The Mathematics of God's plan (1 Viewer)

[full grown man]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

 

[Jayrok]

What would do it for you?

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.

 

[full grown man]

What would do it for you? 

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?

 

[Jayrok]

Religion is silly, obviously a falsehood and at times utterly laughable.

Unless of course, it is YOUR religion. Then it is unquestionable faith that leads to ultimate truth in utter contradiction to all human capabilities of thought and reason.

Wait, what was the question?

I was talking with a co-worker the other day, who's a christian. He was making fun of Mormons and Jehova's witnesses saying they are silly and "out there" in some of the things they believe. I just looked at him.

 

[GregR_2]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

What leads you to believe it's a quota compared to other possibilities?For example, why do you say a quota over a concept like life on earth is meant to separate the righteous from the unrighteous. Like a cosmic coin sorter, it doesn't stop when enough quarters are found, it stops when the supply of coins has been sorted.

And christians are "righteous"? You may have meant unbelievers from those that believe. To believe doesn't make you righteous, it just means you believe what the bible and your pastor/priest/Rev tells you. There are many great, loving people in this world who do wonderful things in the name of humanity.. that aren't christian believers. In contrast, there are many christian believers who have no regard for their fellow men. In this case, the supply of coins is from the creator. It's endless or can stop tomorrow, at the creator's will. IOW, he can keep the flow of coins coming as long as he wants. So again, when he reaches his desired quota (or limit) of coins and says enough is enough, the question remains. Would you continue to allow bad coins to be made knowing before hand you'll only sort 1 in 4 to the keeper pile?

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?

 

[Jayrok]

What would do it for you? 

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 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.

 

[Jayrok]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

and they supposedly saw the resurrected saints walk the streets in jerusalem. But no one outside of Matthew records this. That is strange, if true. I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

 

[full grown man]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

What leads you to believe it's a quota compared to other possibilities?For example, why do you say a quota over a concept like life on earth is meant to separate the righteous from the unrighteous. Like a cosmic coin sorter, it doesn't stop when enough quarters are found, it stops when the supply of coins has been sorted.

And christians are "righteous"? You may have meant unbelievers from those that believe. To believe doesn't make you righteous, it just means you believe what the bible and your pastor/priest/Rev tells you. There are many great, loving people in this world who do wonderful things in the name of humanity.. that aren't christian believers. In contrast, there are many christian believers who have no regard for their fellow men. In this case, the supply of coins is from the creator. It's endless or can stop tomorrow, at the creator's will. IOW, he can keep the flow of coins coming as long as he wants. So again, when he reaches his desired quota (or limit) of coins and says enough is enough, the question remains. Would you continue to allow bad coins to be made knowing before hand you'll only sort 1 in 4 to the keeper pile?

Don't Biblical writings mention something called the The Guf, where a finite number of souls reside until they are born into the world?

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, .

 

[Jayrok]

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 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.

 

[full grown man]

What would do it for you? 

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 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.

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.

 

[CrossEyed]

And christians are "righteous"? You may have meant unbelievers from those that believe. To believe doesn't make you righteous, it just means you believe what the bible and your pastor/priest/Rev tells you. There are many great, loving people in this world who do wonderful things in the name of humanity.. that aren't christian believers. In contrast, there are many christian believers who have no regard for their fellow men.

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.

 

[Jayrok]

What would do it for you? 

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 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.

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.

Some future person might dismiss it, sure. But I would be changed, and that was your question. Paul saw a vision of light and heard a voice. For all we know, he had a seizure. I'm talking about sitting and talking with the angel or whoever.

 

[full grown man]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

and they supposedly saw the resurrected saints walk the streets in jerusalem. But no one outside of Matthew records this. That is strange, if true. I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

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.

 

[Koya]

Religion is silly, obviously a falsehood and at times utterly laughable.

Unless of course, it is YOUR religion.  Then it is unquestionable faith that leads to ultimate truth in utter contradiction to all human capabilities of thought and reason.

Wait, what was the question?

I was talking with a co-worker the other day, who's a christian. He was making fun of Mormons and Jehova's witnesses saying they are silly and "out there" in some of the things they believe. I just looked at him.

Like I said, they ARE crazy. It's your co-workers myths and fantastical tales that are utter outright truth. Everything else should be laughed at, right?

 

[Jayrok]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

and they supposedly saw the resurrected saints walk the streets in jerusalem. But no one outside of Matthew records this. That is strange, if true. I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

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.

So the church that flourished during the dark ages up to today isn't the True church. Sounds fair enough.

 

[full grown man]

What would do it for you? 

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 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.

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.

Some future person might dismiss it, sure. But I would be changed, and that was your question. Paul saw a vision of light and heard a voice. For all we know, he had a seizure. I'm talking about sitting and talking with the angel or whoever.

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.

 

[full grown man]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

and they supposedly saw the resurrected saints walk the streets in jerusalem. But no one outside of Matthew records this. That is strange, if true. I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

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.

So the church that flourished during the dark ages up to today isn't the True church. Sounds fair enough.

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.

 

[Jayrok]

What would do it for you? 

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 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.

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.

Some future person might dismiss it, sure. But I would be changed, and that was your question. Paul saw a vision of light and heard a voice. For all we know, he had a seizure. I'm talking about sitting and talking with the angel or whoever.

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.

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.

 

[Jayrok]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

and they supposedly saw the resurrected saints walk the streets in jerusalem. But no one outside of Matthew records this. That is strange, if true. I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

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.

So the church that flourished during the dark ages up to today isn't the True church. Sounds fair enough.

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.

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..

 

[full grown man]

What would do it for you? 

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 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.

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.

Some future person might dismiss it, sure. But I would be changed, and that was your question. Paul saw a vision of light and heard a voice. For all we know, he had a seizure. I'm talking about sitting and talking with the angel or whoever.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe your epiphany is in your wife's love, or in holding your child for the first time. Maybe it comes in the form of a lifelong friendship or a kind word or deed from a stranger. You may find God by being present when a loved one dies.

What if your journey is all the epiphany you will ever get? It took Solomon a lifetime of lascivious living to summarize in this fashion, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

 

[full grown man]

I think mainly, the answer is what David, the man after God's own heart said, "such knowledge is too high, I cannot attain it..."  Ps. 139 somewhere.

To the point of God's will being, that He wants all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth, or in 2 Peter 3, where it is said that God is "not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance..."  The simple answer is, that on this side of eternity, our will is greater than God's.  He does not impose His wish upon us.

Perhaps. But it is still his will that we be saved. It seems that his will is always done. But I know, play on words.. The point of the post you are referencing isn't that our will is greater than God's here on earth. This isn't about free will. It was about God's desire for all men to come to the knowledge of truth. To this I'd wonder if God wants us to come to know the truth, then come out and show us the truth. We rely on the ancient writings of superstitious Hebrew tribesmen and ancient story tellers who lived during a time of myth and magic. Then we are told of a church tradition passed down through the centuries where things were changed, added on, omitted, etc.. on to the last few hundred years where we branched off into various different sects who all believe they have the correct interpretation of this collection of ancient pious writings.

What would do it for you? A visit from the dead? A bona fide miracle? The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might believe before they ended up with him. Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets (the Bible). He was candid and told Abe that they wouldn't believe the Bible. The same writer that told us God is not willing that any should perish, Peter, said that God has furnished us with all that we need for salvation. Despite the variances on tradition and hand me down creeds that you cite, there is some remarkable preservation of the Gospels and epistles going on here.

In fact, without the existance of the Bible, me and you would not even be having this conversation. At least we have a foundation to build on. So why not start with that. There is plenty there for us to consider about God's will and repentance for example.

A visit from God/Jesus.. an angel.. something. Lazarus' story isn't historical.. a metaphor. As for the Israelites, doesn't that strike you as strange? That they had God in pillars of fire, women turning into salt, Great seas parting, mana from heaven, Quall piled 3 feet high all around for miles for food, and a host of other supernatural events. Yet they still carved golden calfs and fashioned/worshipped other idols? This tells me that those stories aren't historically true. Why would you put hope in a wooden idol if you just saw God in his power in person? It doesn't make sense.

As for now, I say "Try me". Maybe the Israelites were just ignorant. I personally don't believe those stories are historical. Evidence is that they still would choose to follow a wooden idol. That's absurd. Maybe this generation is more observant. Try us.

Yes, they are well preserved. But how is this surprising? When you have generation after generation with a great stake in making sure it is preserved.. especially when the generation has the power of government at its disposal.

Finally, the bible as a starting point. I was a christian for a long time. The bible and studying it is what caused me to wane in the first place. God's plan of salvation has different paths depending on which parts you read and heed, and which you choose to brush aside.

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.

and they supposedly saw the resurrected saints walk the streets in jerusalem. But no one outside of Matthew records this. That is strange, if true. I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

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.

So the church that flourished during the dark ages up to today isn't the True church. Sounds fair enough.

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.

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..

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.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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..

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...

 

[Franknbeans]

The line forms behind Jayrok

Hey, no pushing... and keep your hands to yourself.

that wasn't his hand

 

[IvanKaramazov]

for one to go to hell one only has to be born into this sinful world. If they do nothing for their entire life, they miss out on heaven. Same if they pick the wrong faith, or never hear the gospel, etc..

Wow. Good thing I don't believe that I guess.

 

[CrossEyed]

for one to go to hell one only has to be born into this sinful world. If they do nothing for their entire life, they miss out on heaven. Same if they pick the wrong faith, or never hear the gospel, etc..

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.

 

[BGP]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

Where does your idea of a "quota" come from?

for lack of a better term.. Call it what you will: quota, limit, tally, whatever. You said Jesus knows only a few will enter heaven. Ok, how many is this few? The question is how many people will be born and perish before God is satisfied enough to stop the show? This is rhetorical of course. If he's willing to lose 1000 souls to eternal damnation in order to get 45 more into heaven, then that's great. Like I said before, it's his BBQ. But the question remains.

I still don't see where you get the idea of a quota.

 

[rolyaTy]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

Where does your idea of a "quota" come from?

for lack of a better term.. Call it what you will: quota, limit, tally, whatever. You said Jesus knows only a few will enter heaven. Ok, how many is this few? The question is how many people will be born and perish before God is satisfied enough to stop the show? This is rhetorical of course. If he's willing to lose 1000 souls to eternal damnation in order to get 45 more into heaven, then that's great. Like I said before, it's his BBQ. But the question remains.

I still don't see where you get the idea of a quota.

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.

Jayrock assumes, or concludes, that he's keeping things going to harvest more souls, to allow more people to come to him, so that there will be more in heaven when he ends the earth. This may or may not be 100% accurate, but the general idea is valid.

The point is, for every 4 births, 75% of them are going to hell. So God is allowing the world to continue at such a rate that the majority of people being born now are going to hell. Why wouldn't he just cut it off now, cut it off hundreds of years ago, to prevent more people from being subjected to hell? Why allow people to continue to be born, only to "reap" the low percentage of actual christians?

If he cared about mankind and loved us as much as he says he does, wouldn't it make sense that he'd want to prevent more souls from going to hell just by calling it off?

Most people want the US to pull out of iraq because we're losing lots of people and causing problems there. Imagine if 3 out of every 4 troops we sent over there were brutally tortured. Wouldn't there be a huge call just to stop, and come back? Well, if God were in charge, he'd continue. Why? That's the point we're discussing here.

 

[dgreen]

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.

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.

Maybe your epiphany is in your wife's love, or in holding your child for the first time. Maybe it comes in the form of a lifelong friendship or a kind word or deed from a stranger. You may find God by being present when a loved one dies.

What if your journey is all the epiphany you will ever get? It took Solomon a lifetime of lascivious living to summarize in this fashion, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

 

[rolyaTy]

for one to go to hell one only has to be born into this sinful world. If they do nothing for their entire life, they miss out on heaven. Same if they pick the wrong faith, or never hear the gospel, etc..

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.

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.

The issue with discussing things like this with christians, myself formerly included, is that by faith, you assume all of it is true. Accordingly, you can explain away any apparent problems with logic, consistency, morality, etc.

It's like, if I believed on faith that the eiffel tower was really located in my basement, and truly beleived that, and someone came to me and told me that they saw it in paris and it couldn't be in my basement, I could say "Well, it may appear that it's in paris, but it's really a projection from my basement. Aliens came to earth one day, and asked me if I could have anything I wanted. I asked for the eiffel tower, and they put it in my basement. I told them they had to replace it, and they said they'd set up some kind of illusion in paris, but the real deal was in my basement, in miniature form. This is the truth."

Once you accept something is true, irrevocably, you can do all sorts of things to convince yourself it's true. Conversations like this are only good for people who are open to considering the logic of their beliefs, who are open to considering whether it's really true what they believe or not, whether it makes sense. If you're not one of those kinds of people, then you can only give your explanation on why your truth (taken on faith) is actually logical, or you can just place faith in the idea that you don't have to understand, but you'll believe it's true anyways.

 

[Black Box]

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.

Jayrock assumes, or concludes, that he's keeping things going to harvest more souls, to allow more people to come to him, so that there will be more in heaven when he ends the earth. This may or may not be 100% accurate, but the general idea is valid.

The point is, for every 4 births, 75% of them are going to hell. So God is allowing the world to continue at such a rate that the majority of people being born now are going to hell. Why wouldn't he just cut it off now, cut it off hundreds of years ago, to prevent more people from being subjected to hell? Why allow people to continue to be born, only to "reap" the low percentage of actual christians?

If he cared about mankind and loved us as much as he says he does, wouldn't it make sense that he'd want to prevent more souls from going to hell just by calling it off?

Most people want the US to pull out of iraq because we're losing lots of people and causing problems there. Imagine if 3 out of every 4 troops we sent over there were brutally tortured. Wouldn't there be a huge call just to stop, and come back? Well, if God were in charge, he'd continue. Why? That's the point we're discussing 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%.

Another option would be it has nothing to do with percentages and the goal is different. To run with the Iraq example, why would God continue in the fight if 3 out of 4 troops were brutally tortured? Maybe it is worth it for a loftier goal?

Another option would be that a single soul in heaven's goodness is weighted such that it outweights a soul in hell's badness (very utilitarian this one is). Then your equation would be 5 * a > 1 * b where a = souls in heaven and b = souls in hell, with appropriate weighting factors.

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!

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

Where does your idea of a "quota" come from?

for lack of a better term.. Call it what you will: quota, limit, tally, whatever. You said Jesus knows only a few will enter heaven. Ok, how many is this few? The question is how many people will be born and perish before God is satisfied enough to stop the show? This is rhetorical of course. If he's willing to lose 1000 souls to eternal damnation in order to get 45 more into heaven, then that's great. Like I said before, it's his BBQ. But the question remains.

I still don't see where you get the idea of a quota.

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.

Jayrock assumes, or concludes, that he's keeping things going to harvest more souls, to allow more people to come to him, so that there will be more in heaven when he ends the earth. This may or may not be 100% accurate, but the general idea is valid.

The point is, for every 4 births, 75% of them are going to hell. So God is allowing the world to continue at such a rate that the majority of people being born now are going to hell. Why wouldn't he just cut it off now, cut it off hundreds of years ago, to prevent more people from being subjected to hell? Why allow people to continue to be born, only to "reap" the low percentage of actual christians?

If he cared about mankind and loved us as much as he says he does, wouldn't it make sense that he'd want to prevent more souls from going to hell just by calling it off?

Most people want the US to pull out of iraq because we're losing lots of people and causing problems there. Imagine if 3 out of every 4 troops we sent over there were brutally tortured. Wouldn't there be a huge call just to stop, and come back? Well, if God were in charge, he'd continue. Why? That's the point we're discussing here.

Well said.. and representative of my thoughts in opening the OP. Thanks

 

[Jayrok]

for one to go to hell one only has to be born into this sinful world.  If they do nothing for their entire life, they miss out on heaven.  Same if they pick the wrong faith, or never hear the gospel, etc.. 

Wow. Good thing I don't believe that I guess.

The concept of original sin is a tough issue to swallow. But it is biblical, at least in Paul's letters. Not so much in the OT.

 

[Jayrok]

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.

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.

 

[Black Box]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem.

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

 

[Jayrok]

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.

Maybe your epiphany is in your wife's love, or in holding your child for the first time. Maybe it comes in the form of a lifelong friendship or a kind word or deed from a stranger. You may find God by being present when a loved one dies.

What if your journey is all the epiphany you will ever get? It took Solomon a lifetime of lascivious living to summarize in this fashion, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

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?

People like to be comforted. If they find comfort in something, they often call it God speaking to them. Nothing wrong with that, but christians don't have that market cornered. People of all different faiths feel their "God" speaking to them using the same vehicle. Muslims are confident that Allah is the source of their happiness, for instance. If Allah doesn't exist and the christian God does, would he be upset about this? Would he correct them and clarify for them? why not?

Let's suppose a man growing up in Saudi Arabia is seeking God. He feels the love of his wife and as he holds his baby for the first time, he feels like he is blessed by God. He then chooses to follow God. Which God do you think he'll choose? He was taught Islam, and all these things he's experiencing inside comes from Allah in his eyes. Why is it that when someone finds God, it depends on his location and upbringing?

As for Solomon, if the whole duty of man is to fear God and follow his commandments, someone in the NT changed the rules. Following commandments has nothing to do with entry into heaven.

 

[rolyaTy]

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.

Jayrock assumes, or concludes, that he's keeping things going to harvest more souls, to allow more people to come to him, so that there will be more in heaven when he ends the earth. This may or may not be 100% accurate, but the general idea is valid.

The point is, for every 4 births, 75% of them are going to hell. So God is allowing the world to continue at such a rate that the majority of people being born now are going to hell. Why wouldn't he just cut it off now, cut it off hundreds of years ago, to prevent more people from being subjected to hell? Why allow people to continue to be born, only to "reap" the low percentage of actual christians?

If he cared about mankind and loved us as much as he says he does, wouldn't it make sense that he'd want to prevent more souls from going to hell just by calling it off?

Most people want the US to pull out of iraq because we're losing lots of people and causing problems there. Imagine if 3 out of every 4 troops we sent over there were brutally tortured. Wouldn't there be a huge call just to stop, and come back? Well, if God were in charge, he'd continue. Why? That's the point we're discussing 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?

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.

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%.

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.

Another option would be it has nothing to do with percentages and the goal is different. To run with the Iraq example, why would God continue in the fight if 3 out of 4 troops were brutally tortured? Maybe it is worth it for a loftier goal?

Another option would be that a single soul in heaven's goodness is weighted such that it outweights a soul in hell's badness (very utilitarian this one is). Then your equation would be 5 * a > 1 * b where a = souls in heaven and b = souls in hell, with appropriate weighting factors.

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.

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!

Read my first response, it's pretty similar to what you just wrote.

 

[Black Box]

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?

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.

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%.

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%.

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.

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

Another option would be it has nothing to do with percentages and the goal is different. To run with the Iraq example, why would God continue in the fight if 3 out of 4 troops were brutally tortured? Maybe it is worth it for a loftier goal?Another option would be that a single soul in heaven's goodness is weighted such that it outweights a soul in hell's badness (very utilitarian this one is). Then your equation would be 5 * a > 1 * b where a = souls in heaven and b = souls in hell, with appropriate weighting factors.

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.

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

 

[Jayrok]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem. 

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

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..

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.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.

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.

 

[rolyaTy]

But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.

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.

Troo dat, well, not "opposite". Yours is just a clarification of his point. They should stay away, but it's not technically wrong.

 

[Jayrok]

But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols. 

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?

Meat sacrificed to idols of pagans is offered to demons and his church isn't to take part at the table of demons.

Granted, you are also correct in that Paul also says idols and sacrifices to idols mean nothing. And that all things are made clean in the world. And as such, he tells them to eat whatever is put in front of them unless it offends anyone around.

So you are correct in his stance. But he did reiterate, in verses 18-22, that they really shouldn't eat meat offered to idols because it is akin to eating at the table of demons.

To me, Paul is being Paul.. to the jews, he became a jew, to the gentile he became a gentile, etc.. He didn't really want them eating sacrificed meat, but in compromise, he relents by saying go for it, but don't offend anyone.

But I stand by my statement that he reiterated the need to stay away from sacrificed meat. Yes, there were exceptions, as you've noted.

 

[CrossEyed]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem.

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

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..

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.

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.

And as has already been mentioned, they didn't have to stay away from meat sacrificed to idols. It was a choice so as not to make a weaker brother stumble.

 

[Koya]

Hi.

My mythology is better than yours.

nana-nana-nahnah.

 

[Jayrok]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem. 

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

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..

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.

"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.

it's debatable.

 

[CrossEyed]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem.

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

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..

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.

"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.

it's debatable.

Isn't just about everything?

 

[Jayrok]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem. 

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

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..

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.

"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.

it's debatable.

Isn't just about everything?

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.

 

[CrossEyed]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem.

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

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..

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.

"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.

it's debatable.

Isn't just about everything?

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.

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

 

[Koya]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem. 

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

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..

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.

"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.

it's debatable.

Isn't just about everything?

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.

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.

Not all things are debateable, even if some try to create a debate over known realities/fact.

 

[Jayrok]

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

Fair enough. But does it bother you that the bible authors had different ideas on the year Jesus was born? What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century? Would that cause you any concern?

 

[rolyaTy]

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.

Not all things are debateable, even if some try to create a debate over known realities/fact.

I disagree.