Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

The Bible tells me who Jesus is. If I can't trust that can I just decide who Jesus is in my own mind?

The Bible isn't the only source of who Jesus is. The Corinthians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Ephesians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Romans knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. They knew who Jesus is because 1) people's testimonies of Jesus; and 2) the "helper" Jesus said He would send after He left (the Holy Spirit). Jesus didn't say he would send a book.

The idea that one can't know who Jesus is without the Bible makes the Bible more important than Jesus. Of course one can know who Jesus is without the Bible. In fact, the Bible only limits what you can know about Him. He's more than what can be contained in a book.

Paul taught the Corinthians, Ephesians and Romans and wrote letters to them to be used for teaching and testimony about Jesus. He claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself. We also know of Jesus through Paul's letters. We didn't hear him speak in person. If a man came to a church and claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself, I wonder how he would be accepted and believed. Instead, we have the Bible, which is indirectly the same as the people in those churches you mentioned.

I never said the Bible is more important than Jesus, but it should be reliable. We don't have Peter or John or Paul to teach and testify about Jesus. We have the Bible.

We have the Holy Spirit. That's what Jesus said would be our helper. And Paul did what all of us are supposed to do with our personal relationship with Jesus... testify about it to the ends of the earth.

The idea that we needed a book, that is holy, God breathed and inerrant didn't come from Jesus. He said we would receive a helper as we testify to the ends of the earth. That's it. Nothing more. No book.

The Bible is a collection of some of the testimonies. And don't get me wrong, testimonies are great. And the testimonies that were selected to be the Bible are fantastic ones. But that's all they are... testimonies. They're no different than your testimony or Billy Graham's testimony. Granted, some people are more eloquent communicators than other, but that doesn't make their words holy, God breathed and inerrant.

I'm not sure I'm willing to go this far. I think the reliability of the bible to communicate the gospel message is of paramount importance to Christianity, and placing scripture on a level with any other good book written by any other good Christian doesn't particularly jive with either what the bible says about itself or what Christians have historically believed. Inerrancy and reliability are two different conversations, imo.

Keep in mind that the Roman Christians defined Christian history as we know it.

 

[Jayrok]

Proninja, Commish, et al.. RE: Spiritual death vs physical death.

It is a common explanation given by apologists that the death referred to in Genesis (Adam's fall) is actually spiritual death. In this sense, physical death before Adam could have been common (and subsequentially work with evolution). But can we rely on this explanation?

Gen 3:19 -- By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

This describes the physical death Adam would face for his disobedience. This verse is out of place if God meant a spiritual death. Adam may have responded with "I'm going to die and return to dust? Well I already knew that because it happens to all living things.. is that my punishment? That was going to happen to me anyway."

It makes more sense to read it as physical death. Paul tells us that death entered the world through one man, Adam, and since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man (the last man). For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:20-22).

1 Corinthians 15 is about the physical resurrection of the dead. (Verse 12) But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

This is talking about being resurrected from a physical death. Spiritual death is called the second death in the Bible and it is not of this world. Revelation (chapter 20) explains that this second death is after the final judgment when death and hades are cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14 -- Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

This second death is still future and from all indications, there is no resurrection from this spiritual second death. To borrow an example from mr. roboto, to say that Genesis is talking about a spiritual death instead of physical death is to read more into the text than what is there... a form of Eisegesis.

 

[The Commish]

Proninja, Commish, et al.. RE: Spiritual death vs physical death.

It is a common explanation given by apologists that the death referred to in Genesis (Adam's fall) is actually spiritual death. In this sense, physical death before Adam could have been common (and subsequentially work with evolution). But can we rely on this explanation?

Gen 3:19 -- By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

This describes the physical death Adam would face for his disobedience. This verse is out of place if God meant a spiritual death. Adam may have responded with "I'm going to die and return to dust? Well I already knew that because it happens to all living things.. is that my punishment? That was going to happen to me anyway."

It makes more sense to read it as physical death. Paul tells us that death entered the world through one man, Adam, and since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man (the last man). For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:20-22).

1 Corinthians 15 is about the physical resurrection of the dead. (Verse 12) But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

This is talking about being resurrected from a physical death. Spiritual death is called the second death in the Bible and it is not of this world. Revelation (chapter 20) explains that this second death is after the final judgment when death and hades are cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14 -- Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

This second death is still future and from all indications, there is no resurrection from this spiritual second death. To borrow an example from mr. roboto, to say that Genesis is talking about a spiritual death instead of physical death is to read more into the text than what is there... a form of Eisegesis.

I should have given more of my view earlier. A good part of the Genesis story seems to talk about both spiritual death and physical death. That's how I read it. There are parallels between the two, but I've always seen the spiritual death as the one to be focused on the most. In these passages it seems that death is introduced as an option since Adam and Eve know the difference between right and wrong (good vs evil). I guess I've never really thought about whether it was physical or spiritual (assuming it to be spiritual since it didn't make sense to me that Adam/Eve would live forever had they not eaten from the tree (i.e. they'd die at some point)

 

[B-Deep]

if they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, how can you fault them for eating the fruit? they didn't understand it was wrong, right?

 

[Jayrok]

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Paul is talking about a physical death of the body. See Romans 7 where Paul is talking about wanting to do good in his mind but he is unable to due to the sin within him, his sinful nature (his flesh - Romans 7:21-23). Then verse 24: What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

It isn't Paul's spirit that will die, it's his body. In his words, his spirit is willing but his sinful body is incapable of doing good. Likewise, it isn't Paul's (or Adam's) spirit that has to pay the debt off for the wages of sin. By separating the sinful body from the sanctified spirit (Paul's new unperishable body of 1 Cor 15), the spirit lives on forever. For those that do not believe, the body does die but so does the spirit during the second death (Revelation 20).

Romans 8:10 -- But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives lifebecause of righteousness.

The body (which contains our sinful nature) is what will die and it will die because of sin, which was introduced into the world by Adam's disobedience. Jesus paid the debt for this sin through the death of his body (which took on the sinful nature of mankind although he was without sin).

On judgment day people are not cast away from God or heaven because of sin. They are cast away because of disbelief. Everyone sins and everyone's sins are paid for by the death of Jesus. So that debt is paid, period. Your spirit will only die if you do not believe in Jesus.

Genesis is explaining how death came upon all living things as the result of sin. Spiritual death isn't about sin. It is about disbelief.

 

[Jayrok]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross? If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

His spirit certainly didn't die, just his physical body. His physical death doesn't make much sense if the required debt to pay was really a spiritual death. Course that leads to other cans of worms...

 

[The Commish]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross? If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

His spirit certainly didn't die, just his physical body. His physical death doesn't make much sense if the required debt to pay was really a spiritual death. Course that leads to other cans of worms...

Because we are kinda dumb and some don't get it on an intellectual level so the vivid image is necessary? Yes the beer as begun to flow for the evening It would also stand to reason that he used animal sacrifice for so long that it was kinda fitting? But then, why use animals? They don't have souls (supposedly). They function on instinct. I guess you're right...what the hell do I know?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

 

[Jayrok]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

I guess it depends on the currency rate after all.

There are groups that believe Jesus did not die a physical death on earth, but a perfect death/sacrifice in the other spiritual realms. And I think there are actually Biblical passages to support it. After all, if the wages of sin is physical death, we will all pay that debt when we die. In death we will sin no more.

 

[Jayrok]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross? If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

His spirit certainly didn't die, just his physical body. His physical death doesn't make much sense if the required debt to pay was really a spiritual death. Course that leads to other cans of worms...

Because we are kinda dumb and some don't get it on an intellectual level so the vivid image is necessary? Yes the beer as begun to flow for the evening It would also stand to reason that he used animal sacrifice for so long that it was kinda fitting? But then, why use animals? They don't have souls (supposedly). They function on instinct. I guess you're right...what the hell do I know?

My dog may not have a soul but she certainly has a memory, and she knows how to hold a grudge.

 

[cstu]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

I guess it depends on the currency rate after all.

There are groups that believe Jesus did not die a physical death on earth, but a perfect death/sacrifice in the other spiritual realms. And I think there are actually Biblical passages to support it. After all, if the wages of sin is physical death, we will all pay that debt when we die. In death we will sin no more.

Sounds boring.

 

[babydemon90]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross? If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

His spirit certainly didn't die, just his physical body. His physical death doesn't make much sense if the required debt to pay was really a spiritual death. Course that leads to other cans of worms...

To have victory over death, in the resurrection. Kinda hard to be resurrected without dying. As for why that particular death, that's a pretty complex topic... I suspect it was a part of man's reaction to him proclaiming his message of restoration eschatology, with the impending overthrow of the current powers.

 

[babydemon90]

Outcome of debate: municipal bond offering to help build a 500-foot Noah's Ark

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016. Ham said a high-profile evolution debate he had with "Science Guy" Bill Nye on Feb. 4 helped boost support for the project.

Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest." Ham's Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum enjoyed an avalanche of news media attention during the debate, which focused on science and the Bible's explanations of the origins of the universe.

Whew. Glad to see young Kentucky children will be able to experience the majesty and fun of a ark-based theme park...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

All theatrics. But no denying it was effective.

 

[theglorydays]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

God is Holy, just and righteous. So no, he couldn't just forgive. Justice demands payment, a debt is owed. The great dilemma in scripture is proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. If God is just, how can He justify the wicked? Scripture declares human beings to be guilty before God. We have transgressed His laws and if we received justice we will be cast into hell. So once again, how can God justify the wicked? for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show Gods righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26 ESV)Only at the cross can this be accomplished. The cross displays the attributes of God, His love for humanity in His vicarious atonement, becoming the sin substitute of His people. Satisfying divine wrath and the righteous demands of the law. That is the gospel, Jesus Christ the Son of God, born of a virgin, lives a sinless perfect life, dies on a cross and raises from the dead on the third day. If we believe the gospel, we will be saved.

God himself gave himself to save us from himself

According to the Christian revelation, Gods own great love propitiated his own holy wrath through the gift of his own dear Son, who took our place, bore our sin and died our death. Thus God himself gave himself to save us from himself. (John Stott)

 

[Mister CIA]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

God is Holy, just and righteous. So no, he couldn't just forgive. Justice demands payment, a debt is owed. The great dilemma in scripture is proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. If God is just, how can He justify the wicked? Scripture declares human beings to be guilty before God. We have transgressed His laws and if we received justice we will be cast into hell. So once again, how can God justify the wicked? for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26 ESV)Only at the cross can this be accomplished. The cross displays the attributes of God, His love for humanity in His vicarious atonement, becoming the sin substitute of His people. Satisfying divine wrath and the righteous demands of the law.

That is the gospel, Jesus Christ the Son of God, born of a virgin, lives a sinless perfect life, dies on a cross and raises from the dead on the third day.

God himself gave himself to save us from himself

According to the Christian revelation, God’s own great love propitiated his own holy wrath through the gift of his own dear Son, who took our place, bore our sin and died our death. Thus God himself gave himself to save us from himself. (John Stott)

and then?

 

[Mario Kart]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

God is Holy, just and righteous. So no, he couldn't just forgive. Justice demands payment, a debt is owed. The great dilemma in scripture is proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. If God is just, how can He justify the wicked? Scripture declares human beings to be guilty before God. We have transgressed His laws and if we received justice we will be cast into hell. So once again, how can God justify the wicked? for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26 ESV)Only at the cross can this be accomplished. The cross displays the attributes of God, His love for humanity in His vicarious atonement, becoming the sin substitute of His people. Satisfying divine wrath and the righteous demands of the law.

That is the gospel, Jesus Christ the Son of God, born of a virgin, lives a sinless perfect life, dies on a cross and raises from the dead on the third day.

God himself gave himself to save us from himself

According to the Christian revelation, God’s own great love propitiated his own holy wrath through the gift of his own dear Son, who took our place, bore our sin and died our death. Thus God himself gave himself to save us from himself. (John Stott)

Where does Allah and Buddha come in? I know they're in there somewhere, right?

 

[theglorydays]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross?

The theology major in me will argue that Jesus didn't actually have to physically die on the Cross. God is, if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to forgive us without having to kill Himself first. Jesus died on the cross not because it was necessary, but because it was revelatory. It's not what actually earned God's forgiveness of us, but it's one way that God communicated that forgiveness to us.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I knew a guy once who borrowed money in Canadian dollars but repaid the debt in American dollars. It wasn't that big a deal.

God is Holy, just and righteous. So no, he couldn't just forgive. Justice demands payment, a debt is owed. The great dilemma in scripture is proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. If God is just, how can He justify the wicked? Scripture declares human beings to be guilty before God. We have transgressed His laws and if we received justice we will be cast into hell. So once again, how can God justify the wicked? for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show Gods righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26 ESV)Only at the cross can this be accomplished. The cross displays the attributes of God, His love for humanity in His vicarious atonement, becoming the sin substitute of His people. Satisfying divine wrath and the righteous demands of the law.That is the gospel, Jesus Christ the Son of God, born of a virgin, lives a sinless perfect life, dies on a cross and raises from the dead on the third day.

God himself gave himself to save us from himself

According to the Christian revelation, Gods own great love propitiated his own holy wrath through the gift of his own dear Son, who took our place, bore our sin and died our death. Thus God himself gave himself to save us from himself. (John Stott)

and then?

Mark 1:15The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.

 

[joffer]

Well we we going along nicely there for a while

 

[Dr Oadi]

Ark is getting built in Kentucky. All thanks to the science guy!

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/245m-noahs-ark-replica-to-be-built-in-kentucky

 

[Jayrok]

Also, if Adam's disobedience resulted in spiritual death and the wages of sin is spiritual death, then what was the significance of Jesus dying a physical death on a physical cross? If the wages of sin is spiritual death, it follows that Jesus' sacrifice would have had to be a spiritual death, or the debt wouldn't be paid.

His spirit certainly didn't die, just his physical body. His physical death doesn't make much sense if the required debt to pay was really a spiritual death. Course that leads to other cans of worms...

To have victory over death, in the resurrection. Kinda hard to be resurrected without dying. As for why that particular death, that's a pretty complex topic... I suspect it was a part of man's reaction to him proclaiming his message of restoration eschatology, with the impending overthrow of the current powers.

Victory over physical death or spiritual death? I think the real question is what exactly is the wages of sin. Is it the death of your physical body or is the death of your spirit? I think there is a tremendous difference.

 

[Jayrok]

God is Holy, just and righteous. So no, he couldn't just forgive. Justice demands payment, a debt is owed. The great dilemma in scripture is proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. If God is just, how can He justify the wicked? Scripture declares human beings to be guilty before God. We have transgressed His laws and if we received justice we will be cast into hell. So once again, how can God justify the wicked? for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

yes, so what is that penalty? The wages of sin is death. Romans 8:10 -- But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives lifebecause of righteousness.

Romans 7:24: What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Your body will die because of sin. Well, yeah, everyone dies so why doesn't that settle the debt of sin once and for all? The sacrificial system was only good to atone for sins while the sinner was still alive. Once a man died, he paid the ultimate price for his life of sinning because that was the debt that he owed to God for his wickedness, as you posted above.

Why would your spirit have to pay for sins that your body committed? That should be the distinction here and that is what Paul is talking about in Romans. Your spirit longs to be free from your sinful body. Your body is going to die but your spirit can be free if you are in Christ. If you aren't in Christ your debt will be paid at your death but your spirit will die (or be cut off from God) at the final judgment.

A physical death of Jesus' body doesn't make much sense for atonement for the sins of people that have already died.

 

[Jayrok]

Ark is getting built in Kentucky. All thanks to the science guy!

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/245m-noahs-ark-replica-to-be-built-in-kentucky

$24.5 million would feed and clothe a lot of people. But a big boat is cool too, I guess.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... I think the real question is what exactly is the wages of sin. ....

Why should you and I have to pay anything for the luxury of carrying around the baggage imposed upon us of being incapable of not being sinners? Haven't we already paid? Does sin really give us any real rewards, any benefits at all?

Unless one is coming from the perspective that without "religion" they would run amok with all of the murder and mayhem they are itching to commit, isn't sin itself already punishment?

 

[matuski]

Doesn't surprise me in the least to see that a handful of Christians can't even agree on what the Bible means by the word death.

Death has become ambiguous. Awesome.

 

[theglorydays]

God is Holy, just and righteous. So no, he couldn't just forgive. Justice demands payment, a debt is owed. The great dilemma in scripture is proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. If God is just, how can He justify the wicked? Scripture declares human beings to be guilty before God. We have transgressed His laws and if we received justice we will be cast into hell. So once again, how can God justify the wicked? for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

yes, so what is that penalty? The wages of sin is death. Romans 8:10 -- But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives lifebecause of righteousness.

Romans 7:24: What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Your body will die because of sin. Well, yeah, everyone dies so why doesn't that settle the debt of sin once and for all? The sacrificial system was only good to atone for sins while the sinner was still alive. Once a man died, he paid the ultimate price for his life of sinning because that was the debt that he owed to God for his wickedness, as you posted above.

Why would your spirit have to pay for sins that your body committed? That should be the distinction here and that is what Paul is talking about in Romans. Your spirit longs to be free from your sinful body. Your body is going to die but your spirit can be free if you are in Christ. If you aren't in Christ your debt will be paid at your death but your spirit will die (or be cut off from God) at the final judgment.

A physical death of Jesus' body doesn't make much sense for atonement for the sins of people that have already died.

I'll try my best to answer your questions although I won't be able to answer them all right now. Jesus did not come to save from physical death, but spiritual death. When human beings die, that is part of the consequences of sin, not payment for it. Christ's death was the payment for sin.

The first time the word death is used is in genesis 2:17 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Adam ate and didn't die until years later. In this instance, the word clearly speaks to spiritual death.

Ephesians 2:1 And you he hath made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins

Man is born spiritually dead. This verse is describing regeneration, the believers new birth (made alive) who was once spiritually dead.

So when the bible uses the word death, it doesn't exclusively mean physical death.

 

[The Commish]

Ark is getting built in Kentucky. All thanks to the science guy!

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/245m-noahs-ark-replica-to-be-built-in-kentucky

$24.5 million would feed and clothe a lot of people. But a big boat is cool too, I guess.

Pretty much what I was eluding to earlier...kinda sickening.

 

[Politician Spock]

Doesn't surprise me in the least to see that a handful of Christians can't even agree on what the Bible means by the word death.

Death has become ambiguous. Awesome.

That just scratches the surface of ugly Biblical debates. The good news is Jesus and salvation isn't stuck in a book Christians debate over. You can know Jesus and salvation without the Bible.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Just because somebody dies doesn't mean their spirit is dead. Even to an Atheist. I mean when Harold Ramis died, his spirit lived on in the laughs and jokes about his movies. The lines he wrote and spoke on screen for instance. He's not completely gone no matter what your beliefs are.

Of course he's gone.

You're likening spirit with memory. If Ghostbusters is appreciated 1,000 years from now, that won't mean Ramis' spirit still exists, it'll mean his film is remembered.

 

[cstu]

Ark is getting built in Kentucky. All thanks to the science guy!

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/245m-noahs-ark-replica-to-be-built-in-kentucky

$24.5 million would feed and clothe a lot of people. But a big boat is cool too, I guess.

Pretty much what I was eluding to earlier...kinda sickening.

Nothing compared to the Vatican.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Doesn't surprise me in the least to see that a handful of Christians can't even agree on what the Bible means by the word death.

Death has become ambiguous. Awesome.

That just scratches the surface of ugly Biblical debates. The good news is Jesus and salvation isn't stuck in a book Christians debate over. You can know Jesus and salvation without the Bible.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Politician Spock]

Doesn't surprise me in the least to see that a handful of Christians can't even agree on what the Bible means by the word death.

Death has become ambiguous. Awesome.

That just scratches the surface of ugly Biblical debates. The good news is Jesus and salvation isn't stuck in a book Christians debate over. You can know Jesus and salvation without the Bible.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus did not come to save from physical death, but spiritual death. When human beings die, that is part of the consequences of sin, not payment for it. Christ's death was the payment for sin.

So you're saying the wages of sin is actually spiritual death. So Christ must have died a spiritual death in order to pay that debt. But his spirit didn't die, just his body, much like the other two thieves on the crosses beside him. His spirit was committed into the hands of God.

The first time the word death is used is in genesis 2:17 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Adam ate and didn't die until years later. In this instance, the word clearly speaks to spiritual death.

Clearly? no it doesn't. You are reading into the passage what just isn't there. When Adam ate and was sentenced to die, it could have also meant the beginning of the decay of his body. He doesn't have to fall dead on the spot in order for it to mean a physical death. "You will surely die" could very well mean the beginning of time when sickness could overcome mankind both sooner and later. The body begins its long decay known as age. It was then that Adam noticed he was naked.. he felt shame for the first time and thus the cycle of death began.

The Hebrew word used for "die" in Genesis 2:17 is the same word used over 830 more times in the OT. Guess how many times it means anything other than a physical death.

Man is born spiritually dead.

Nonsense. How many types of death are taught in the Bible? Two. Physical death and a second death (which we can name spiritual death). This is a new testament concept and likely means final separation from God. That is, physical death separates the body from the spirit and the second death separates the spirit from God.

People aren't born spiritually dead. Proverbs 18:14 -- The human spirit can endure in sickness, but a crushed spirit who can bear?

Spirit can wane and it can be happy. But it isn't dead. That just isn't Biblical. It would only die at the second death.

If Jesus paid the price (wages of sin) for the sins of mankind, he would have suffered the full extent of that price. Otherwise, the price wasn't fully paid.

Maybe Jesus really didn't die a physical death on earth. Maybe he died at the hands of the rulers and authorities and the spiritual powers of evil in the heavenly realms as described by Paul in Ephesians 6 and 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (and in the Ascension of Isaiah).

 

[joffer]

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2014/mar/02/bryan-college-draws-takes-stand-creation-has-profe/

 

[tonydead]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

 

[jdoggydogg]

5 Things Kentucky Could Spend $73 Million On Instead Of A Fake Noah's Ark

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that enough money had been raised to begin construction of a 510-foot "replica" of Noah's Ark as part of a multimillion-dollar Ark Encounter project.

The Ark Encounter will sit on 800 acres of land in Williamstown, Ky., and will be developed “in phases over many years,” according to a press release from Ham's Answers in Genesis organization. The first phase alone will cost an estimated $73 million.

The project had stalled over funding. But according to Answers in Genesis, it received the needed boost after Ham engaged in a widely viewed television debate on creationism and evolution with Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

In addition to more than $14.4 million in private donations, a municipal bond offering by the city of Williamstown has cleared the way to start construction in May.

“God has burdened AiG to rebuild a full-size Noah’s Ark -- as a sign to the world that God’s Word is true, and as a reminder that all men are sinners, and we all need to go through the 'door' to be saved,” Ham wrote in August 2013.

But perhaps God's message could be spread by means other than building a really big boat. Here are five ways Ham's $73 million might have otherwise served the people of Kentucky:

Feed hungry children.

According to Map the Meal Gap 2013, one in four children in Kentucky do not know how they will receive their next meal.

In 2012, the poverty rate in Kentucky jumped to 19.4 percent, or 823,000 people, making it the fifth poorest state in the U.S., according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Child poverty in particular increased from 23.5 percent in 2008 to 26.5 percent in 2012. And 35,891 public school students in Kentucky were homeless during the 2011-12 school year, Northern Kentucky News reported in March 2013.

Donate to cancer research, prevention or patient support.

Kentucky has the highest cancer death rate in the country -- 227 per 100,000 people. It also has the highest rate of tobacco smokers at 25.6 percent.

Invest in broke schools.

Years of education cuts have made Kentucky the 14th worst state in school funding, according to a September 2013 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The state spends less per child in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did before the 2008 recession.

Save abused animals.

Last year, for the seventh consecutive year, Kentucky was ranked the worst state for animal protection laws. The state is in dire need of stricter animal abuse laws and more funding for food, medicine and housing for severely abused and abandoned animals. Even veterinarians in Kentucky are prohibited from reporting suspected animal cruelty.

Combat the crippling heroin problem.

Heroin is a burgeoning medical, legal and fiscal issue for Kentucky, with statewide overdose deaths increasing by 550 percent between 2011 and 2012, according to a November 2013 study by Northern Kentucky Heroin Impact Response. In 2012, heroin cases made up nearly 20 percent of all drug overdose cases before the Kentucky Medical Examiner -- a 3.22 percent increase from the previous year.

The state lacks adequate treatment resources, addiction and mental health specialists, and law enforcement funding, especially in the northern region. Northern Kentucky’s substance abuse funding from state and federal sources for 2013 was just under $2.4 million, roughly $5 per capita below the state average.

 

[General Malaise]

Ark is getting built in Kentucky. All thanks to the science guy!

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/245m-noahs-ark-replica-to-be-built-in-kentucky

$24.5 million would feed and clothe a lot of people. But a big boat is cool too, I guess.

Pretty much what I was eluding to earlier...kinda sickening.

Nothing compared to the Vatican.

Did you watch the recent Frontline piece about the Vatican? Absolutely revolting. The last Pope who retired should be in prison.

 

[tonydead]

Did you watch the recent Frontline piece about the Vatican? Absolutely revolting. The last Pope who retired should be in prison.

PBS's From Jesus to Christ might help this thread move along as well.

 

[General Malaise]

Did you watch the recent Frontline piece about the Vatican? Absolutely revolting. The last Pope who retired should be in prison.

PBS's From Jesus to Christ might help this thread move along as well.

Is that one recent? I recall a Frontline about Jesus a few years ago that was kind of Da Vinci Codeish.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Did you watch the recent Frontline piece about the Vatican? Absolutely revolting. The last Pope who retired should be in prison.

PBS's From Jesus to Christ might help this thread move along as well.

Is that one recent? I recall a Frontline about Jesus a few years ago that was kind of Da Vinci Codeish.

Is '98 recent?

 

[Politician Spock]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

 

[The Commish]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

 

[tonydead]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

But that's the whole point of this thread isn't it?

Suddenly it's not the word of God because so much of it has to be reconciled with science. Like I said, very convenient. You shouldn't have to reconcile your faith if even most of it was true.

 

[Politician Spock]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

 

[mad sweeney]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

They really had no choice. If god made anyone do anything, it was this. Christ dying of old age for our sins doesn't work. God sent him down to die, so someone had to kill him.

 

[proninja]

Was arguing with a Christian friend of mine who is a vehement supporter of ID, and it turns out he's got a friend who works at the Discovery Institute. Said he'd be happy to set up a meeting with the guy.

I'm actually somewhat tempted mostly because I'm curious what their talking points have switched to these days.

 

[The Commish]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

But that's the whole point of this thread isn't it?

Suddenly it's not the word of God because so much of it has to be reconciled with science. Like I said, very convenient. You shouldn't have to reconcile your faith if even most of it was true.

Not sure of the point of the thread honestly I came in after all the and bad fishing trips were over. I don't know what went on the first 14ish pages. My point, however, is that those who are trying to justify a belief through science understand what a belief is as much as people claiming beliefs be proven through science. It's a loop that some choose to function in when it's not necessary. I don't know what you mean by the bold or what's convenient about it. As written, it seems the total opposite of convenient. Seems to be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

[The Commish]

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

Because this one passage doesn't fully qualify all the sources of help we will receive doesn't mean the other areas of the Bible where we are taught the different tools are wrong. It means it wasn't addressed in that passage.

 

[The Commish]

Was arguing with a Christian friend of mine who is a vehement supporter of ID, and it turns out he's got a friend who works at the Discovery Institute. Said he'd be happy to set up a meeting with the guy.

I'm actually somewhat tempted mostly because I'm curious what their talking points have switched to these days.

I've run across my share of "ID scientists" as they call themselves Be prepared to be shocked and amazed. I'd do it if you really want to learn their POV. It will frustrate the crap out of you and don't go in with the mindset that the discussion will go both ways. Just sit back and enjoy the show. It will make the political threads around here seem perfectly normal.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.