Quit whining like it is a personal attack on you. I did not make up the fact that the kinds of things I am talking about are constantly said. I have been underhandedly and without direct reference chipping away at one that Igzy put out there a few weeks ago that he got so incensed about when I pointed to his overly critical attitude toward some Christians that weren't as "joyous" as he thought they ought to be. Seems to me to be a lot like exactly what I said. And he isn't the only one.

But Igzy is a big boy and doesn't need someone to fight for him.

But if it bothers you so badly, maybe, just maybe you should think before you yell. This is not the Kum Bah Yah club for continuing to bash Christianity for a slightly lesser level of sins than Lee taught us . . . and the only way to be allowed to speak is to not upset those who are busy picking on the poor, not-quite mooing Christians. Suggesting that there is anything negative still hanging on us from Lee and his garbage distribution center only gets people upset.

It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It waddles like a duck. But woe to anyone (especially OBW) for pointing out the duck.

But if it is not what everyone else is not already complaining about, don't bring it up. And don't suggest that "we" might still have beams in our own eyes. That will really get up the dander of some. (Of course the come-back for that one is to declare that it is me with the beam and not them or anyone else other than me.)