Quote:

---

Interesting Jim Jones followers (in Guiana) are not around any more. Interesting that we don't hear much from Heaven's Gate anymore? But yet even after 2000 years those pesky Christians just won't shut up. They won't stop teaching and proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah. why is that?

---

Same argument goes for joseph smith, muhammed or buddah. Some religions catch on others don't, but I don't see how it helps you much.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Quote:

---

Interesting Jim Jones followers (in Guiana) are not around any more. Interesting that we don't hear much from Heaven's Gate anymore? But yet even after 2000 years those pesky Christians just won't shut up. They won't stop teaching and proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah. why is that?

---

Same argument goes for joseph smith, muhammed or buddah. Some religions catch on others don't, but I don't see how it helps you much.

---

It is a quality filter. It is a piece of evidence. It was a comment made nearly 2,000 years ago. The Jewish leader, was not a supporter of the Christian faith, he showed how other religious groups don't last. Kill the leader and it falls away. But if it is from God it will last. And today the Catholic church (Christian faith) is the oldest organization in the world.

So by asking this one question, we can eliminate 3,000 religions. The apostles dying for their faith is another evidence, St. Paul writing that Jesus was God, rose from the dead in 50ADs is another piece of evidence.

You are correct, this piece of evidence does not eliminate all other religions, some make the cut.

It is called the case for Christ- you present multiple pieces of evidence.It is a process of answering lots of questions. Just like Thomas Aquinas summa theologica summary "5 ways" does not take you directly to Jesus. It just shows you logic of knowing there is a God (the first step).

Aggrad,

Hope you are doing well. When are you going to get back to your Christian roots?

Also I read good book on the historical evidence of apostles. Will post it later.

Yet there are many more pieces of evidence that badly damage the Christian position. The Lord lunatic liar trilemma is bad reasoning on Lewis's part. It's not all or nothing. Some of the gospel story is likely true, like Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by pilot. Some is clearly lies/lunacy, like claiming to come back in the lifetime of his followers. Others are highly consistent with legends, like the Virgin birth narratives or the post crucification narratives.

Quote:

---

Yet there are many more pieces of evidence that badly damage the Christian position. The Lord lunatic liar trilemma is bad reasoning on Lewis's part. It's not all or nothing. Some of the gospel story is likely true, like Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by pilot. Some is clearly lies/lunacy, like claiming to come back in the lifetime of his followers. Others are highly consistent with legends, like the Virgin birth narratives or the post crucification narratives.

---

Lewis comments (Lord, Liar, Lunatic) does not pertaining to every bible verse in the NT. His comments were specifically about Jesus being God and rising from the dead. It is directed at the false narrative that Jesus was a nice guy/ prophet, Buddha type who was later turned into a God myth. That option is not on the table when you read the NT. Also not on the table with Paul's early time date comments. From the beginning it was taught. So Jesus was either God or a fraud, there is no middle ground.

Jesus coming back during life time in the synoptics is about many things. It is primarily about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which happened. It is also referencing OT quotes and symbolism, and Jesus does come back- see stoning of St. Stephen in book of Acts 7 55-56. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

I think your hang up, is you fail to recognize God exists. The minute you know God exists and there is life after death, then NT and Jesus makes sense. Until then you will limit how you can see Jesus (you will ignore the St. Stephen account).

Step 1- Understand God exists, Step -2 God calls you to love. Step 3- Trying to love in a very difficult and broken world (this is where religions including Christians break down at certain times).

The Use of Amanuenses Account for Stylistic Differences

Quote:

---

You were also including other claims which needed unpacking, hence my counter. It shows the development of the gospels. The other synoptics are not unique or corroborating works. They are corrections-improvements, direct plagiarisms of the original with new more fantastic tales added. With these other improvements in hand marks gospel appears deficient.

That's because the entire gospel of mark is repeated nearly word for word in matthew and luke. It's the true source document. Removing the source is something you can only do because it was copied.

---

When is the last time you read all four gospels for yourself?

Quote:

---

Timothy wasn't written by paul:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

---

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy][/url]
According to...

The author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather to an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#cite_note-1][1][/url] Most scholars now affirm this view.

Guess who's name shows up when clicking on the 1 by "most scholars"? It's Bart Ehrman, the most liberal scholar to date.

Again, what are the reasons for the case that it was written by Paul vs the evidence against?

1,800 years after the fact "modern liberal scholars" make weird claims because of a small observation while dismissing all of the evidence against.

Evidence for:
Paul's name is on the book.
The historical use of The Use of Amanuenses Account for Stylistic Differences
The early church unanimously accepted all thirteen letters as authentic.
Evidence for Deacons and Elders in Undisputed Letters - The content of 1st Tim is in practice to this day.
The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters.
Simply put, individuals closest in proximity to the writing of a document can know with more certainty who actually authored the document than those two-thousand years removed.

Quote:

---

In fact it would be utterly bizarre for paul who loved to quote scripture, to have been familiar with the synoptic and never mention their existence or quote from them outside of this supposed passing quote.

---

Would an email to your spouse look different than an email to your kids, coworkers, group of friends?

Given the audience, letter to Tim vs an entire church, given the content of the message, was there a need to quote scripture?

Quote:

---

They you'd be throwing out most scholars.

---

If the best evidence indicates that we should, why not? When Wikipedia claims, "most scholars 'and quotes Bart, red flags should go up.

To add to your comments:

1) We know St. Paul at times used scribes, this can explain different words, style being used. Paul also wrote letters over decades of time frame. I know my style has changed over the last 10-15 years, since everyone now sends text messages.

2) We know from Paul's other epistles and the book of ACTS all the touch points and interactions that Paul had with Timothy. It is very logical Paul would be writing words of encouragement to Timothy his protege.

3) St. Paul wrote a lot. St. Paul was often in prison, he had time to write. I find it funny Paul is asking for his cloak and writing material for his time in prision. 2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.

4) And I think Bart Erhman is a very smart hack. He sets up his lies, or spin, with lots of truth. He will state many hard facts and then add his spin/lie as fact. He will knowingly with hold information that hurts his arguments.

He is like watching only half of those 48 hour episodes where they show you half of the story and you think the person is guilty and then the 2nd half of show you the other side of the story and the person no longer looks so guilty. Bart is sharp, he is also a good passionate speaker with BS.

Quote:

---

I think your hang up, is you fail to recognize God exists. The minute you know God exists and there is life after death, then NT and Jesus makes sense. Until then you will limit how you can see Jesus (you will ignore the St. Stephen account).

Step 1- Understand God exists, Step -2 God calls you to love. Step 3- Trying to love in a very difficult and broken world (this is where religions including Christians break down at certain times).

---

I think there is a higher power. I can even go so far as thinking it is evident we are called to love. However, to then think that makes the Bible the truth just because it has a long history of being followed does not register. Especially when the book itself is very contradictory on the idea of love. God is not love if there is a hell. God is more hate than he is love if there is a hell.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

I think there is a higher power. I can even go so far as thinking it is evident we are called to love. However, to then think that makes the Bible the truth just because it has a long history of being followed does not register. Especially when the book itself is very contradictory on the idea of love. God is not love if there is a hell. God is more hate than he is love if there is a hell.

---

---

I think you need to approach the bible with baby steps. You don't simply say there is a God and thus everything in the bible is true. The very first verse of the bible. Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth.

• Comment: If there is no God no need to read any further. You fortunately recognize there is a God so you should keep reading that shows how God through generations reveals himself.
• As you know the bible is a library of books (73) with different styles from various authors. Look for the message.
• Right away in Creation story we see absolute truths in the message: There is a God, he made everything, if we are selfish- ME, ME, ME we get thrown out of paradise. If we ignore basic God laws there are consequences.
• It is a fact of life- there are consequences for how we act (this is a fact- not debatable, we see this play out, everyday as we live). And Hell is no different. Hell are the consequences/choices of our eternal soul.

2) I think we get so bent out of Hell for the following reasons:

• Most important it is very very bad and severe consequences. Hell scares us, as it is intended to do.
• We at times think the world/universe or God owes us something. We fall into the basic human trap- ME, ME, ME, the world is about ME! Example -see Adam and Eve.
• In the grand scheme of things we are nothing, we are nobodys. And yet the master of the universe - God wants to be in relationship with us for us to experience Love at the highest form. Our worth and value come from him.
• Free will, God lets us choose his love, we are given countless opportunities to accept it. If we reject it God moves on. In the end the world is not about Us, but rather Him.
• See the wedding party parables in the gospel, God has invited us, all we have to do is say yes. If we say no, the wedding party goes on without us. Tell me why do you deserve to go to another party, when you reject the wedding party? Why should God who created everything in the universe care?

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

God is not love if there is a hell. God is more hate than he is love if there is a hell.

---

Not necessarily.

What if hell isn't someplace that God "sends" you, but is your inevitable condition or destination if you reject the protection of Christ's blood? It's more that God is warning us, rather than threatening us.

The Bible's teachings on hell are sparse, to say the least. I wonder if hell is simply being unable to enter God's presence so long as one is stained with sin. Christ's blood covers that sin, allowing us to enter God's presence. Hell may be (and I readily admit I'm speculating) the state of wanting to enter God's presence but being unable to do so because of our own flawed condition.

---

That is a very C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce way of looking at it, and it was convincing for me for awhile. But when you really look at that logically, it would still mean that God created us knowing that that would be the result if we didn't accept Jesus and that most of us would not accept Jesus.

That would mean god knowingly put most of humanity into a losing position of being doomed to eternal misery by choosing to create humanity knowing what the end result would be. Then the choicemaker goes from individual humans choosing hell to god choosing hell for most people.

You are portraying god as the ME ME ME in this scenario. We are just playthings that go on to eternal misery because it makes an evil god feel good, in that case.

A key wildcard on Hell. Is God is very forgiving and merciful. I believe God loves us so much he sets the bar very very low, he gives us countless opportunities to be with him. We must only humble ourselves and admit we are not God and we need help. See Thief on cross

And Pride (ME, ME, ME) is what trips many of us up. We do not want to give way to God. we want to be our own god and calling the shots. See Adam and Eve which is such an awesome start to the bible. I used to think it was a silly story. Now see so many layers to it.

That is what is so great about Jesus. We see God in the flesh humble himself. He literally dies for us to show us how to do it, how to Love. Being the servant.

There is no amount of good that can overcome the horribleness of hell, if it is eternal and if it is bad.

I can't say I'm a great person because I take in orphaned kids with nothing and let them live in a great big house with all the amenities they need and with access to good schools and college funds and all the love they could ever want, yet if they did not thank me on the day they turn 18 I would slowly tear off all their skin until they die down in my basement. I can even say "but I give them lots of fair warning. I make sure they know, all they have to do is thank me on their 18th birthday for all I have done and they get to enjoy life with fully funded college and a loving parent. So it would be foolish for them to not do it." If the fact remains, however, that I will indeed skin them alive if they do not do it, I am an evil person. No amount of good I do can overcome that.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

You are portraying god as the ME ME ME in this scenario. We are just playthings that go on to eternal misery because it makes an evil god feel good, in that case.

---

would say you are looking at this by 180 degrees out of whack.

Tell me why should you go to another party? Why do you deserve to go to another party? If God invites you 20 times to a wedding feast and you say no? Why should you 79 get upset you are not having a good time. There are just (2) options- wedding party or nothing?

This is like a meth addict taking meth after folks warn him not to do it and he is upset with the bad choice he has made. At some point you have to put on your big boy pants and realize you choose, how we live our life has consequences.

Back to Adam and Eve, I always smile when I read how Adam tries to blame God for his bad actions. Not my fault God, it was the Woman that you gave me. Adam shows our typical human behavior, blame others.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

That is a very C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce way of looking at it, and it was convincing for me for awhile. But when you really look at that logically, it would still mean that God created us knowing that that would be the result if we didn't accept Jesus and that most of us would not accept Jesus.

---

---

That would mean god knowingly put most of humanity into a losing position of being doomed to eternal misery by choosing to create humanity knowing what the end result would be. Then the choicemaker goes from individual humans choosing hell to god choosing hell for most people.

---

79,

There is no conflict between God knowing and our choices, actions/ free will. Quick question- who won the game last week- the Aggies or Miss St?

Answer- Miss State won the game. Did you 79 impact the outcome of the game answer nope. It is the same thing with God. God can have knowledge and still let the players play the game.

Also Catholic teaching- God gives everyone sufficient grace to be saved. So in the end, it is not his fault but ours.

Quote:

---

There are just (2) options- wedding party or nothing?

---

If hell is nothing (i.e. annihilation) then it's not good or bad. It's just nothing.

There isn't really much of an issue in that case.

If the bible was just god inviting us to his party, then shouldn't it be much more of a "hey, you are welcome to come if you want, but if you don't that's fine, enjoy your life because that's all you get."

Quote:

---

There is no conflict between God knowing and our choices, actions/ free will. Quick question- who won the game last week- the Aggies or Miss St?

Answer- Miss State won the game. Did you 79 impact the outcome of the game answer nope. It is the same thing with God. God can have knowledge and still let the players play the game.

---

This is not an accurate analogy. God of the Bible is not just some bystander. He is the creator of all things.

So this would be like if the NCAA knew that if it had A&M and Miss St play at that date and time, then Miss St would win, and it still chose to have the game played at that date and time. It ultimately was the deciding factor.

79,

one more, I enjoy Jesus parable of the talents (money) - look how the person who did nothing tries and spin it like he is the victim. When it is not so.

Matt 25 14-15 It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one - to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately

As you know he congratulates the (2) first servants who were wise with the gifts (money) given to them and complements them, gives them more responsibility and says the verse "Come, share your master's joy.'" . Now here is the 3rd servant who buried his gift in the ground. Let it go to waste. (I like how he turns it around on the master (God), it is his fault. Something I never really picked up on before.

Matt. 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.' His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? Question Mark........... (and the ending).. For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

Commentary the wicked servant tried to justify hiding the money rather than using it, he claimed that his master was "a hard man"- demanding person, who was so unreasonable as to reap where he did not sow. However the facts are that the master had sown five talents thousand, two thousand, and one thousand silver pieces. he was not expecting something from nothing but something more from what he had sown. Moreover, the master complimented his two profitable servants. He promoted them and invited them to share his joy (Mt 25:21-23). He didn't seem to be "a hard man" to those who did their jobs.

When we serve the Lord badly, we are often projecting our own warped self-image onto God. When we see and love the Lord as He truly is, we will serve Him as He deserves to be served. Love God; serve God.

Let me copy and paste an old post of mine:


If an angel, who you knew for a fact was an angel came up to you one night and told you, before you were going to make love with your wife, that if you had unprotected sex that night, you and your wife would conceive a child that would be very troubled, that he would grow to hate life, you and your wife, all people.. he would hate everything and be nothing but a miserable person his entire life, and he would never be able to be helped out of his misery... that no matter what you did, what you changed about your approach to raising him, he would always be this way.... that he would die hating everything including God...

If this happened, would you continue to proceed with conceiving that child?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

This is not an accurate analogy. God of the Bible is not just some bystander. He is the creator of all things.

So this would be like if the NCAA knew that if it had A&M and Miss St play at that date and time, then Miss St would win, and it still chose to have the game played at that date and time. It ultimately was the deciding factor.

---

Not following your logic, on deciding factor. but Instead of going round and round. I think we can agree, if God let us decide our fate, we are ok with this. If God gives us no choice and we are bound for Hell no matter what we do, this is bad.

Bible supports God wants all souls saved, this is also the teaching of the church. 1 Timothy 2: 4-5 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Let me copy and paste an old post of mine:


If an angel, who you knew for a fact was an angel came up to you one night and told you, before you were going to make love with your wife, that if you had unprotected sex that night, you and your wife would conceive a child that would be very troubled, that he would grow to hate life, you and your wife, all people.. he would hate everything and be nothing but a miserable person his entire life, and he would never be able to be helped out of his misery... that no matter what you did, what you changed about your approach to raising him, he would always be this way.... that he would die hating everything including God...

If this happened, would you continue to proceed with conceiving that child?

---

I don't know. maybe so? I would pray and think about it.

Sounds similar to some parents who raise difficult autistic children who can be challenging, never smile. Parents still love them as best they can. Doctors tell them to abort (kill their children) and the parents still respect life and have them.

Here is where I got off the train after 26 or so years. All these mental gymnastics to try to understand how I can still find the Bible to be 100% true and God's word:

"Maybe he meant this. Maybe this verse meant that. Maybe this is what is really happening and we just don't comprehend it..."

I finally allowed myself to truly ask myself "what if the bible really was just a story of fiction with a lot of historical things thrown in?" What if, like I believe every other faith doctrine to be, the Bible is just a really well written guide for morality that really resonated with those who follow it and created enough good outcomes in their lives that they decided it was all true?"

If I allowed myself to ask that question, then suddenly all the questions that made no sense, the questions of outright contradictions that were evident all go away. It makes perfect sense when you look at the literature as storytelling and very intelligent ways of constructing a convincing morality for people to follow.

A true god that is love that creates a hell for all sinners who do not repent and accept his morality makes far less sense than a made up god that is used to scare people into being moral even when others aren't watching or won't know.

I don't think an answer that came from a true place of love could ever say "yes, I would still create that child".



You cannot compare it to mentally disabled children as they can still enjoy life and have a net positive gain from it.

What god wants becomes evident in the fact that he created humanity knowing the majority of it would go to hell.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

There are just (2) options- wedding party or nothing?

---

If hell is nothing (i.e. annihilation) then it's not good or bad. It's just nothing.

There isn't really much of an issue in that case.

If the bible was just god inviting us to his party, then shouldn't it be much more of a "hey, you are welcome to come if you want, but if you don't that's fine, enjoy your life because that's all you get."

---

That is it, there is no more life. Their is only your soul and God. what is the other option?

So why should you 79 get another option?

I think we are so ingrained with thinking of ourselves, that if we honestly look at it. Compared to God we are nothing, it is amazing that God even thinks of us and when we decline the invitation, the universe keeps spinning and God says O well sucks for 79 and Booboo that they did not accept the invite and he keeps creating the universe and the party goes on with out us.

If you are an annihilationist, I don't have much of an argument with you on those grounds.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I don't think an answer that came from a true place of love could ever say "yes, I would still create that child".



You cannot compare it to mentally disabled children as they can still enjoy life and have a net positive gain from it.

---

So God should have it set up that we are all robots and love him. God should stack the deck, where everyone gets a trophy and everyone gets an A. Where he puts a governor on our engines and limit what we can do, he stops us from runnin so we don't skin our knee. And while we are at it. There is no pain, sufffering and death.

Nah, I think God has it right. God gives us freedom to soar and go as fast as we can or to crash. He allows us to Love as deep as the ocean and also to cause great harm in sin. God is like a parent that takes great joy when we participate, even though we burn the toast and eggs when serve breakfast to our parents in bed.

In the end God will work around what we do, and make lemonaid out of our lemons.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

If you are an annihilationist, I don't have much of an argument with you on those grounds.

---

Why do you deserve anything?

When you look up at the stars and universe we realize how small and insignifcant we really are. This is because it is the truth. In the grand scheme of things, it is only God that brings value to our life, make us special.

I mention this to show how everything we have is a gift from God. God calls the shots, not us. He is God, not us. The universe revolves around him, not us. I think in our world today, easy to think the world revolves around us.

79,

Another tangent point, listening to Dan Carlin Hardcore history- topic on fall of Roman Republic and you see Senators, Roman Counsels get captured by barbarian tribes and the barbarians do not care about these men lofty status (the huge ego and wealth) these men have. They simply cut their heads off and thow it in the ditch and continue on.

Now see what Jesus God says with the fig tree. If it does not produce fruit- cut it down and into the fire.

Repent and change your ways. Come to the wedding party!

Quote:

---

I'm not sure it's mental gymnastics. Don't we have to do the same type of thing, what you call gymnastics, to cope with and understand the people around us?

---

Understanding the people around me isn't the difference in going to Heaven or Hell.

Quote:

---

Aren't you also requiring God to provide his message in the format you demand? Have you ever wondered if he did, would you even accept it then?

---

That's pretty callous of god if he is going to allow people to go on to eternal misery, because they weren't able to grasp the Bible in a way that was convincing.

Quote:

---

And you keep referring to God "creating hell". I'm not sure that's correct and it's sure not Biblical.

---

Mathew 25:41 would beg to differ.

Quote:

---

Finally, most of the alleged inconsistencies in the Bible can be relatively easily resolved. And, once those are, it's natural to accept the Bible's trustworthiness and give it the benefit of the doubt for those few remaining inconsistencies that can't be resolved (at least not now).

---

In my experience it went the other way. Once I admitted that some inconsistencies and contradictions were not resolvable, more came to the surface.

Quote:

---

Why do you deserve anything?

---

Exactly. Why does the majority of humanity deserve eternal hell for doing what they were born to do?

But, again, if you are an annihilationist and believe the non believers are burnt up into non existence never to experience anything again, then we don't have an argument. Be happy for the life you had on earth and don't expect anything more. If you don't like your life on earth, then end it and go on to nothingness. Nothing wrong there.

Quote:

---

Another tangent point, listening to Dan Carlin Hardcore history- topic on fall of Roman Republic and you see Senators, Roman Counsels get captured by barbarian tribes and the barbarians do not care about these men lofty status (the huge ego and wealth) these men have. They simply cut their heads off and thow it in the ditch and continue on.

Now see what Jesus God says with the fig tree. If it does not produce fruit- cut it down and into the fire.

---

The fig tree will burn up into ashes and no longer exist. No big deal. If god burns me up for not bearing fruit, so that I no longer exist, I would have no qualms. If god made me experience burning for all eternity with no hope of rest for bearing no fruit, well then he would be hateful and spiteful. Even if instead of burning, I was just left alone to eternal darkness and misery, that's not really much difference when it is for eternity.