This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Historically, during the time of miracles, there still werent many believers. The centurion at Calvary when Jesus cried out and died, said Jesus truly was the son of God. Who else saw that? Jerusalem was crowded with over a million people that week. The church has always been a fledgeling group.As to preserving the Bible, at times it was difficult for it to survive. The true church never held or coveted political power.
I was just thinking about this again. In fact, I'd love to speak with my former pastor tomorrow.. spend half the day just talking. He married my wife and me in his church 22 years ago. I grew up in church with him, as youth pastor, senior pastor, etc.. I'd love to chat with him and get his perspective as he has right now on issues of faith and the bible. He died 5 years ago. A visit from him would do wonders for my worldview. If it all is true, he's having a great time. If it isn't... well... I wouldn't expect to hear from him.
But then what Jay? Would you repent? Become a tireless preacher? Write a gospel? What would your gospel say?
I'm far from a Bibilcal scholar so I may be wrong in this... but the premise for your question is that if Christianity is right, why... etc. But then you seem to be coming up with your own reasoning for God's actions. Don't Biblical writings mention something called the The Guf, where a finite number of souls reside until they are born into the world?If that is indeed part of Christian doctrine (and I'll leave it to someone more appropriate to say whether it is), then aren't you violating the entire precept of your question by imposing your own requirement on it that God be making an endless stream of souls?
I would ask him about the gospels as they are written. I'd ask questions and hope to get answers. Then I'd take another look at the bible. But all this would be after I hit my knees. I'd humbly tell God that I was wrong, and that I didn't deserve to be in his graces for my actions the last few years. I don't have enough pride to fight something I know is true. But I probably wouldn't expect to receive forgiveness. On the other hand, if I was forgiven, I'd like to think I would be decent at helping others learn about this new understanding of the bible and God.
No, this teaching is extra canonical, and I think from the Apocrypha. So it may be in a Catholic Bible.Plus, "The Seventh Sign" with Demi Moore,
.And in time, some future Jayrok would discount the entire episode as a fable. Your scenario if played out, would mimic the apostle Paul's or any of the disciples. There has to be a better way.My belief is that the preservation of the word is just as important to my salvation as the recording of it, and so I go back to Peter telling me that God has furnished me with all I need. I hapen to believe that Paul's trip to Damascus is exactly what you described here.
Yes, Christians are righteous. Declared righteous, based not on their own works but rather on the work of Christ. His righteousness is imputed to the believer.
As to the recording of Matthew's gospel and the resurrected dead, this criticism would be reversed if every gospel corroborated each detail. Plus what fun would it be to read? The true church, Acts, 1,2 Timothy, and the other epistles, Revelation to the seven churches in Asia Minor is always described as being a spiritual entity which was nearly always vigorously opposed by the government.
How would a person who never had this experience you portray describe it? "Jay has lost his mind...Jay is droppin acid again..."Mankind has a standard. That is justice. My experience, choice, denial, etc is based exactly upon yours. There is no difference in the standard, the truth, it is not a respecter of persons, I am free to believe, reject or laugh at it, and so are you. This is the only measure of judgement that would be fair.
Who are we talking about? The Catholic church, Greek orthodox? In the canon, the church never flourished. They were beset with problems, from low numbers, i.e. Pentecost 3,000 souls gleaned from roughly a million in the area, the churches of Revelation, Pergamos, Ephesus, Thyatira and Sardis were all suffering, Laodicea was about to be vomited out of Jesus mouth. Only Philadelphia and Smyrna received nothing but adulation from Jesus, but John in those verses praise them for persevering in their poverty and oppression.
Perhaps, but they would see a change in Jay. And this change would account for something. If it didn't for some, I'd keep plugging away. By my point is why just one for Paul, or Jay? Why not an epiphany for everyone of his creation? In each his own right. Then, let the person decide his path. If this were to occur, then, at least, the person's decision would be an informed one... if even individually for that person. If they chose to continue to disbelieve, it wouldn't be for lack of direct evidence from God.
I like Jesus' praise for the church in Ephesis. He thanked them for seeing and exposing false apostles. Incidently, the only apostle in the bible that claims (in different places) to have great difficulty in Ephesis is Paul. Coincidence? But I'm not talking about the churches in Acts or Revelation. I'm talking about the Roman Catholic church.. the one that claims Peter was the first Bishop/pope, etc..
My only answer is the mercy of God in furnishing us with all we need in the plenary written word. Or maybe the subtelty of the epiphany escapes you. Elijah had trouble recognizing God even when he was supposed to wait in a certain spot for him, it wasnt in the fire, the earthquake or the storm, but in the breeze that God spoke.
Paul's trouble came from the idolatrous citizenry of Ephesus, mainly a guy who carved figurines of Diana or Artemis. Paul was cuttin into his action. I believe that the Roman Catholic church is the embodiement of John's writing in Revelation. All fingers point in that direction, prophetically speaking. So subsequently, as an entity I think they are in trouble. And I don't think the early church as described in the NT is the seed of catholicism.
they're not gonna like hearing that...and I'm not gonna touch it, even though I definately believe Roman Catholicism is shown in a less than good way in Revelation...
that wasn't his hand
Wow. Good thing I don't believe that I guess.
Not saying I do or don't believe what was quoted, but if it's true it really doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone else believes it.
He makes the assumption that more people who are being born will end up in hell than in heaven. This is a biblically founded assumption. So, for every 4 kids being born right now, 3 will likely go to hell (his numbers, pure estimate, adjust it however you like). God can end the world, and the process of birth whenever he wants. He can usher in true "End of Days". He can stop it all, call it quits, and usher in heaven, whenever he wants.
That's true about anything in the world, not just religion. However, the more holes there are visible in any theory, the more likely it is to sink due to its own flaws.Jayrock isn't arguing that "If it's true, it sucks"...he's arguing that it doesn't make sense that a loving God would do such a thing, so it's likely that the premise is flawed and isn't correct. The premise is biblical, so that seems to indicate that the bible doesn't make sense here.
Thanks for the summary. I think the main problem with this logic stems from the underlying assumption that you want > 50% Christian. Then it would "tip the scales" and make it worth it, no?However, and I know there will be disagreement here based on previous discussions, because of the whole sin thing, mankind was headed for 0% heaven and 100% hell. God intervened, sent Christ, you know the drill. So perhaps in God's eyes, just getting 1 out of 4 is worth it because 25% > 0%.
Paul's trouble with the Idol shop is one story reported in Acts. The specifics of other troubles he had aren't described. But it makes me wonder about the church there. Paul mentions wild beasts (men) in Ephesis and how they treated him. If he was talking only about an Idol making enterprise, it wouldn't make for much news. Apparently the church was involved with the Idolatry. Paul's business was with the church and he obviously had some issues with them. How man "apostles" were walking around preaching theology regarding Jesus Christ in Ephesis? And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem. The catholic church may be the antichrist... who knows? It's not my call either way. My point was that the church did have political power through the centuries. You may not consider this the "true" church, but that isn't really revelant to the issue.
Fire, earthquakes, storms and the gentle breeze are all natural events. Miracles are supernatural. Maybe people confuse calm, gentle feelings with "God". A wife's love is a natural thing. Strong atheists feel love between married partners, because it's possible that they love each other. Another couple may love each other and label it as "God talking to them". But what are we to make of that? It is common for people to come to God because of traumatic or tragic experiences. Why does someone close to you have to die for you to think it's a sign/message from God?
You can run at a loss for a while, but continuing at 75% hellbound for thousands of years does seem a little uncaring. For a God who espouses eternal love, continuing a world in which 75% of the population meets with a horrible eternity is not the act, in my opinion, of a good God.
What about man's eyes? God rigged the deck and made it such that we were 0% heaven bound and 100% hell bound. I didn't do it, you didn't do it. God created us into a situation where we REQUIRED his salvation, supposedly. Maybe in God's eyes, this seems fair, but to me, it seems like the God the bible describes created me into a world where I required him, and into a world where everyone did, and he knew that upwards of 75% wouldn't choose him, and he still takes those odds and waves at the 3/4 people as they go to hell.
There are a lot of maybes. THere are an infinite number of maybes. But often times, the simplest answer is the most likely. To me, the simplest answer, taking all of the discussions we've had on the issue of christianity and God, is that the God of the bible doesn't make sense when examined analytically. So my conclusion is that christianity isn't 100% correct, and in fact, many of its premises are fundamentally flawed. My opinion only.
Read my first response, it's pretty similar to what you just wrote.To pull over a line from Jay's last thread, this is speculation on my part. I personally hold the belief that man cannot expect to know everything about God, unless communicated from said God. Sure, the Bible teaches this, but it also makes sense philosophically: infinite God + finite creation = comprehension problems. Which is why I don't think it is a cop out answer, but rather think that an objection to this answer is a cop out response to the answer.
Go bake your noodle on that one!
If we were talking of a loving God only, wouldn't he just send everyone to heaven no matter what? But the God of the Christian faith is also an infinitely just God. It seems, to me, that when one attribute or the other is focused on, problems arise. Perhaps in this case, God's love is shown to the 25% and his justice is shown to the 75%.
What about man's eyes? We're not talking about that here. The question posed was totally from God's POV. So I answered it as such. So I'll take that bolded statement
Of course there are million possible maybes. The contention was that "here's a problem... it doesn't make sense". I supplied some speculative answers to the dilemma, which, in my mind, make sense. These two possibilities listed here aren't at a "aliens-beamed-away-an-Eiffel-tower-from-my-basement" level of insanity. You, nor I, nor anyone else can "prove" or "disprove" them, but that is the nature of what we are discussing, and I think you realize that. But I think it is false to say
The premise is biblical' date=' so that seems to indicate that the bible doesn't make sense here.[/quote']when possible options do exist. I grant you that you believe the simplest answer is to wipe out ~2000 years of Christian belief on the basis of this discussion, because I cannot prove what the simplest answer is. But I disagree with that assessment, obviously, and that is my opinion
At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
Paul's position was something pretty close to the opposite of this. Eating meat sacrificed to idols is fine as long as it's not creating problems for others.
Judge for yourself:1 Cor 10:18-22 -- Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. 22Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Or it's possible that this was a difficult time of transition and people were still dealing with the understandable guilt that comes along when you are freed from a legalistic mindset."Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.
Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.
So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.
it's debatable."Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.
Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.
So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.
Isn't just about everything?it's debatable."Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.
Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.
So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.
sure. Some things should be matter of fact, if it is historical.. yet it is still debated.. things like the actual birth date of Jesus, for instance.Isn't just about everything?it's debatable."Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.
Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.
So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.
Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.sure. Some things should be matter of fact, if it is historical.. yet it is still debated.. things like the actual birth date of Jesus, for instance.Isn't just about everything?it's debatable."Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.
Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.
So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.
Things like the literally biblical account of creation is as mythological as any greek myth is also not debateable. The concept (although not all specifics) of evolution is not debateable.sure. Some things should be matter of fact, if it is historical.. yet it is still debated.. things like the actual birth date of Jesus, for instance.Isn't just about everything?it's debatable."Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand
It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.
Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.
So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.
I don't know that the bible supports the idea that there is a finite number of souls just waiting to be born into humans. I'd like to see book, chapter and verse.
