The Bible

Maybe C.S. Lewis is a fellow "chap" that could help you with his book "Mere Christianity".

 

a lovely metaphor...thanks

 

Sartre was pretty clear, as to his beliefs, and expressed them with rational conviction.

He saw the clear correlation between 'no God', 'no meaning', and 'no absolute morality.' I find that atheists who pretend to have 'good morals!' and 'meaning!' to be in a logical conflict.. an oxymoron. There can be none of these things, without Something or Someone to infuse them into humanity. The supposition that there is morality, meaning, and purpose, in a meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe is absurd.

I do not believe atheists to be immoral or without meaning in their existence, just that they have no basis to claim such things. The fact that many atheists indignantly insist that they are moral and purposeful in their lives just belies what they say they believe, nothing more.

Further examination of this concept should take place in another thread, so this one can stay topical. But infused morality is a biblical topic, and can be referenced, if there is interest.

 

When Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you", did he mean that we have to look outside for truth? The message of Christianity, if anything, is that 'salvation' is an individual matter, that each person is responsible for him/her self, that others can't do it for you, forgive you, intercede for you. Each individual is responsible for his/her self.
Of course, society surely doesn't want such a state of things, so Christianity has been watered down to childrens' stories and manufactured crutches that weaken instead of healing.

 

You think I haven't read CSLewis? Loved his Space Trilogy particularly. Discussion of good and evil.

That's the teaching of Judaism. Man is responsible for his own sin. The idea that Jesus was sinless is against the fact that Jesus was human. If nothing else he had Mary's flesh and blood, Mary's genes etc. If morals are imbedded then Jesus morals must have been imbedded in his nature.

 

Such a view is the ultimate form of materialism and inapplicable to those who see it otherwise.

 

Sartre may have been clear, AS TO HIS BELIEFS, and ........... So that is my opinion? My life, my morality, is just as valid as that of Christianity. When I think of all that Christianity has done down the centuries, and even today, mine's probably better.

But infused morality is a biblical topic. That's OK BUT suppose the Bible had never been written you would have a different view of Morality than you have now. Yours is governed by Bible teaching. Islams is governed by the Qu'ran. Other beliefs have their own moral code.

 

I do not identify as a 'modern theologian', but a classical apologist. But i am familiar with Marcion, Arius, and many other early sect builders, heretics, or departures from Christian orthodoxy.

Marcion did not like the OT God of judgement and physical intervention in human affairs, and preferred a spiritualizing of Jesus, in the gnostic tradition. His canon motivated the early church to come to grips with the many deceptions, apocryphal writings, and heresies that threatened the purity of the Gospel message.
1. Marcion removed all references to the old testament.
2. His canon included edited versions of Luke, and some of the letters. His canon had the 'Evangelicon', and the 'Apostolikon,' as the only acceptable scriptures.
3. His original writings are lost, and we have only references and corrections from others to put together his theology, like Tertullian's 'Adversus Marcionem', (Against Marcion).
4. Heresies, distortions, and departures from orthodox Christianity was as common then as now.
5. Historical, orthodox Christianity, has strived to protect and preserve the scriptures, not revise them for expediency. Difficult passages are embraced, not edited out.
6. After much debate, deliberation, and precedence following, the early church arrived at a consensus on a Canon, and it has remained to this day, as the defining standard of Christian orthodoxy.
7. The only evidence of Marcion's beliefs come from contemporaries who opposed and disputed his teachings as heretical. Any modern day theory about Marcionites is speculative.

I hold to the classical, traditional view of biblical authority, re-emphasized in the reformation, under the 'sola scriptura!' banner. There are difficult, and sometimes conflicting passages, in the historical canon, but we embrace them all, and reconcile them by faith and broader understanding of the mysteries of the Divine. This is ridiculed by mockers and enemies of Christianity, but it should show the integrity and consistency of the scriptures, which have been preserved, inviolate. There are extant differences, and variants among the manuscripts, but they are minor quibbles, mostly, and do not detract from the Central Message of the Gospel.

I see no conflict with the presentation of God in the OT, or the new. Jesus expanded and expounded upon the nature of God, but He is still unfathomable to man, and any attempt to put Him in a neat little box is doomed to failure, as no human expression can truly summarize the Almighty.

 

Yeah, yeah... blah, blah, blah..
'Everyone else is stupid and brainwashed, and only 'I' have the Pure Truth.'
You presume a lot, pretending to 'know!' what everyone else believes. This is just religious bigotry and promotion, and is a caricature of other's beliefs, while elevating your own.

Rather than toot your own horn, or tear down others with straw man caricatures, why not debate their ACTUAL beliefs? Present Facts, not assertions and smears, else you come across as just a bigot and irrational enemy of Christianity, not a philosophical debater.

For those who reflect on themselves, everything they encounter is medicine. For those who attack others, every thought is a weapon. One is the way to initiate all good, one is the way to deepen all evil. They are as far apart as sky and earth. ~Lao Tzu

To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease. ~Lao Tzu

 

So you guys can dish out rude, condescending, and insulting remarks, but if anyone returns the mildest shot (like this dubious example), you cry, 'Foul!' and get all indignant?

 

I take it sarcasm is not your strong suit? Perhaps humor does not fit into your mindset?

 

I am not obsessed with ad hominem replies, as you seem to be. Nowhere do i address YOUR morality, YOUR lifestyle, or YOUR feelings of meaning. I accept (and believe) that you are a typical human being, with the usual mix of virtues and foibles, but i am not interested in listing them or defining your person. I can address your reasoning, only, and point out agreements, fallacies, bias, and falsehoods in your claims, nothing more.

Your constant use of ad hom is a mild annoyance, but is typical with progressive indoctrinees, and i am used to it.

 

You were just kidding?

Ha ha! I was too!

 

Someone above referenced the evil done in the name of christianity. Is this fair? Did Jesus ever call for the burning of witches, torture, military invasion, bejeweled Cardinals, mega churches, child molestation, or TV preachers driving around in Cadillacs?

 

Of course he didn't. Perhaps that is why no one critiques him.....focusing instead on the people who claim him and the books they wrote about him.

 

It's never dead.

How is the flesh "the natural man"?

Thank you. It's so true that most Christians today know nothing of what I've said here. You're welcome to prove me wrong if you can.

 

Of course it's fair. And burning witches, torture, military invasion, bejeweled Cardinals, mega churches, child molestation, or TV preachers driving around in Cadillacs stand as the evidence. People who do such things are bereft of the meaning of Jesus.

 

1. The spirit/soul of man is dead, because of sin. Through Jesus he can be 'reborn', or 'quickened' to become alive.
2. The natural man is the flesh.. they are synonymous in Christian teaching.
3. Disproving assertions is not necessary. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

It is not only unfair, it is misguided. Unless the ideology promotes such actions, like jihadist terrorism for islam, it is a false correlation to connect an action that is condemned by an ideology to a despot that does the action.

It would be like saying, 'Democrats promote child molestation!', because some democrat was convicted of that. It is a 'some, therefore all' fallacy.

 

Tell me something. If you didn't have your Bible what would you know You rely on your Bible for the teachings of Jesus, for the teachings of Paul. Everything you, and all Christians know about Christianity, comes initially from the Bible.
I didn't say everyone was stupid. I merely said what I have just repeated. Your doctrine, your belief in Jesus and God the Father, Your belief in the Spirit ALL stem from the Bible. Christianity would never have survived 2000 years without the Biblical canon of 384 Council of Constantinople where it was actually accepted with minor variations in later Councils. There were many variations of Christianity in the early church, many heresies and false teachings. Even today, with the Bible, there are many different sects like Mormons, JW's.who all rely on 'their Bible for the 'truth'. The Bible was compiled to guide. No Bible - no guide. No Bible you wouldn't know what Jesus is supposed to have said. You are completely dependent on the Bible. As another poster said earlier.'he gets together with others to study the Bible and learn the thoughts of others. 'Iron sharpens iron' Proverbs. Why do you read the Bible in Church? Why do Bible studies discuss the Bible. Why do people do daily readings.
The Bible was guarded with tenacity by the Church to prevent the ordinary peasants from reading it. Why? Because they might learn what it really said.

Judaism without the Tanakh would have had no guidance. In fact, 50% of Jews worldwide (Jewish figures) no longer practice their beliefs, many because they realise that many of the OT stories are simply allegories
Islam relies on the Qu'ran.

You don't accept facts, so why should I keep posting them.

Fact. If Abraham ever existed it must, by Biblical genealogy and general consensus, have been circa 2100/2000BCE. It also makes sense that a man should leave Ur at that time as it was being, or about to be destroyed, by another nation. (History and archeaology). Although it was rebuilt it was too late for Abraham - according to the Bible. Of course, if we accept the Bible was wrong in putting Jacob and his descendants in Egypt for 400+ years, then things could JUST work out. But of course, the Bible isn't wrong

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.

 

Without the nt manuscripts.. the history about Jesus, the apostles, and the early church, there would be no knowledge or facts about any of Christianity. It would not exist, but would have died from lack of knowledge.

What biographies, history, or ANYTHING do you have, apart from the biblical manuscripts? It is a phony criticism, to dismiss the biblical manuscripts because of the dearth of corroborating evidence. It is mere prejudice and bias.

if you post some facts, arguments , and evidence, i could address it. Assertions without evidence are dismissed without evidence. All i see in your lengthy replies are opinions, beliefs, and assertions. You quote no biblical passages in your charge of 'error!', no archaeological discoveries, no facts.. just surmises and speculations that you label, 'facts!'

..that pretty much covers it, with some gratuitous insults, prejudice, and smears. If you would deal with facts, references, and specific passages, i would relish the debate.

 

Just what I said.

I haven't dismissed anything. Just pointed out your dependence on the Bible for all you beliefs. You rely on Gospels written secondhand often many decades after Jesus death by writers who were not there - except possible John. And if he actually wrote it he was around 90 years old.

Well that's 'deviation' for you. I've given you details of Biblical passages regarding the Exodus. I've given you Archaeological discoveries located in various Museums that confirm 'errors' in the Bible.

Yeah, Yeah Yeah...............;. was only repeating your post. Frankly, your posts show me that you are not even prepared to even check what I tell you, just criticise.

Fact. The Exodus never happen. Egyptian History, Archaeological evidence and sheer impossibility is proof enough to the researcher and to even the majority of Jews. And don't remind me that not everyone agrees with me. I've read most of them. Most ignore the Biblical stories details. One says that The Egyptians covered up the whole thing because they didn't want history to record their mighty army being beaten by a small group of unarmed ex slaves. Yet the Bible says there were 603,000 men prepared for battle.
There are others I won't bother with.

The real crux of the Matter is this. Why would the Hebrews leave Egypt, wander 40 years in the desert, only to land up in Palestine which was ruled by the Egyptians at the time. Hm

 

More bald assertions.. you seriously believe these are facts?
You have arguments of incredulity, authority, and other fallacies.. facts and evidence? None.

I will eventually tire of constantly pointing this out, and will just ignore you as a crackpot or bible bigot. I had hoped for a scholarly, intelligent discussion about the accounts of the bible, not just accusations and innuendo. You claim knowledge and understanding about the bible, but you deliver bias and anti-christian talking points. ..phony narratives, not facts.

It looks as though intelligent debate is not in our future..

 

How can you say such things? You have not even referenced the passages you accuse are in error, much less any external evidence.

I'm beginning to think you are a dishonest debater, hoping to slide by with bluff and assertion. Do not expect replies from me, for this kind of 'debate!'

 

I'm beginning to think you have little idea of what is in the Bible.

Marching order during the supposed Exodus - Numbers 10:14-28 Looking back at my study I see I made a mistake on here. There were only two divisions of the Levis. One carrying the Tabernacle after the first three tribes and another after the second three tribes. They carried the gold utensils used in the tabernacle. Every Levi family had its own particular job to do but only one family could handle the holy utensils for the Tabernacle
the Kohath family.
Camping arrangements and numbers involved - Numbers 2. Note v 17. Tabernacle then the camp of the Levites then the tribes in their places. These were all in a square with the Tabernacle at the centre
1 Because it was the abode of God - in the Holy of Holies
2 For protection against attack. Same reason why the Tabernacle was protected in amongst the marching tribes

And the answer to my previous question as to why Elijah should flee to a cave and Jonah flee to Tarshish? Elijah was escaping the human - Jezebel.. Jonah, however,, thought he was escaping from God. The Jews,of the time believed that God dwelt in the Temple and his presence was limited to the boundaries of Palestine. By going to Tarshish he was getting away from God's 'jurisdiction'. When David pleaded with Saul not to drive him to leave Palestine it was for the same reason. He didn't want to die out of God's presence. He wanted his bones to rest in the Promised Land. . The idea of God being limited to the promised land changed when they were in Babylon. That was when Jeremiah gave them God's instruction 'to settle in Babylon where he had carried them. To build houses and settle down, plant gardens, marry, have sons and daighters..- and to wait for him to take them back after 70 years........ Jeremiah 29