152 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

Southern Buddhist, on Friday, March 5th, 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

But this is the God who's supposedly unchanging, and you've already said elsewhere (and reiterated here) that it's not possible for new changes now because he's all done. How could you know that? And if God changes his mind repeatedly, then it's really not inaccurate or unfair to call him capricious, unpredictable, and impossible to please.You are in the position of simultaneously claiming that God is unchanging, can change the rules any time he feels like it, and is now done changing.

Not all 'changes' are equal.God had rules that He gave for the wandering tribes of Israel, some of those rules changed for the nation-state Israel, then they changed again for the world after Christ when the old 'rules' were fulfilled and the new 'rule' was instituted.I can do the Bible quote stuff to back all this up, but this is the cliff notes.Saying that rules changed for the nation Israel isn't saying God changed. He doesn't, His nature is unchanging. You get hung up on the thing we have been debating in this thread, making God a big one of you and then assuming you can judge the actions of God. He isn't a big one of you, He is God with the capital G. He can make the rules, and change them as He sees fit, for His purposes, without it meaning He changed. Because we are not talking about Him contradicting Himself, but he is able to have rules to follow that are for our best interest at the time, like the dietary rules of Judaism, that for a tribe in a desert climate are pretty smart, but for the purpose of setting them apart as well. Israel had a purpose, to be the vessel to bring the story of God to the world. That's why they are still around, and why every country that treats the Jews well, prospers to this day. And every nation that hates the Jews, does poorly.Once the Message was out ( After Christ ) the laws for the nation to set them apart are moot, their main purpose is fulfilled, their 'time' is over. Now God also said they would have another 'time' during the end of days, which is why they have existed as a people without a homeland for 1800 years unlike all other nation states in existance ever...

Quote

That's funny, because I read, in their entirety, chapters 11-15, and the verses before and after say nothing like what you claim they do -- although this did pop up: Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.Just another thing that would later be changed, wrong, or ignored.

Christ told them He sent them to give the message to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles in Romans 1:16. So He sent the disciples out to the Jews only, not telling them who He was was for practical reasons of the time, His movements would have been greatly hampered, and His Secret Ambition was th goal, the salvation of all mankind, not the salvation of one small group of people.

Quote

If by "verses after" you actually mean "several chapters away," I suppose you could be right, but certainly not the way you're suggesting, the verses immediately nearby.

Well, seeing as how the story of Christ is complete in the NT, I would say that yes..you can argue that verses 'several chapters away' would be relevant.

Quote

I *never* clip from atheist websites. I use either my own copy of the bible, or the searchable bibles online, because I usually know roughly where to find what I'm looking for. We've already had the discussion about who in this thread has read the bible in its entirety, and the skeptics won that one hands down.

I was taught evolution in school, no one here is arguing that I know evolution.And it is clear that 99% of the things the 'skeptics' think about the Bible are clearly sad attempts as misdirection and groundless hope that they can disprove something above their paygrade.

[Southern Buddhist]

Interesting that you didn't take on the second example, that some alive then would live to see the Second Coming. It's repeated in all three synoptic gospels, reiterated in the letters of Paul, and is unequivically incorrect.[Unless, of course, "generation" doesn't mean what it means, "standing here today" doesn't mean what it means, it's all a metaphor, etc., etc.]

Quote

Christ told them He sent them to give the message to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles in Romans 1:16.

Christ doesn't say that in Romans 1:16 at all. Paul says it, but he clearly isn't quoting Christ (which would be impossible anyway, seeing as Paul never met Jesus in his lifetime). It's plainer than plain that Paul took the job of spreading the message to the Gentiles. He says that's what the Lord told him to do after he was struck blind for three days at Damascus. But we have that on Paul's own authority. And I just love what Paul says in Colossians, warning the church at Colossus not to be defrauded by anyone who "takes his stand on visions he claims he has seen." What is the basis for Paul's entire mission? A vision.

[Balloon guy]

Southern Buddhist, on Saturday, March 6th, 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Interesting that you didn't take on the second example, that some alive then would live to see the Second Coming. It's repeated in all three synoptic gospels, reiterated in the letters of Paul, and is unequivically incorrect.[Unless, of course, "generation" doesn't mean what it means, "standing here today" doesn't mean what it means, it's all a metaphor, etc., etc.]

Christ wasn't talking about the second coming, He was talking about His resurrection, which many did see.Peter wrote about it in 2 Peter 1:16

Quote

2 Peter 1:16 (New International Version) 16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Quote

Christ doesn't say that in Romans 1:16 at all. Paul says it, but he clearly isn't quoting Christ (which would be impossible anyway, seeing as Paul never met Jesus in his lifetime). It's plainer than plain that Paul took the job of spreading the message to the Gentiles. He says that's what the Lord told him to do after he was struck blind for three days at Damascus. But we have that on Paul's own authority. And I just love what Paul says in Colossians, warning the church at Colossus not to be defrauded by anyone who "takes his stand on visions he claims he has seen." What is the basis for Paul's entire mission? A vision.

Got me on the Christ said, because Paul did write Romans, under the direction of God through the Holy Ghost.The 'Paul made Christianity' argument is one I've heard, I don't place much stock in it because it usually does what you are doing, finding a verse that you think on face value proves some point, but the surface interpretation is all you really need to disprove it.It's kind of the anti-Christian arguments, ones where we say you can just believe what the verse says, you don't need to try to make an analogy out of it, except you guys are trying to take the 'this is what it really means' excuse to your own desired location.And Paul did in fact meet Christ, which it clearly says in Acts.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, March 7th, 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Christ wasn't talking about the second coming, He was talking about His resurrection, which many did see.Peter wrote about it in 2 Peter 1:16

I have to admit not being aware of this as a popular belief. Do you identify yourself as a Preterist?Do you personally think the tribulation has already occurred? Has the event Jesus meant by, "The stars of heaven shall fall," already occurred? And if so, what does that mean to you?

'Gospel according to Mark' said:

4: But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,25: And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.26: And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.27: And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.28: Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:29: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.30: Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.31: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.33: Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.34: For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.35: Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:36: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.37: And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

[Southern Buddhist]

Thanks, Base Jester. I was going to say the same thing, but you did it much better. That passage is absolutely not about the resurrection. In Matthew 24 it's even clearer, because the disciples ask "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" and again they are told that their generation will be alive to see it happen.

Quote

And Paul did in fact meet Christ, which it clearly says in Acts.

Paul only "met" a vision of the risen Christ, hence a somewhat metaphorical meeting. I specified "in his lifetime" (althrough I realize now that you probably thought I meant "him" as Paul, when in fact I was using the pronoun about Jesus -- my mistake for not making the pronoun clearer). Paul never met the living Jesus.

[Balloon guy]

Southern Buddhist, on Sunday, March 7th, 2010, 5:28 PM, said:

Thanks, Base Jester. I was going to say the same thing, but you did it much better. That passage is absolutely not about the resurrection. In Matthew 24 it's even clearer, because the disciples ask "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" and again they are told that their generation will be alive to see it happen.

The disciples asked "What will be the sign of your coming?"Christ begins to explain what those signs are, and He says the people who see those signs will be the generation hat will not pass away, not the ones who are listening to Him that day.

Quote

Paul only "met" a vision of the risen Christ, hence a somewhat metaphorical meeting. I specified "in his lifetime" (althrough I realize now that you probably thought I meant "him" as Paul, when in fact I was using the pronoun about Jesus -- my mistake for not making the pronoun clearer). Paul never met the living Jesus.

Most believe that Christ did appear to Paul, The resurrected Christ, not a vision of the resurrected Christ. Which is why I said he (Paul) did meet Christ.Although we can explore the idea you are promoting that it was only a vision.So here is Paul, a hyper religious Jew, so hyper religious that he is given the job to kill Christians for heresy, and this hyper religious Jewish man, within 3 years is rebuking Peter for refusing to eat pork.The idea that Paul had a falafel induced vision that made him completely change his world view into the very belief system he hated, and held onto to these beliefs even while being imprisoned and tortured for his beliefs is a bigger mystery than whether or not Christ could appear to Paul in real life or not.

[Balloon guy]

BaseJester, on Sunday, March 7th, 2010, 2:53 PM, said:

I have to admit not being aware of this as a popular belief. Do you identify yourself as a Preterist?Do you personally think the tribulation has already occurred? Has the event Jesus meant by, "The stars of heaven shall fall," already occurred? And if so, what does that mean to you?

No I am a mid trib believer.If you do want to see the preterist view read Matthews Bible handbook. Interesting, but I don't hold to that.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Friday, March 5th, 2010, 7:59 AM, said:

Yes, while Israel was a wandering tribe they were given rules, and after they became a functioning city they were given new rules, some of these new ones superseded the old ones. One of these was the the rule that a man's sin would be visited on his children, then God changed it to say that no longer would a man bite a sour grape and his children's teeth be put on edge, meaning the sins of the father would not go forward to the sons.God also gave Israel rules that changed after Christ, because it was no longer necessary for sin to be dealt with through the priest, now a man could ask forgiveness directly from God.If you feel this is God being contradictory then you are reaching for any excuse. Things change, and God can change rules for the changing circumstances obviously.

I could have read that a million times and nver come up with that meaning.

[Southern Buddhist]

Balloon guy, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

The disciples asked "What will be the sign of your coming?"Christ begins to explain what those signs are, and He says the people who see those signs will be the generation hat will not pass away, not the ones who are listening to Him that day.

No, he really doesn't.

Quote

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

You're choosing to read this metaphorically. As a believer, you have to read it metaphorically, in order to keep it from being wrong. But there's no metaphor there. [That's also Base Jester's point. Unless you believe that all these things have already occurred, in the lifetime of that generation, then the statement is wrong.] You're saying that what the bolded lines mean is "the generation that sees these things shall be deathless." But that's not what it says. In fact, it says exactly the opposite -- "this generation will not die until all these things happen."

Quote

Most believe that Christ did appear to Paul, The resurrected Christ, not a vision of the resurrected Christ. Which is why I said he (Paul) did meet Christ.Although we can explore the idea you are promoting that it was only a vision.

Well, again, believers believe. But Paul himself called it a vision. Here are the passages, Acts 9 followed by Acts 22:

Quote

3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Quote

6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Contradiction alert in bold.Here's what Paul calls it in Acts 26:

Quote

13At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. 19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision

Paul never claims to have seen anyone, but only to have heard a voice, and he also calls it a vision. So I don't think I'm too far off in calling it a vision myself. You want to argue it's not a vision, take it up with Paul.[P.S. By habit I use the KJV translation, but just to be sure I checked other English-language translations. Darby, Wycliffe, Young's Literal, and all contemporary-English translations also use the word "vision" in Acts 26:19.]

[Southern Buddhist]

Balloon guy, on Friday, March 5th, 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Not really; mankind needs a Savior, Christ forgives.The rest is just stuff

Y'know, as much as I debate here, I am sympathetic to this viewpoint. I'm not like Crow, saying it's all bullshit and the world would be better off if everyone stopped believing it. Although I'm not a believer, I've been deeply engaged for years now with the history of Christianity, the history of the bible, the words of the bible itself, and the backgrounds of how all the different schools of interpretation came to exist. I admire liberal Christians like MLK, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and many others -- even DN. Not because they are also politically liberal, but because their interpretation of Christianity is this: we were given a model of pure love, and commanded to be like that. Help me, God, to be like that more and more every day. Period. Yes, the bible could very well have incorrect things in it. Yes, God seems like a real jerk sometimes in the OT. No, we may not have the form of the bible that the people nearest in time to Christ would have recognized. Yes, we may even believe things they would never believe, and vice versa. But none of that matters. We are commanded to live as a model of love, and that is all that matters.That's an interpretation of real beauty and simplicity, and one that would absolutely make the world a better place if honestly and humbly practiced.But what that is NOT is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a profound altering of the historical understanding of the bible, in a direction that the actual reading does not support, to achieve a political agenda that is inimical to many teachings of the bible. [Obviously, I know you'll disagree with that, BG, but that's a difference of opinion we'll just have to let lie for now.]I'm not trying to get anyone to lose their faith. I'm trying to get them to let go of a narrow modern misinterpretation in favor of something far vaster and lovelier.

[Balloon guy]

Southern Buddhist, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

No, he really doesn't.You're choosing to read this metaphorically. As a believer, you have to read it metaphorically, in order to keep it from being wrong. But there's no metaphor there. [That's also Base Jester's point. Unless you believe that all these things have already occurred, in the lifetime of that generation, then the statement is wrong.] You're saying that what the bolded lines mean is "the generation that sees these things shall be deathless." But that's not what it says. In fact, it says exactly the opposite -- "this generation will not die until all these things happen."

You don't think that pointing to a fig tree fruit maturing to be an indication of when the fruit will be ready in the verse before is the clear indicator that the next verse when He says likewise...when you see these things, then you know the end is near?Seems really obvious to me.You are trying to support an interpretation that I think is a stretch.

Quote

Well, again, believers believe. But Paul himself called it a vision. Here are the passages, Acts 9 followed by Acts 22:Contradiction alert in bold.Here's what Paul calls it in Acts 26:Paul never claims to have seen anyone, but only to have heard a voice, and he also calls it a vision. So I don't think I'm too far off in calling it a vision myself. You want to argue it's not a vision, take it up with Paul.[P.S. By habit I use the KJV translation, but just to be sure I checked other English-language translations. Darby, Wycliffe, Young's Literal, and all contemporary-English translations also use the word "vision" in Acts 26:19.]

The question is what do you think this vision means?A thought that came from Paul? A picture in his head from God? Or a meeting of a metaphysical Being beyond the scope of our ability to describe in a manner that does it justice?In other words, where was the source of Paul's 'vision'? Was it an outside source communicating to Paul? Or was it an internal result of chemicals and emotions coming together and causing Paul to think he saw Christ?If it was an outside source, what is the difference between meeting Christ in your 'vision' which could be described as a personal meeting...or meeting Christ in physical form so that someone else could see the two of you talking?

[Balloon guy]

Southern Buddhist, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Y'know, as much as I debate here, I am sympathetic to this viewpoint. I'm not like Crow, saying it's all bullshit and the world would be better off if everyone stopped believing it. Although I'm not a believer, I've been deeply engaged for years now with the history of Christianity, the history of the bible, the words of the bible itself, and the backgrounds of how all the different schools of interpretation came to exist. I admire liberal Christians like MLK, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and many others -- even DN. Not because they are also politically liberal, but because their interpretation of Christianity is this: we were given a model of pure love, and commanded to be like that. Help me, God, to be like that more and more every day. Period. Yes, the bible could very well have incorrect things in it. Yes, God seems like a real jerk sometimes in the OT. No, we may not have the form of the bible that the people nearest in time to Christ would have recognized. Yes, we may even believe things they would never believe, and vice versa. But none of that matters. We are commanded to live as a model of love, and that is all that matters.That's an interpretation of real beauty and simplicity, and one that would absolutely make the world a better place if honestly and humbly practiced.But what that is NOT is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a profound altering of the historical understanding of the bible, in a direction that the actual reading does not support, to achieve a political agenda that is inimical to many teachings of the bible. [Obviously, I know you'll disagree with that, BG, but that's a difference of opinion we'll just have to let lie for now.]I'm not trying to get anyone to lose their faith. I'm trying to get them to let go of a narrow modern misinterpretation in favor of something far vaster and lovelier.

Lovelier in your opinion.Christ also said He was the only way to heaven, and that He would cause wars between mothers and children, brothers etc.You can't just pick the new age-y feel good passages.You are trying to take the teachings of Christ and reduce them down to a way to make this world a practical substitute for heaven.It is not, and it will not work as such. Emasculating the teachings of Christ will not make the world a better place. Because that was never it's purpose.It is a message that the world is dying but there is a way to escape it, not a way to restore it.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 2:08 PM, said:

Lovelier in your opinion.Christ also said He was the only way to heaven, and that He would cause wars between mothers and children, brothers etc.You can't just pick the new age-y feel good passages.You are trying to take the teachings of Christ and reduce them down to a way to make this world a practical substitute for heaven.It is not, and it will not work as such. Emasculating the teachings of Christ will not make the world a better place. Because that was never it's purpose.It is a message that the world is dying but there is a way to escape it, not a way to restore it.

Yeah, SB, quit trying to help people lead a more meaningful and moral life, that's not what it's about! If you go trying to make sense of the bible you'll ruin it for all the rest. People just want to have their own interpretaion. I know I just sold an 06 BMW 750li to a preacher who'd be pretty pissed off at your interpretation. I mean the next thing you know you'll have the church spending $28K on helping people or even worse, a friggin' Honda! C'mon!And what would these people have to do?http://news.yahoo.co...igeria_violenceI guess the Christians were too busy forgiving everyone 77 times as they were slashed with machetes. Oh well. The world is dying anyway and they get to go to heaven as long as they remembered to ask forgiveness before they got hacked.

[Southern Buddhist]

So the job of fundamentalists is to make the world nastier, more hateful, more divided, and altogether worse? I can see that. Kudos on a job well done. I guess.Well, we unbelievers still got the intelligence thing going for us, which is nice.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 4:08 PM, said:

You can't just pick the new age-y feel good passages.

Can't you imagine Jews and Muslims saying the same thing to Christians?

[JoeyJoJo]

Southern Buddhist, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 3:12 PM, said:

So the job of fundamentalists is to make the world nastier, more hateful, more divided, and altogether worse? I can see that. Kudos on a job well done. I guess.Well, we unbelievers still got the intelligence thing going for us, which is nice.

If you were trying to quit smoking and were craving a cigarette and I went up to you and said, "Why don't you just suck on my **** instead?" and then you said, "Wow, it's so great that this will help me quit smoking!" and I said, "Well, no, this won't help you quit smoking, but it does have other benefits," would you then say, "You're telling me that sucking your **** is going to make me want to smoke cigarettes even more?" in which case the answer might still be "yes," but that's only because I forgot where I was going with this.Oh yeah, just because the point of something isn't "A" does not mean that its point is the opposite of "A."

[SuitedAces21]

on one hand i feel sorry for baloon guy. so brain washed he actually believes the nonsene he spouts. on the other hand, i envy him, his world makes sense. and he's probably happier than i am.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

No I am a mid trib believer.

There's a visual aid in Wikipedia's Rapture article that really good about tribulation ideas, but pretty much makes me want to give up on figuring out what everybody believes.I thought this was pretty comic as well:

'wikipedia' said:

The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. Preterists disagree significantly about the exact meaning of the terms used to denote these divisions of Preterist thought.

Cast off the shoes!

[Balloon guy]

BaseJester, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 3:50 PM, said:

There's a visual aid in Wikipedia's Rapture article that really good about tribulation ideas, but pretty much makes me want to give up on figuring out what everybody believes.I thought this was pretty comic as well:Cast off the shoes!

I never heard the term preterist until SB brought it up.

[Balloon guy]

Southern Buddhist, on Monday, March 8th, 2010, 3:12 PM, said:

So the job of fundamentalists is to make the world nastier, more hateful, more divided, and altogether worse? I can see that. Kudos on a job well done. I guess.Well, we unbelievers still got the intelligence thing going for us, which is nice.

If you are able to draw this conclusion from what I wrote, than it really doesn't matter what you read, you are going to come up with the answer you want to have before you even asked the question.