NationStates Jolt Archive

now, would leaving the mountain always be different from leaving the crowd? I'm not so sure that one is a conflict, so much as one (probably luke in this case) using poor language, and one being much more explicit.

Matthew says Jesus left the crowd, for the mountain... Luke says that Jesus left the mountain for the crowd.

In Matthew, they all get together on the mountain (Jesus and the homiez) and that is where the sermon takes place... in Luke, Jesus is ALREADY talking on the mountain with his 'boys', and comes down onto the plain - and THAT is where the sermon takes place - and Luke's sermon is much smaller than that recorded in Matthew.

It could be poor language, it could be confusion, it could be a copyist error. But, if the text is accepted as 'perfect' (by which I mean, the content is divinely protected)...it is a contradiction.

Whichever way you look at it - if the bible is inerrant, we have a problem, and if it is NOT inerrant, we have a contradiction between accounts.

Of course I do.
Then there's no problem.

Then there's no problem.

No there isn't a problem but yet you have one poster who is focused on 2 verses instead of the Bible as a whole.

You do not have a right to tell him what he should and should not believe. I believe in the Lord Savior as well and I call upon Him as well before a test or starting a difficult task. You do not have the right to tell him that He helped him or not. That is not your place.

It's my place, as much as it's my place to say that he doesn't exist. This whole thread is if he exists or not. When the kid tells me that Jesus helped him on test, and my view in this thread is that Jesus doesn't exist at all, then it's my place. I never said at all that he shouldn't believe. You're twisting my post, something you do much of.

Very well said. Jesus had a lot of good ideas, regardless of who/what he was, or even if he was.
And Graven, you don't have to believe in God to have faith. Don't search for God as such, search to find out who and what you are, and what works for you.
A mite self-contradicting I know, but it might also work.

Jocabia, thanks for some very nice posts. You have sought and found, like I believe anyone wanting to grow spiritually should do.

Thanks. :) My search continues. I haven't decided that Atheism is necessarily THE answer, but it is AN answer, and it seems to be working for the moment... but I still pursue 'truth'.

I'm to say that Jesus didn't help him in an indirect way, or anyway at all. This is the equivilent of me asking Jesus to help me win the lottery. Passing a test is done by studying, not by Jesus. This guy has his religious tank so full that he believes even taking tests are affected by Jesus. Sorry, but not giving in to that crap.
Ah. You're Pro-Life, right?

Ah. You're Pro-Life, right?

The point?

It's my place, as much as it's my place to say that he doesn't exist. This whole thread is if he exists or not. When the kid tells me that Jesus helped him on test, and my view in this thread is that Jesus doesn't exist at all, then it's my place. I never said at all that he shouldn't believe. You're twisting my post, something you do much of.

Jesus helped me get into the University I attend. Jesus kicked me in the ass to comeback to Him. Jesus led me to the church that I currently attend. And right now...I cannot help but wonder if it was for other reasons but whatever the reasons, I am glad he kicked my ass to come back to Him. I am a much better person since my Lord Savior Jesus Christ came back into my life.

The point?
Just curious.

To me god is a egomaniac masmurdereur and a rapist.

although I don't believe in god, i refuse your reality, and substitute my one...

Besides, why would a loving God decide that the vast majority of the world is going to rot in hell forever simply because they had no Hebrew blood?

Why not? He was 'their' God? They are his chosen people.

And - if we are going to use THAT logic... "why would a loving God decide that the vast majority of the world is going to rot in hell forever simply because they"... haven't heard, or don't believe, the story of Jesus?

although I don't believe in god, i refuse your reality, and substitute my one...
no doubt involving animal crackers.

Why not? He was 'their' God? They are his chosen people.

And - if we are going to use THAT logic... "why would a loving God decide that the vast majority of the world is going to rot in hell forever simply because they"... haven't heard, or don't believe, the story of Jesus?
It's a testament to how much the foundation has evolved over the years.

Interesting.

Just curious.

I'm Pro-Choice.


Jesus helped me get into the University I attend. Jesus kicked me in the ass to comeback to Him. Jesus led me to the church that I currently attend. And right now...I cannot help but wonder if it was for other reasons but whatever the reasons, I am glad he kicked my ass to come back to Him. I am a much better person since my Lord Savior Jesus Christ came back into my life.

Oh, that's swell.:rolleyes:

Listen, I could careless about your experiences and how Jesus 'helped' you. Point is, stop giving credit where credit is not due. You've done everything yourself. You don't win the lottery because you asked Jesus, you win because you picked your birthday, mom's birthday and father's birthday, and those were the numbers that week. You don't pass a test because you asked Jesus. You pass because of hours of studying. You don't get in an university because of Jesus. You get in because of your SAT, ACT, and high school grades. Sure, the thought of an invisble man, can give one extra zeal to perform a task. But in the end, the invisble man didn't exist, nor did the invisible man help you directly or indirectly. You did.

*snip*

1) You do not know my SATs. I never took ACTs and I was homeschooled. You have no idea what is happening and you have no right to tell those of us that God does not help those who believe in Him. I have no problem with what you believe but you do not have the right to tell us what to believe and what not to believe. It isn't your place. Its none of our place to tell what we should and should not believe.

2) I would advise that you lower your anger level down a notch or two because that is a good way to have the anger level rise in a thread like this.

This whole thread is if he exists or not.
actually...the thread is "Do you have faith in God?", not if he exists or not...*smiles*...not being an ass or anything...just trying to stear the topic in the right direction....

I, however, did get two quotes from the Gospel of Matthew explicitly stating that the message was to be preached to everyone.


During his earthly ministry?

I'm not sure I've seen a quote YET, earthy or no, that supports the exact claim you make.


Again, the Gospels were not written by the apostles themselves.

Which means... what? That we can disclude the Gospels?

Surely, since Paul never even MET the living christ, we can disclude all of his testimony, too?

Indeed - anything we cannot be EXACTLY sure of the provenance, we should ignore, right?

1) You do not know my SATs. I never took ACTs and I was homeschooled. You have no idea what is happening and you have no right to tell those of us that God does not help those who believe in Him. I have no problem with what you believe but you do not have the right to tell us what to believe and what not to believe. It isn't your place. Its none of our place to tell what we should and should not believe.

2) I would advise that you lower your anger level down a notch or two because that is a good way to have the anger level rise in a thread like this.


1. You have to realize I was speaking in generalities. Most kids do indeed have to take SAT, ACT, whatever to enter college. Of course I don't know your SATs and I could careless. Stop nit-nitpicking. Secondly, I never said don't believe. Why must you make habit of twisting one's post? Just because I'm refuting your belief doesn't mean I'm saying don't believe. If you don't like it, you don't have to post in this topic anymore. Just because I'm saying what you don't want hear doesn't mean I'm forcing it down your throat....I'll leave that to you religious types. So please, stop twisting my posts.

2. I had a smirk on my face the entire time. No anger. At least, no anger on my end. ;)

actually...the thread is "Do you have faith in God?", not if he exists or not...*smiles*...not being an ass or anything...just trying to stear the topic in the right direction....

Which has come down to a contridiction about a mountain as well. We've all steered, but if we hadn't this topic would have died long ago.

1. You have to realize I was speaking in generalities. Most kids do indeed have to take SAT, ACT, whatever to enter college. Of course I don't know your SATs and I could careless. Stop nit-nitpicking. Secondly, I never said don't believe. Why must you make habit of twisting one's post? Just because I'm refuting your belief doesn't mean I'm saying don't believe. If you don't like it, you don't have to post in this topic anymore. Just because I'm saying what you don't want hear doesn't mean I'm forcing it down your throat....I'll leave that to you religious types. So please, stop twisting my posts.

I am not twisting your posts. But then that is your opinion and it is your right. Just like it is our right to believe that God helps us when we call upon his name to help us.

2. I had a smirk on my face the entire time. No anger. At least, no anger on my end. ;)

Just saying that it sounded like you were angry. Just how it came across is all :)

1) You do not know my SATs. I never took ACTs and I was homeschooled. You have no idea what is happening and you have no right to tell those of us that God does not help those who believe in Him. I have no problem with what you believe but you do not have the right to tell us what to believe and what not to believe. It isn't your place. Its none of our place to tell what we should and should not believe.
God did not help you. That's a statement of fact, not a command.

How do you know it was EXACTLY what He said? you have a Recording of Jesus speaking at those times? the one who was giving this to the Scribe of Matthew had photographic memory that he could recount so perfectly every word?

you still claim this where there is evidence of Jesus spreading his word to all, even non-Jews, in the bible?

you are putting one book above all others, doing the same thing you accused others of doing.

Now who is amending what about Whom?

This is a worrying trend... it seems that the best defence for Jesus spreading his message to EVERYONE... is that the Bible might be wrong.

That doesn't sound like a very good defence, when you look at it.

God did not help you. That's a statement of fact, not a command.

Prove it :D

Which has come down to a contridiction about a mountain as well. We've all steered, but if we hadn't this topic would have died long ago.
i agree...and i was just being a smartass more than anything else...lol...sorry..i should have been more clear on that....

and actually, i think that people tend to make mountains out of molehills when it comes to this subject...*smiles*...sorry...another little joke there...
but really....people take the Bible's scriptures and twist them to their own will....or they see one or two "points" that they can grab hold of...and they are missing the point of the Bible (or any other written "teachings") and that is not the physical words...or the paper or anything else bound...it is the message...what it's teaching...again...my opinion...*shrugs*...

here is the thing that matters

Jesus sent his disiples to the WHOLE world that means jew and gentile(goy) alike. there for he sent him self...he may not have go in person by he intended for his word to reach every one on earth

WHY does a 'mean' b?

You choose to believe that 'the whole world' (not a direct quote?... wouldn't 'every nation' be more accurate?) means Jew AND Gentile... but it isn't stated in the text.

And, in the context of the accounts where Jesus tells the disciples NOT to preach to the Gentile, it seems a counter-intuitive reasoning.

I suspect most Christians WANT to interpret the scripture in such a way, because they like the idea that Jesus came for us all... and it is hard to swallow that maybe, just maybe, the Gentiles are an afterthought.

Prove it :D
I came to that conclusion because you only offered your personal feelings. That's enough to convince someone, now, Colonel (because that's what your name looks like to me sometimes), how does God help you? Can you prove that it wasn't just yourself? Bitte.

One last thought before I log for the night:

I believe we all here (at least Jocabia, JuNii, Corneliu, and I) are monotheists, and believe in a single God, the God who is described in the Bible.

Jesus was the Son of God. He spread a message of hope, love, faith, and redemption. Why would he decide that only one group of people should love God and be loved by God? There is no reason for it, none whatsoever. Jocabia, if you were not of Jewish blood (I assume you are) would you still insist that God's holy message is that you are to be excluded? No, you would not. Say what you will, but you know it as well as I do.

There is a historical precedent, no?

Throughout the Biblical history, the God of the Bible protects one blood... the line of the Patriarchs. He consistently brings destruction, condemnation... genocide, disease, and general death, on pretty much EVERYONE else.

ALL of the Bible history is centred around the idea that God decided that "only one group of people should love God and be loved by God"... right up until the New Testament... and, given Jesus' Jewish upbringing and heritage, doesn't it seem MOST likely that he would continue that tradition?

Secondly, I never said don't believe. Why must you make habit of twisting one's post? Just because I'm refuting your belief doesn't mean I'm saying don't believe.
You're saying "this didn't happen," and "what you believe in doesn't exist." Isn't that what you want them want to believe?

no doubt involving animal crackers.

SO!!!

Because Jocabia here is saying that because I am not a Jew, I am not going to heaven.

No - I don't think that comes close to anything, any of the posters has claimed.

At least - not that I've seen.

The point would be that: if you ARE going to heaven, that is a matter of grace - but Jesus was HERE for the Jews.

Yep, sorry, I had the wrong guy. Thanks for the correction.

And, yes, that is what Anglachel and Anguirel was saying, but I was under the impression that Jocabia is not of Jewish blood. That's GnI's bio, not Jocabia's. So I was wondering if I'm learning a new thing about Jocabia, or if A&A got him confused with GnI. Or maybe I'm the one who has those two guys hopelessly confused.

DAMMIT! Where's my scorecard?!

Lot's of people get we two hopelessly confused. It's the wit, charm, and both being ruggedly attractive that does it.

:D

But - yes, you are learning something new, I think. Jocabia and I both have the same heritage on this front... and on the huge crazy Viking front, too, actually.

Wow, Muravyets! Excellent post, my friend. What you described here is very close to how I feel, also.

Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed it. :)
Thanks! Glad you liked it. :)

Thank you. That was very thorough.
:)
It's all part of the service. ;)

Lot's of people get we two hopelessly confused. It's the wit, charm, and both being ruggedly attractive that does it.

:D

But - yes, you are learning something new, I think. Jocabia and I both have the same heritage on this front... and on the huge crazy Viking front, too, actually.
You mean there are TWO giant, over-educated, Jewish Vikings in the world?! ACK! :eek:

:D

I have faith in Goa, Gob and Goc but not God.

You mean there are TWO giant, over-educated, Jewish Vikings in the world?! ACK! :eek:

:D

Actually... since I have three brothers....

ahem... I sir, am no lady.

I am what Aslan would call, a son of Adam. :D
50% chance and I get it wrong. Damn.
On the other hand, why bother with piddling little details like gender? :p
This is the internet after all.

It was still a brilliant response though. :D



Btw, I am what Aslan would call a "soddin' nutter". Pleased to meetcha. ;)

This is mainly a 'thought' for Corneliu and Junii:

An allegory, to explain why Matthew does not contradict, internally - based on a discussion with Jocabia:

"

If an individual says: "I am going to the store to buy parts."

Could mean parts for a car. Could mean parts for a dog house. Could mean parts for a television.

If the same individual also says: "I only buy things for my car. I will not buy parts for anything else."


Assume I am this individual:


Now, would it be reasonable to assume that because I said much later in the book about me that I am going to the store to buy parts and it could mean any kind of parts that I must have meant any kind of parts or, given the context of other parts of the story, that I will only buy parts for a car.

A reasonable summary of what I meant is "I am going to the store to buy parts for my car." To get something other than that, one has to either ignore or disbelieve the earlier part of the story where I said I only buy parts for my car."

The key question, of course, is how did everything begin? Was there a big bang like science says - and all the components of the universe just appeared out of nothing? Well that’s a pretty preposterous idea, really. Or maybe there was a God and he said “the Word2 and that god had already been existing for a whole eternity doing nothing just waiting for the right time to say the word. Equally preposterous.

So in other words - it’s a toss up, an I don’t know, whether there is a god or not. It can only be 50/50 because there is no evidence either way.

The best evidence for a god(s) is that people pray to him and get an answer, however, it doesn’t matter whether they are Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Confucian, Maori, Wicca or any other breed of religion they all get answers from him or her. Now that can be interpreted two different ways …

Either there is a god and s/he really doesn’t care which religion you follow - Or men get answers from somewhere inside themselves that they call god. So really its not much of an argument for either side.

However - it now gives us a slightly different position - there is a 50/50 chance that there was some sort of divine creator - but apparently s/he doesn’t really care how we worship them ….

As to the Bible – its an interesting book. I have read most of it over the years. What is really interesting is if you compare the stories in the bible to various myths that were around about the world at the same sort of time. Many of the stories are the same or similar - across the various myths and the Bible. Now if you take a big step and treat the bible as a mythological document - and do a comparative mythological study on it with those other text from about the same time - you get a high level of correlation. Many of those other mythologies had the same, or similar, miracles accredited to other gods.

What is even more interesting, is if you do the same sort of tests on other known myths - for example the Celtic myths - and even the robin hood myth - you see the same sorts of correlations and you see the same sort of transfer of miraculous/magic deeds. It even works with things like Robin Hood and King Arthur.

So evidence there that the bible is a mythological hodgepodge - especially the earlier chapters. There is a semi-sensible timeline appears in the old testament - However, the only reason that makes an real historical sense - is because the explorers who started digging up ancient Egypt and all of those other historical places - were devout Christians who believed in the bible and its time line - and they made the information fit what they knew. Modern archaeological research - really asks some very hard questions about that time line.

Take that with modern discoveries and the Biblical timeline really starts to look questionable. Not only are there the various chemical/physical dating techniques, which are often called in to question (although most of the articles that questions them really exaggerate the margin of error). However, recent evidence from seismological studies and earth science, back up the age ranges proposed by other scientists. In fact, if you take the biblical time line as accurate - you have to do away with most modern advanced scientific observation. You need to start questioning Biology, earth science, astronomy and a fair few others. All in all, the evidence against a biblical time line is start to stack up.

Indeed, there is stuff that looks historically accurate in the old testament, and like any enduring story, it has to be based on the society that people of the times would recognise. For an example - go read, ‘First Among Equals’ by Jeffrey Archer. Lots of really good information about the British parliament in there - but a total fiction from one end to the other. Read it in a few years time and it might look historically accurate ….

So that pretty much blows the Old Testament, Judaism and the basics of Islam out of the window.

So that just leaves Jesus, Mohammed, the various Buddha’s and a few prophets to deal with. I suspect they were all very able politicians who worked what ever system they had at the time. Jesus worked with Judaism (and very probably believed it him self) to get the political point across that he wanted. Same with Mohammed. And they both did a very good job of it, so did many of the Buddha’s and other prophets. Their philosophies are still going strong today.

However, as soon as the churches become organised - they start to get political - take the Muslim leaders now - Or even the pope - his rulings that contraceptives are bad and that homosexuality is a sin - have caused all sorts of hardship and pain for untold millions of people.

IMO There might be a god, but there is about a 0000.1% chance of it being any of the gods that are worshipped (although it might be an amalgam of all of them) – and there are a few successful philosophies that are fighting for supremacy - and sometimes it comes down to physical fighting - sometimes it stays as name calling …
A very good post Wangate. The points about the similarities between the religions, both in a region and the things that are similar in religions even over geaographically large areas are part of my belief that people who believe in God all whorship God, but different aspects of Her.

As such, they are all equally valid, and besides, I doubt God care how you worship Him, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
Especially not over their beliefs.

Thanks. :) My search continues. I haven't decided that Atheism is necessarily THE answer, but it is AN answer, and it seems to be working for the moment... but I still pursue 'truth'.
But, since truth is (in most cases) preception, there isn't an Answer as such, more than what you will find work for you.
If you live by what you percieve as truth, then for you it will be truth.


On the other hand, if you want an answer, a truth, I can give you one:
"It's a Funny Old World Alright. Here, Have Another Beer."

And, in the context of the accounts where Jesus tells the disciples NOT to preach to the Gentile, it seems a counter-intuitive reasoning.

I suspect most Christians WANT to interpret the scripture in such a way, because they like the idea that Jesus came for us all... and it is hard to swallow that maybe, just maybe, the Gentiles are an afterthought.
Oh come now.
High-ranking churchman, ca 430 AD: "Jesus had some good ideas, but the Bible is to limited in scope.
We've gotten pretty many followers now, and I can see numerous advantages to expanding our market share to include people that the Bible says he told us not to convert.
Since we're not 100% sure who wrote the Bible and that it is the exact word of God, I suggest we edit the scripture, or have some of us reveal some research that interprets the Bible in a way that we should convert everyone."
:p

((Note that that is meant as a joke, not an attack on the church or the Bible.))



All in all though, I found it interesting that almost everyone here, including those that say they are atheists or doesn't believe in God, almost exclusively denies/debate only the christian God.
Where are the arguments about/for/against Ishtar, Cernunnos, Odin, Manitou, Amaterasu, Zeus, Danu, Baal, Amon, Quetzalcoatl, Abassi, Ra, Guan-yin, Vishnu or Bondye?

As it is now, even the atheists come across almost like they are christians. ;)
(And no, this isn't aimed at you Graven. It's general.)

Prove it :D

Prove that he did help you. :D

You can't prove it either way.

But now you know what it feels like to have people tell you what you should and shouldn't believe. Just know you're doing the same by insisting that your beliefs are, in fact, true and telling people they should believe the same as you.

Am I halucinating? Can it be? The religious people have actually achieved a majority in a nationstates poll. Mark this date on your calander boys and girls. You may not see it's like for many months.

Its the end of NSG as we know it :D

Am I halucinating? Can it be? The religious people have actually achieved a majority in a nationstates poll. Mark this date on your calander boys and girls. You may not see it's like for many months.
pssst.. been like that for two days now. ;)

pssst.. been like that for two days now. ;)

Actually, it was tied this morning.

Actually, it was tied this morning.
??? It showed it was tied yesterday (HST) ... and when I logged off, the Faithful (meaning all Faiths) were ahead by three votes.

oh well, won't argue... it doesn't matter when it happened.

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?
God doesn't make decisions for people. He doesn't cause deaths to happen, nor does he prevent them from happening. He gives man the freedom to make choices and mistakes. In case you're wondering yes, I belive there is a god.

God doesn't make decisions for people. He doesn't cause deaths to happen, nor does he prevent them from happening. He gives man the freedom to make choices and mistakes. In case you're wondering yes, I belive there is a god.
I'm glad that god had nothing to do with all those foolish people choosing to have cancer.

I'm glad that god had nothing to do with all those foolish people choosing to have cancer.
yep... they decided to smoke, take in an excess of drink, go rolling around in Toxic Was... no wait that one was 'Family Guy'... sorry. :p

I can't believe it. This thread is STILL F*CKING UP? :confused:

How many pages am i behind? *grrr*

I can't believe it. This thread is STILL F*CKING UP? :confused:

How many pages am i behind? *grrr*

Over a hundred I believe.

I can't believe it. This thread is STILL F*CKING UP? :confused:

How many pages am i behind? *grrr*
when were you last on?

Blame Hoffman.
God damn, sh*t the bed. :(

when were you last on?
Last week. And i'm trying to see (erroneously, perhaps :D ) if i missed anything anyone really felt like arguing w/me about.
Hey, 'nother anecdote thread on the way, are ya interested?

Over a hundred I believe.
Ah, thank you. *bows*
So has the material shifted TOO much? ;)

Ah, thank you. *bows*
So has the material shifted TOO much? ;)

Jacobia and me and a few other christians were fighting over Jesus as usual :D

Jacobia and me and a few other christians were fighting over Jesus as usual :D

But they finished before I couuld jump in. :(

But they finished before I couuld jump in. :(

Actualy Jocabia hasn't jumped in again. Remember there is a timezone thing :D

Nah... Straughn does it all the time, just without the 'flourishes'. :)
:D

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!

Jacobia and me and a few other christians were fighting over Jesus as usual :D
So not much of "God", persay, so much as "Jesus", then?
*hmmm*s

EDIT:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11064943&postcount=5746

Actualy Jocabia hasn't jumped in again. Remember there is a timezone thing :D

So, we're still arguing the jew thing, technically?

Last week. And i'm trying to see (erroneously, perhaps :D ) if i missed anything anyone really felt like arguing w/me about.
Hey, 'nother anecdote thread on the way, are ya interested?
sure...

oh and note the poll results. ;)

sure...

oh and note the poll results. ;)
Here's the rub ... i haven't voted yet!
:D

Why, you may ask?

So not much of "God", persay, so much as "Jesus", then?
*hmmm*s

Go back a couple pages. It should be the same as the ten pages before it.

Jocab:"He said Jews"
AnA:"He said all nations more"
Corny:"Be quiet"
Junii:"Just overlook those verses"

Here's the rub ... i haven't voted yet!
:D

Why, you may ask?
Nope, not asking. you'll vote when you have your answer. :)

I'm here. There's nothing to say. GnI showed you this thing called context and you guys ignored it. Meanwhile, my initial premise is that the words of Paul contradict the words of Jesus according the Gospels. I gave the example of Jesus being sent to all humanity and you guys proved it for me. It was a jolly good time. I seem to remember several people arguing last night that one must assume the words of Jesus in Matthew are flawed. Why? Because otherwise we can't decide Jesus came for the Gentiles like Paul taught. I'm still waiting for someone who isn't helping my point to show up.

Go back a couple pages. It should be the same as the ten pages before it.

Jocab:"He said Jews"
AnA:"He said all nations more"
Corny:"Be quiet"
Junii:"Just overlook those verses"
err.. not quite.

Jocab: he said Jew
AnA, Corni and junii He said all Nations. (gives multiple verse proof)
Jocab: but that meant only Jews.
Ana, Ju, Corni: Prove it.
Jocab: well, discounting all other verses, except these two...

Go back a couple pages. It should be the same as the ten pages before it.

Jocab:"He said Jews"
AnA:"He said all nations more"
Corny:"Be quiet"
Junii:"Just overlook those verses"

Exactly. You forgot the "maybe the Gospels are wrong and Jesus didn't say 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal', therefore you should ignore the fact that it's there and decide to believe the opposite".

I'm here. There's nothing to say. GnI showed you this thing called context and you guys ignored it. Meanwhile, my initial premise is that the words of Paul contradict the words of Jesus according the Gospels. I gave the example of Jesus being sent to all humanity and you guys proved it for me. It was a jolly good time. I seem to remember several people arguing last night that one must assume the words of Jesus in Matthew are flawed. Why? Because otherwise we can't decide Jesus came for the Gentiles like Paul taught. I'm still waiting for someone who isn't helping my point to show up.

I think Paul was loopy.

err.. not quite.

Jocab: he said Jew
AnA, Corni and junii He said all Nations. (gives multiple verse proof)
Jocab: but that meant only Jews.
Ana, Ju, Corni: Prove it.
Jocab: well, discounting all other verses, except these two...

Ha. I discounted no verses. He said ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal. The only one ignoring verses is y'all. In fact, you guys argued the verses you don't like must be flawed even though they are part of the original Gospels. I don't have to discount your verses. They don't say all people. They say all nations. Unless one ignores where he said he was here for only the Jews one simply can't get to the conclusion that all nations doesn't mean Jews of all nations.

GnI pointed this out but y'all ignored it.

err.. not quite.

Jocab: he said Jew
AnA, Corni and junii He said all Nations. (gives multiple verse proof)
Jocab: but that meant only Jews.
Ana, Ju, Corni: Prove it.
Jocab: well, discounting all other verses, except these two...

Umm...Why would he need further proof "all nations" meant the Jews in all nations? If we assume every verse is true, then he was for all Jews, and all nations. Course, I don't think any of it's "God-inspired", so, yanno, I don't really have to pay attention to any paticular part of it.

I think Paul was loopy.

I was trying to prove he contradicted Jesus according to the original Gospels and got JuNii and AA to do it for me. It was a lot of fun too.

I'm here. There's nothing to say. GnI showed you this thing called context and you guys ignored it. Meanwhile, my initial premise is that the words of Paul contradict the words of Jesus according the Gospels. I gave the example of Jesus being sent to all humanity and you guys proved it for me. It was a jolly good time. I seem to remember several people arguing last night that one must assume the words of Jesus in Matthew are flawed. Why? Because otherwise we can't decide Jesus came for the Gentiles like Paul taught. I'm still waiting for someone who isn't helping my point to show up.
no, GnI and you showed only your personal definitions and interpretations of what was said.

you were arguing not that he came for all persons, but only for the Jews. and that he deliberatly ignored and mistreated any non-Jew that came to him for help. Ignoring the CONTEXT of those verses.

I never argued that the bible is without flaw and I never argued that the bible was flawed. you drew that conclusion yourself.

Umm...Why would he need further proof "all nations" meant the Jews in all nations? Prove it.
If we assume every verse is true, then he was for all Jews, and all nations. Course, I don't think any of it's "God-inspired", so, yanno, I don't really have to pay attention to any paticular part of it.that's up to you and your choice.

Exactly. You forgot the "maybe the Gospels are wrong and Jesus didn't say 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal', therefore you should ignore the fact that it's there and decide to believe the opposite".

and we asked if you saw it in the other gospels! You have yet to respond as you are focused on those two verses. Believe it or not, they are not the only verses in the New Testiment.

no, GnI and you showed only your personal definitions and interpretations of what was said.

you were arguing not that he came for all persons, but only for the Jews. and that he deliberatly ignored and mistreated any non-Jew that came to him for help. Ignoring the CONTEXT of those verses.

I never argued that the bible is without flaw and I never argued that the bible was flawed. you drew that conclusion yourself.

He didn't mistreat them. But there is no evidence he ever said the opposite of Only for the Jews. None. The only quotes we have are either ambiguous or very clearly on my side of the argument. There are none from the original Gospels that you can quote that say otherwise.

He didn't mistreat them. But there is no evidence he ever said the opposite of Only for the Jews. None. The only quotes we have are either ambiguous or very clearly on my side of the argument. There are none from the original Gospels that you can quote that say otherwise.

Show the same verse in Mark, Luke and John.

and we asked if you saw it in the other gospels! You have yet to respond as you are focused on those two verses. Believe it or not, they are not the only verses in the New Testiment.

I'm not focused on them. I just don't dismiss them. One must consider them as part of the story. One part of the story says he came ONLY for the Jews and no other part of the story says otherwise. It is never contradicted. In any part. There is no evidence Jesus ever retracted that statement. "Just kidding, I meant all people, except I won't say all people, I'll say all nations to be really confusing. Ignore the fact that I said all the Jews."

Show the same verse in Mark, Luke and John.

Exactly. So you are saying the original Gospels are wrong? One Gospel isn't enough? None of the other original Gospels contradict it.

I'm not focused on them.

This in lies the problem that we have. You are not focused on it and yet alot of us are focused on them, and focused on Matthew as well. You are caught up on the Book of Matthew and have ignored the other 3 books of the Bible that we have used.

I just don't dismiss them. One must consider them as part of the story. One part of the story says he came ONLY for the Jews and no other part of the story says otherwise.

Again, show the verse in Mark, Luke, and John please.

It is never contradicted. In any part. There is no evidence Jesus ever retracted that statement. "Just kidding, I meant all people, except I won't say all people, I'll say all nations to be really confusing. Ignore the fact that I said all the Jews."

Except that it is only found in one book and not in all of them. Please explain it.

and we asked if you saw it in the other gospels! You have yet to respond as you are focused on those two verses. Believe it or not, they are not the only verses in the New Testiment.

Really? They aren't NOT in the New Testament. The only one dismissing verses is you. Why is one Gospel not enough? How can you argue that you don't believe it if it doesn't appear in the other Gospels and at the same time argue you're not dismissing some or all of the Gospels?

Nope, not asking. you'll vote when you have your answer. :)
Good post. :D
*bows*
I'm in the 390 range right now. I suspect i won't be very useful for a little while *feigns surprise*

Exactly. So you are saying the original Gospels are wrong? One Gospel isn't enough? None of the other original Gospels contradict it.

Care to show me that I am saying that they are wrong. I dare you to show me where I am saying that. I am asking you to show the same verse in Mark, Luke, and John. Do not dodge the challenge.

This in lies the problem that we have. You are not focused on it and yet alot of us are focused on them, and focused on Matthew as well. You are caught up on the Book of Matthew and have ignored the other 3 books of the Bible that we have used.

I'm not ignoring them. They don't contradict the verse. I simply won't ignore those verses.

Again, show the verse in Mark, Luke, and John please.

Again, are you arguing Matthew is flawed? The story of well from John 4. Where does it appear in the other Gospels?

Except that it is only found in one book and not in all of them. Please explain it.

It has to be in every book? Why?

Really? They aren't NOT in the New Testament. The only one dismissing verses is you. Why is one Gospel not enough? How can you argue that you don't believe it if it doesn't appear in the other Gospels and at the same time argue you're not dismissing some or all of the Gospels?

Why are you dismissing everything that we who are arguing against you say?

Care to show me that I am saying that they are wrong. I dare you to show me where I am saying that. I am asking you to show the same verse in Mark, Luke, and John. Do not dodge the challenge.

Show me John 4 in the other 3 Gospels? If it's not wrong why does it matter if it's not in the other 3? If it's correct in one how does it become less correct in the other 3? Why do you need to see it in the other three?

Why are you dismissing everything that we who are arguing against you say?

I'm not dismissing what you say. You're not saying anything. Why must it be in the other 3 Gospels if you're not claiming it's wrong in Matthew? *Waits but still doesn't get an answer*

In case it's unclear, I am not requiring things to be in more than one original Gospel. One should be enough unless one argues that one or more of them are flawed.

I'm not ignoring them. They don't contradict the verse. I simply won't ignore those verses.

They dn't contradict it but it doesn't prove it either. That is what we are saying. You see this now or do we have to spell it out for you again?

Again, are you arguing Matthew is flawed? The story of well from John 4. Where does it appear in the other Gospels?

1) No
2) What about the story of the Good SAMARITAN? Why is it only in the Book of Luke.

It has to be in every book? Why?

Why are you hung up on that verse when the other gospels who tell some of the same stories as matthew do not mention this?

I'm not dismissing what you say. You're not saying anything. Why must it be in the other 3 Gospels if you're not claiming it's wrong in Matthew? *Waits but still doesn't get an answer*

Thanks! You just dismissed the whole argument as you usually do.

They dn't contradict it but it doesn't prove it either. That is what we are saying. You see this now or do we have to spell it out for you again?

It doesn't contradict it. In the absense of some contradiction then why should one dismiss the statement "I was sent ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal".



1) No
2) What about the story of the Good SAMARITAN? Why is it only in the Book of Luke.

I said that it's fine for them to be in only one book. You are the only asking for the verses I quoted to be in more than one book. One book is enough for me. Jesus didn't say that all Samaritans are evil. He simply wasn't there for them.

Are you arguing that one book is enough for a verse to count or not? I think it is. And if it is, why do I care whether the verses from Matthew are found anywhere else, provided they are not contradicted.



Why are you hung up on that verse when the other gospels who tell some of the same stories as matthew do not mention this?
So are you saying that the verse is mistaken and that Jesus didn't say it? I'm not hung up on it. How do you not see this. There is no contradiction in the Gospels. Jesus said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep. Unless one argues that the Gospel was wrong or Jesus was, how does one pretend he didn't say it. He never said otherwise. There is no contradiction. The consistent indication is that Jesus was correct. He WAS sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal.

Thanks! You just dismissed the whole argument as you usually do.

What is your argument? Is one book enough for you to consider it true or do you doubt until you find it in other Gospels? If one book is enough then why does it matter if the verses I quote are found elsewhere? If there is no contradiction then why should I dismiss those verses? According to you no contradiction exists, but then why must you imply that only being in one Gospel makes it less credible? If no contradiction exists and He said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal, then why shouldn't I consider that to be true?

But, since truth is (in most cases) preception, there isn't an Answer as such, more than what you will find work for you.
If you live by what you percieve as truth, then for you it will be truth.


On the other hand, if you want an answer, a truth, I can give you one:
"It's a Funny Old World Alright. Here, Have Another Beer."

And, that works for me. :)

Oh come now.
High-ranking churchman, ca 430 AD: "Jesus had some good ideas, but the Bible is to limited in scope.
We've gotten pretty many followers now, and I can see numerous advantages to expanding our market share to include people that the Bible says he told us not to convert.
Since we're not 100% sure who wrote the Bible and that it is the exact word of God, I suggest we edit the scripture, or have some of us reveal some research that interprets the Bible in a way that we should convert everyone."
:p

((Note that that is meant as a joke, not an attack on the church or the Bible.))



All in all though, I found it interesting that almost everyone here, including those that say they are atheists or doesn't believe in God, almost exclusively denies/debate only the christian God.
Where are the arguments about/for/against Ishtar, Cernunnos, Odin, Manitou, Amaterasu, Zeus, Danu, Baal, Amon, Quetzalcoatl, Abassi, Ra, Guan-yin, Vishnu or Bondye?

As it is now, even the atheists come across almost like they are christians. ;)
(And no, this isn't aimed at you Graven. It's general.)

For the Atheists, it's an 'enemy' thing.

This is a forum largely based in the UK and the US - which means a preponderence of Christianity. Add to that, most of the Atheists were raised either in a Christian country, or - maybe even raised in Christian families or environments.

So - Christian scripture is what we likely know best, certainly the scripture we have the most interaction with... and also, the one we have the most problems with.

Ra does little to determine whether or not the stores in my town will sell alcohol on a Sunday. Vishnu isn't the big decider about whether my gay friends can marry.

So - the conflict centres, most oftet, around Christianity, and the 'other side'.

Well, obviously. Raping women would be mean and unpleasant, whereas some people seem to like a little bit of getting pillaged. :)
Boy, HOWDY!
A few posters' names come to mind ....
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1370.gif

Well, since Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, it is infallible and therefore does not have the capacity to be wrong.
Refresher. :D

Ha. I discounted no verses. He said ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal. The only one ignoring verses is y'all. In fact, you guys argued the verses you don't like must be flawed even though they are part of the original Gospels. I don't have to discount your verses. They don't say all people. They say all nations. Unless one ignores where he said he was here for only the Jews one simply can't get to the conclusion that all nations doesn't mean Jews of all nations.

GnI pointed this out but y'all ignored it.I never argued about any verses being Flawed, but I also never argued that the verses in the bible are not flawed either. I don't hold my understanding of the Books of the Bible to be the end all be all. If you want, I can point out those posts.

now the flaw in your reasoning is this, you take one account, and disreguard the fact that Jesus has said and done things to disprove what you interprete was claimed in the bible. Was jesus sent to the lost sheep of Isreal, yes, I agree with that. were those restrictions placed? dunno, maybe. but even if they were, they were on whom, Him, or his Disciples. Remember it was also agreed that the relationship between the Jews, Gentiles and Samaritans were... well not cordial.

Was those restrictions lifted? yes. with the great Commission. he then tells the disciples to go forth and preach to all nations. the lifting of the restrictions so to speak. he never qualified All nations to mean anything else but all nations. interpreting that as people or countries is up to the reader... as I always maintained.

Ack.

This is what happens when you go to sleep and then have errands to do in the morning. 23 pages? Ack.
Woe is you, indeed. :rolleyes:

;)

For the Atheists, it's an 'enemy' thing.

This is a forum largely based in the UK and the US - which means a preponderence of Christianity. Add to that, most of the Atheists were raised either in a Christian country, or - maybe even raised in Christian families or environments.

So - Christian scripture is what we likely know best, certainly the scripture we have the most interaction with... and also, the one we have the most problems with.

Ra does little to determine whether or not the stores in my town will sell alcohol on a Sunday. Vishnu isn't the big decider about whether my gay friends can marry.

So - the conflict centres, most oftet, around Christianity, and the 'other side'.err.. while it's true that Ra and Vishnu are probably still in bed with Aphrodite...

Christianity isn't the only ones that have a say in how people should live.

What you are saying is - God can change his requirements? God can change?

!
*watches God dancing the "I Can Change" dance in full Saddam regalia .... catches the last line visually and spiritually ... "Hey, Satan ;) " *

I never argued about any verses being Flawed, but I also never argued that the verses in the bible are not flawed either. I don't hold my understanding of the Books of the Bible to be the end all be all. If you want, I can point out those posts.

Hmm...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11104371&postcount=7272

How do you know it was EXACTLY what He said? you have a Recording of Jesus speaking at those times? the one who was giving this to the Scribe of Matthew had photographic memory that he could recount so perfectly every word?

If that's not questioning the credibility of the text and suggesting a flaw then I don't know what is.

now the flaw in your reasoning is this, you take one account, and disreguard the fact that Jesus has said and done things to disprove what you interprete was claimed in the bible. Was jesus sent to the lost sheep of Isreal, yes, I agree with that. were those restrictions placed? dunno, maybe. but even if they were, they were on whom, Him, or his Disciples. Remember it was also agreed that the relationship between the Jews, Gentiles and Samaritans were... well not cordial.

He did not do anything that disproves. Not one thing. There is no evidence that Jesus set out to minister to the Gentiles nor that he ever sent his apostles to minister to the Gentiles.

And you don't know? You say you don't know, when it says the restrictions were placed and you're not questioning the credibility? What would you have to say to be questioning the credibility? Straight out call it a lie?

Was those restrictions lifted? yes. with the great Commission. he then tells the disciples to go forth and preach to all nations. the lifting of the restrictions so to speak. he never qualified All nations to mean anything else but all nations. interpreting that as people or countries is up to the reader... as I always maintained.

It does not say the restrictions are lifted? It says all nation. It means all nations. You are absolutely right when you say "he never qualified all nations to mean anything else but all nations." He certainly never qualified it to mean all people. Given that, one cannot, simply cannot arrive at the conclusion he changed his mind and decided he was not sent ONLY to the Jews.

Hmm...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11104371&postcount=7272



If that's not questioning the credibility of the text and suggesting a flaw then I don't know what is.that was me questioning you on your claim to know EXACTLY what Jesus said. now if you said "to me he says" which you have on occastion, I never questioned that. it was only when you said Exactly.

He did not do anything that disproves. Not one thing. There is no evidence that Jesus set out to minister to the Gentiles nor that he ever sent his apostles to minister to the Gentiles. I need to read more, since I am not familiar with which areas are Gentile in nature, but do you admit then that he did speak to the Samaritans? (since you stopped including them.)

And you don't know? You say you don't know, when it says the restrictions were placed and you're not questioning the credibility? What would you have to say to be questioning the credibility? Straight out call it a lie?Lie, Misunderstanding, Mistranslation of text, political adaptation, poor storage leading to illegeable writting... etc... there are many reasons for why the text may have been changed that Lie or Mistake cannot be claimed, as for absolute truth. which is why you don't focus on one or two verses but the whole of the lesson.

It does not say the restrictions are lifted? It says all nation. It means all nations. You are absolutely right when you say "he never qualified all nations to mean anything else but all nations." He certainly never qualified it to mean all people. Given that, one cannot, simply cannot arrive at the conclusion he changed his mind and decided he was not sent ONLY to the Jews.and here we go back to personal interpretations. If you're looking for "and now you can forget what I said about not preaching to..." then good luck for you won't find it. however, go forth and preach to all nations can also be interpreted to be "go to the Gentiles, the Samaratans, Canaanites, the Phillistines, and all other people whom you meet on your vast travels."

and your last line... Perhaps he was sent only for the Jews, but that doesn't mean that the Jews were to Hoard that message. to think so would mean that you believe that only the Jews are to be saved. even tho you admitted that others are saved by Faith. so how are those others to gain Faith if the Jews hoard the message?

If there is a god, then he owes, me, my mum, my dad, my sister and my best friend a few favors.
Happysmilies to Grave_n_idle:

...Sitting target
Sitting praying
God is saying
Nothing
Nothing

Always
Knows the prospects
Learnt to expect
Nothing
Nothing

Actually... since I have three brothers....
oh...I feel faint....

:D

As a wise philosopher once wrote: *flort*

Love the 'Oprah' reference. Although, now I want a cheeseburger. :)
*genuflect*
*genuflect*
*genuflect*

that was me questioning you on your claim to know EXACTLY what Jesus said. now if you said "to me he says" which you have on occastion, I never questioned that. it was only when you said Exactly.

I quoted it. GnI has read it in the original text. I see no reason to doubt it. But you doubted it openly. It says exactly what I quoted. Show otherwise.

I need to read more, since I am not familiar with which areas are Gentile in nature, but do you admit then that he did speak to the Samaritans? (since you stopped including them.)

I call all non-Jews, Gentiles.

Lie, Misunderstanding, Mistranslation of text, political adaptation, poor storage leading to illegeable writting... etc... there are many reasons for why the text may have been changed that Lie or Mistake cannot be claimed, as for absolute truth. which is why you don't focus on one or two verses but the whole of the lesson.

You are claiming the text is wrong. What difference does it make why? You are agreeing with me. I said the only way to claim Paul did not contradict Jesus is to discredit the original Gospels or simiply ignore it. You've tried very hard to do both. I'm okay with that, but you still are excellent evidence of my point. Keep going. Nobody believed me when I just said it. You arguing it while thinking you're making your case is the best argument I could make.

and here we go back to personal interpretations. If you're looking for "and now you can forget what I said about not preaching to..." then good luck for you won't find it. however, go forth and preach to all nations can also be interpreted to be "go to the Gentiles, the Samaratans, Canaanites, the Phillistines, and all other people whom you meet on your vast travels."

Yes, if you're willing to have Jesus contradicting himself. Particularly, when no such contradiction is necessary or indicated.

and your last line... Perhaps he was sent only for the Jews, but that doesn't mean that the Jews were to Hoard that message. to think so would mean that you believe that only the Jews are to be saved. even tho you admitted that others are saved by Faith. so how are those others to gain Faith if the Jews hoard the message?
I didn't suggest they were. You can claim the message all you like, but there is no indication that it was meant for non-Jews and much indication it wasn't. If people hear the message, they hear the message. It does not make the message intended for them, no matter how much they wish it was. Incidentally, it's the opposite and non-Jews have tried to claim the Jews rejected the message when in fact many Jews did not or Christianity would not exist today.

err.. while it's true that Ra and Vishnu are probably still in bed with Aphrodite...

Christianity isn't the only ones that have a say in how people should live.
Interesting.

Obviously all religions offer some advice about how to live, but since you're responding to a remark about gods other than than yours, I would be interested to hear your take on what those other religions are about for their followers.

If perfection's that easy to screw up, God's a clown.
:eek:
*looks in Lunatic Goofballs' direction*
:eek:
:eek:
*hmmms*
*prepares for seppuku*

I wish I made the poll public.. there's shit loads of lurkers voting.
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/lurk.gif

I quoted it. GnI has read it in the original text. I see no reason to doubt it. But you doubted it openly. It says exactly what I quoted. Show otherwise.I quoted you saying that you know exactly what he said and what he meant. I was not arguing the scripture, but your claim to know exactly what he said.

I call all non-Jews, Gentiles.and you still discount the samaritans he preaches to then?

You are claiming the text is wrong. What difference does it make why? You are agreeing with me. I said the only way to claim Paul did not contradict Jesus is to discredit the original Gospels or simiply ignore it. You've tried very hard to do both. I'm okay with that, but you still are excellent evidence of my point. Keep going. Nobody believed me when I just said it. You arguing it while thinking you're making your case is the best argument I could make.I didn't ignore it, nor do I discredit it. you baised your arguments on those 2 verses. and I countered with arguments from other verses. an argument of interpretation and not of validity.

now, I don't baise my faith on one or two verses alone. I don't believe anyone will baise their faith on one or two verses alone. but you still haven't discounted that the Great Commission is a.. how would you call it, a retraction of any restrictions for the disciples as well as all other followers to preach to all nations.

oh, that's right. you want it explicitily said that it was a retraction. well then, there is nothing to argue. you need to take it up with the Editor in Cheif. I wish you luck.

Yes, if you're willing to have Jesus contradicting himself. Particularly, when no such contradiction is necessary or indicated.How is it a contradition? when he sends out the disciples, does he explicitly state "from now on, you will avoid all Gentiles and Samaritans..." or is that an Assumption on your part?

After they were sent out, did they not gather back together and spend more time learning from Jesus? which would indicate that they were again sent out. how do you know different instructions were given? oh that's right, to you it needs to be explicitly stated that such instructions were changed. funny, you make specualtion on some parts but refuse the possiblities on other areas.

I didn't suggest they were. You can claim the message all you like, but there is no indication that it was meant for non-Jews and much indication it wasn't. If people hear the message, they hear the message. It does not make the message intended for them, no matter how much they wish it was. Incidentally, it's the opposite and non-Jews have tried to claim the Jews rejected the message when in fact many Jews did not or Christianity would not exist today.then you are saying that only Jews are saved then. nice. your posistion has been made clear.

and what really happens afterwards isn't the case, we are arguing what you and I believe are to be who are the true recipents of the Teachings of Jesus.

or are you going to shift it back to the accuracy of the verses?

Interesting.

Obviously all religions offer some advice about how to live, but since you're responding to a remark about gods other than than yours, I would be interested to hear your take on what those other religions are about for their followers.
dunno, don't follow them.

Christ was a jew.


Wahoo!
:D
We gots zeal.

He must have had some kind of intuitive feeling if he happened to guess. Guessing in itself is an attempt to listen to one's intuitions. I never said rationality's the best way to go about everything. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.
It obviously does because god told him to do it, just like god told Bush to invade Iraq.

Ah but we are irrational. Each and everyone of us. If we weren't irrational then why would we be debating God on an internet chat forum :D
Can't ... believe ... Corneliu ... posted ... this ... :eek:

*genuflect*
*genuflect*
*genuflect*

Doing the Vatican rag, eh, Straughn? Never had you pegged for a Tom Lehrer fan.

*cheers*

Where's Straughn and his endless supply of smilies when you need him? (yes, I am too lazy to look for them online.)
He was off living a real life :p (actually a lot of driving, mostly)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink22.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink39.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink08.gif

Doing the Vatican rag, eh, Straughn? Never had you pegged for a Tom Lehrer fan.
No f*cking way did you just say that. :mad:

I'm slightly less avid than Cobbleism, but quite avid, to say the least.

If not Lehrer, whom? :confused:

He was off living a real life :p (actually a lot of driving, mostly)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink22.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink39.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink08.gif
deposit in vault please :D

deposit in vault please :D
All of 'em?
*hmmms*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink11.gif

I already put the sourcelink up there ... but if i must be redundant, i must be redundant, if i must be redundant.
I MUST be redundant.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Good thing then that i've endured more than my share of mockery (in case that isn't obvious) ... or perhaps, just the right amount. :D

So - if not Lehrer, whom?


EDIT: Prwned.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

All of 'em?
*hmmms*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink11.gif

I already put the sourcelink up there ... but if i must be redundant, i must be redundant, if i must be redundant.
I MUST be redundant.
oh did you? still looking for others... like Eut's Fish slappy one.

oh did you? still looking for others... like Eut's Fish slappy one.
I have that AND the sequel, IIRC.
:)

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5779/ultimatrout7nq.gif

Good thing then that i've endured more than my share of mockery (in case that isn't obvious) ... or perhaps, just the right amount. :D

So - if not Lehrer, whom?


EDIT: Prwned.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!

So, as you can see, it was always a Tom Lehrer reference.....

I have profound faith,that there is no god.

dunno, don't follow them.
Oh. Well, then, maybe we can all avoid talking as if these monotheist God arguments cover the moral/ethical belief systems of ALL religions, OK? Just a pet peeve of mine. Sorry.

I quoted you saying that you know exactly what he said and what he meant. I was not arguing the scripture, but your claim to know exactly what he said.

I assume the scripture is accurate. You have already stated that you give the original Gospels no such consideration.

and you still discount the samaritans he preaches to then?

I never discounted it. He did not seek them out. EVER. It's entirely consistent with his instructions and his claims.

I didn't ignore it, nor do I discredit it. you baised your arguments on those 2 verses. and I countered with arguments from other verses. an argument of interpretation and not of validity.

You argue that he suddenly reversed his position when the idea that he didn't would be more consistent, I don't think it's about validity. There is no scriptural indication that he reveresed his position.

now, I don't baise my faith on one or two verses alone. I don't believe anyone will baise their faith on one or two verses alone. but you still haven't discounted that the Great Commission is a.. how would you call it, a retraction of any restrictions for the disciples as well as all other followers to preach to all nations.

No, you base your faith on pretending like He retracted his original statements when the idea that he was asking them to continue as planned is more consistent. I don't discount it. I read it as consistent. When consistency is available as an interpretation why would a person faithful in Jesus argue for an inconsistent Jesus? Perhaps because that person wants it to be a different decision?

oh, that's right. you want it explicitily said that it was a retraction. well then, there is nothing to argue. you need to take it up with the Editor in Cheif. I wish you luck.

So you're comfortable choosing to take it as a retraction by an infallible being? Interesting. Even when you admit that consistency is perfectly reasonable. And here I thought *gasp* infallible means infallible.

How is it a contradition? when he sends out the disciples, does he explicitly state "from now on, you will avoid all Gentiles and Samaritans..." or is that an Assumption on your part?

Hmmmm... yes, I assumed when he said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal he meant it. And then I assumed that when he everything he ever said or did was consistent with that statement that it wasn't somehow reversed. I'm crazy like that. Not assuming the texts say other than they actually say is an insane assumption. Thanks for pointing it out.

After they were sent out, did they not gather back together and spend more time learning from Jesus? which would indicate that they were again sent out. how do you know different instructions were given? oh that's right, to you it needs to be explicitly stated that such instructions were changed. funny, you make specualtion on some parts but refuse the possiblities on other areas.

He was resent each time? Here I thought That Jesus was only sent once and we're waiting on the 'Second Coming'. I guess we're waiting on the nth coming, because today we're assuming that "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal" only applied until the next time God sent him which was apparently within the same lifetime.

Why would one assume there were opposing instructions when there is no evidence of such a thing? I could assume that as soon as you finished typing this post you quickly typed the opposite but then died before you could finish posting, but that would be a silly assumption. Generally, we don't just make things up against all evidence because we want them to be true.

I don't speculate by adding parts. I take all of the verses and place them together as context. I don't make up things about forgetten clandestine instructions that don't appear anywhere and reverse the explicit and expressed words of Jesus. I don't ignore verses I don't like or decide without any evidence that they are flawed. If that's an assumption you find unfair, well, I don't know what to say.

then you are saying that only Jews are saved then. nice. your posistion has been made clear.

No, I actually did not say that. I explicitly said to you recently and to GnI when we were talking about this earlier that the Canaanite woman proves that great faith saves. I simply don't assume the passages that say he was not sent to non-Jews somehow changed because I wanted it to.

and what really happens afterwards isn't the case, we are arguing what you and I believe are to be who are the true recipents of the Teachings of Jesus.

or are you going to shift it back to the accuracy of the verses?

You shifted it. I said I know the verse said something and you claimed that I don't really know. I didn't bring that up. I assumed the accuracy of the verses and asked why anyone would believe "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal" was 'retracted'. Did Jesus decide he WASN'T sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal? Did he lie when he said it the first time? Or is it more logical to simply accept that it wasn't retracted by an ambiguous statement that is easily consistent with the explicit verses stating he was sent to only the lost sheep?

So far, I've seen the argument from you that considering these verses is prejudice on my part and that I should ignore them. Then we heard you argue they were mistaken. Then retracted. Then misleading. Then there were instructions we didn't hear that were telling them the opposite and the apostles just forgot to mention that. Where do you make room for the fact that they are accurate? And if accuracy is one of the choices why would one jump to something else?

Oh. Well, then, maybe we can all avoid talking as if these monotheist God arguments cover the moral/ethical belief systems of ALL religions, OK? Just a pet peeve of mine. Sorry.
never said it did. Sorry if I sounded like that.

Stop judging others Jocabia. You told me to stop judging others and yet you have done so all throughout the thread. Practice what you preach.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11103943&postcount=7242

This one was the best. Apparently, some people struggle with the word, judgement. We are having an intellectual discussion where we disagree. There is no judgement. I haven't condemned anyone or suggested that anyone is a bad person.

Is this an any argument I can think of because I can't defeat him on intellectual terms argument? Really, really disappointing.

That's not a valid conclusion of what he said. He said, "Faith can save all, but Jesus was NOT sent to all. They are not the same thing."

Do you have faith?

I would like to point this out again. Because somehow Willamena understood exactly what I said. Because I said it. See what happens when you DO NOT take something someone said and just add things to it or strip things away to make it into something it's not.

You mean there are TWO giant, over-educated, Jewish Vikings in the world?! ACK! :eek:

:D

Oddly, the things we discuss aren't even the places where I'm most educated. I read about 800 pages on EAM this week alone.

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!

So, as you can see, it was always a Tom Lehrer reference.....Worth posting THREE TIMES!!!
(btw - prwned II - it's a few pages back, IIRC)

A most excellent contribution nonetheless.

I quoted you saying that you know exactly what he said and what he meant. I was not arguing the scripture, but your claim to know exactly what he said.

I assume the scripture is accurate. You have already stated that you give the original Gospels no such consideration.where did I state that I held no reguard for the original Gospels, or are you only speculating on that.

and you still discount the samaritans he preaches to then?

I never discounted it. He did not seek them out. EVER. It's entirely consistent with his instructions and his claims.and that wasn't your challange. your challange was to show when did he ever state he was there for someone other than the Jews. and when the Samaritan woman said "Christ would come and explain everything to us," Jesus replied "I am he" so he admitted that he was there to teach the Samaritans as well as the Jews.

I didn't ignore it, nor do I discredit it. you baised your arguments on those 2 verses. and I countered with arguments from other verses. an argument of interpretation and not of validity.

You argue that he suddenly reversed his position when the idea that he didn't would be more consistent, I don't think it's about validity. There is no scriptural indication that he reveresed his position.I didn't argue that, You did. and whence this 'suddenly' qualifier? his journey and teachings took years. not just a couple of days/months.

now, I don't baise my faith on one or two verses alone. I don't believe anyone will baise their faith on one or two verses alone. but you still haven't discounted that the Great Commission is a.. how would you call it, a retraction of any restrictions for the disciples as well as all other followers to preach to all nations.

No, you base your faith on pretending like He retracted his original statements when the idea that he was asking them to continue as planned is more consistent. I don't discount it. I read it as consistent. When consistency is available as an interpretation why would a person faithful in Jesus argue for an inconsistent Jesus? Perhaps because that person wants it to be a different decision?you interpret them as consistant.
Did not Jesus revoke several of the old laws and traditions that were set down by God in the OT? and again you still discount when he ministered to Non Jews. Teaching them along side the Jews.

oh, that's right. you want it explicitily said that it was a retraction. well then, there is nothing to argue. you need to take it up with the Editor in Cheif. I wish you luck.

So you're comfortable choosing to take it as a retraction by an infallible being? Interesting. Even when you admit that consistency is perfectly reasonable. And here I thought *gasp* infallible means infallible.you're the one tossing out Infallible, flawed, lies, false...

How is it a contradition? when he sends out the disciples, does he explicitly state "from now on, you will avoid all Gentiles and Samaritans..." or is that an Assumption on your part?

Hmmmm... yes, I assumed when he said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal he meant it. And then I assumed that when he everything he ever said or did was consistent with that statement that it wasn't somehow reversed. I'm crazy like that. Not assuming the texts say other than they actually say is an insane assumption. Thanks for pointing it out.and you see what you see. I see what I see. what I gain from reading the bible is what I gain, just as what you gain is for you.

After they were sent out, did they not gather back together and spend more time learning from Jesus? which would indicate that they were again sent out. how do you know different instructions were given? oh that's right, to you it needs to be explicitly stated that such instructions were changed. funny, you make specualtion on some parts but refuse the possiblities on other areas.

He was resent each time? Here I thought That Jesus was only sent once and we're waiting on the 'Second Coming'. I guess we're waiting on the nth coming, because today we're assuming that "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal" only applied until the next time God sent him which was apparently within the same lifetime. He??? You think they = He?

...

Ahh... makes sense now. When Jesus said He was sent only to the Jews, you thought that all that is Jesus, his life, his teachings, his love, and gentleness was only for the Jews, thus all that the Disciples learned and were suppose to pass on were ONLY for the Jews, including Gods grace, generosity as well as forgiveness and love you think is only for the Jews. I see. I was wondering why you kept referring HE was sent to the lost sheep of Isreal to mean that the Disciples were not meant to spread the word to non-Jews.

Why would one assume there were opposing instructions when there is no evidence of such a thing? I could assume that as soon as you finished typing this post you quickly typed the opposite but then died before you could finish posting, but that would be a silly assumption. Generally, we don't just make things up against all evidence because we want them to be true. so now you are saying that unless Jesus explicitly says otherwise, the old laws are still in effect. wow... You better read his teachings carefully then since you do believe that they are accurate in what he said... pretty harsh stuff in there.

[QUOTE=Jocabia][QUOTE=JuNii]then you are saying that only Jews are saved then. nice. your posistion has been made clear.

No, I actually did not say that. I explicitly said to you recently and to GnI when we were talking about this earlier that the Canaanite woman proves that great faith saves. I simply don't assume the passages that say he was not sent to non-Jews somehow changed because I wanted it to.and how can Faith spread without his teachings? for even if you lived by example and someone comes up and wonders how you can be such a kind and giving man in a world full of hate and violence. How would you strengthen his faith since, according to you, all of Jesus's teachings and words are only for the Jews (your argument that the Great Commission is only for the Jews.)

You equate Him and His teachings to the Disciples and their mission of Spreading the word. meaning the Word of Christ is only meant for Jewish Eyes and ears alone.

You shifted it. I said I know the verse said something and you claimed that I don't really know. I didn't bring that up. I assumed the accuracy of the verses and asked why anyone would believe "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal" was 'retracted'. Did Jesus decide he WASN'T sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal? Did he lie when he said it the first time? Or is it more logical to simply accept that it wasn't retracted by an ambiguous statement that is easily consistent with the explicit verses stating he was sent to only the lost sheep?don't think that was me. I don't believe I said anything about anyone not knowing anything. I know I argued POV as well as definitions and Interpretations with you and GnI, but I tend not to argue anyone's lack of knowledge... except my own.

Now, did Jesus say He was for the lost sheep of Isreal or did he say that all that he has to give (meaning his teachings) were only for the lost sheep of Isreal?

So far, I've seen the argument from you that considering these verses is prejudice on my part and that I should ignore them. Then we heard you argue they were mistaken. Then retracted. Then misleading. Then there were instructions we didn't hear that were telling them the opposite and the apostles just forgot to mention that. Where do you make room for the fact that they are accurate? And if accuracy is one of the choices why would one jump to something else?I never said to ignore them, I said they should be considered with the rest of his accountings including his deeds as well. you were the one (between the two of us.) discounting and making all of his words and deeds irrelivant through your interpretations and POV.

now to the meat of your discussion.

The Bible has been translated from many languages to many languages from a source nearly lost in time. only the discovery and study of the Dead Sea Scrolls will reveal any and all discrepencies. (yes, there are discrepencies between... versions of the bible... for lack of a better word.)

is the bible accurate? as I said earlier, I don't know.
Is the bible without flaws? again I said I don't know. (exact words were maybe.)
But some of the things I've always maintained, is that the Bible should be read with prayer, and that what you get out of the bible will be what you are looking for in your heart. if your heart is full of hatred for Gays, then you will find support for your hatred. if your heart is full of love for all mankind, then you will find support for that as well.

If you wish to narrow His teachings to one racial Nation, then go ahead, you've found authority to do so. If others wish to find a lesson of broad acceptance and love. then let them, there's also authority for that in the bible as well.

I would like to point this out again. Because somehow Willamena understood exactly what I said. Because I said it. See what happens when you DO NOT take something someone said and just add things to it or strip things away to make it into something it's not.
for my position, I am not arguing about that. I too agree that faith saves.

my point of contention is the fact that you are equating Jesus's teachings to be only for the lost sheep of Isreal (LSoI) Even when Jesus said (if we take it as being exact, word for word true) that HE, not his lessons, were for the LSoI.

God is great. God is forgiving. God is powerful. God is loving. God is mercyful. God gives me joy. God is my friend. God protects me. God loves everyone. God understands people even if i dont. God is the creator. God is BIG. God is great. God is holy. God is amazing. God is everywhere. God knows you. God knows your name. God knows what your plans are. God is the planner of your life. God doesnt gives us rule, for he gives us joy and created us to live joyful lives and love him back. God can zap you anytime anywhere. God is mercyful though so dont worry. God gave me eternal life. God is in heaven. God will meet me there. God will judge you one day. Heaven or Hell? Decide today. Its not too late or too early. God is true. God is real. God is real. God is next to you now, believe it. Do you have faith? Think of all the joy in your life....friends, computers, your own life, food, TV, your eyes to see, your ears to hear, your mouth to taste, He gives us love. God is real.

I love God. I love Jesus.

God Bless you.
Timofree
...another airtight post. *shrugs*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

*self-fluffle*

Corny seems to be the closest to her in most regards of theology, and so in my attempts to arm myself against this woman, he gets targeted;)
Well, if you need a reason ... ;)

The problem with an omnipotent creator is the paradox that will always arise. Will the all powerful being create a rock that it can not lift? If it does, he isn't all powerful. If he doesn't, he isnt all powerful.
*props to Heikoku*

Yes. He did it last night. He called me to tell me, I was supposed to pass the message on.

He's starting on a Rubik Cube, tonight...
Actually, he's finishing up a game of Rubik's Sudoku ...

http://boardgames.about.com/od/nyctoyfair2006/ig/Toy-Fair-2006-Preview/Rubik-s-SuDoku.htm
!

That sounds quite plausible.
Hahahhaahaha!!!!
*FLORT*
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/irre.gif

Ironically, your entire argument is based on exactly the opposite. Jocabia argues that we can't percieve God by our rules. You argue that we have to. Essentially, the entire discussion will consist of complex ways of saying "yes it is" and "no it isn't"
And AGAIN, Monty Python rings true through a certain thread on the NS General Forum.

And AGAIN, Monty Python rings true through a certain thread on the NS General Forum.
so what post are you on? :D

so what post are you on? :D
I'm on page 450 or so. Still takin' a while (practiced and ate and The Daily Show/The Colbert Report)
:)
I suppose i've gotta get ya more smilies?

I'm on page 450 or so. Still takin' a while (practiced and ate and The Daily Show/The Colbert Report)
:)
I suppose i've gotta get ya more smilies?
only if you wish... they are for everyone. :D

Remind me to break his foot on judgement day.
(Another smilie, JuNii ...)
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb233.gif

...Seveteen hundred people...eesh...And a tie?! *gasp*
Psst ... perhaps it's being manipulated by Mod? :D

Or: "I'll ask my coven to make a sacrifice in your name..."
*thinks Four Rooms* :eek:
Madonna in a fitting role.

That was so plagarized from a pamphlet.
And a bathroom stall mewling ...
and, surprisingly enough, a tattoo i saw recently.

You mean there are TWO giant, over-educated, Jewish Vikings in the world?! ACK!
Oddly, the things we discuss aren't even the places where I'm most educated. I read about 800 pages on EAM this week alone.
for some reason... A Bris seems more interesting with Jewish Vikings in the picture.... :D

Show the same verse in Mark, Luke and John.

Why? Anything that is not in two Gospels is untrue?

Are you accepting that the Bible is not literally true?

Are you admitting, there may be lies in the scripture?


How else can you choose to ignore the words Matthew recorded?

err.. while it's true that Ra and Vishnu are probably still in bed with Aphrodite...

Christianity isn't the only ones that have a say in how people should live.

No - of course not - but most of us are going to be UK or US based... and the big religions - the ones with the power - are likely to be 'christian', in some respect.

The biggest argument this week - for example - about 'gay' marriage... is largely a religious issue in the US.

!
*watches God dancing the "I Can Change" dance in full Saddam regalia .... catches the last line visually and spiritually ... "Hey, Satan ;) " *

Now, that is disturbing.... :)

oh...I feel faint....

:D

(In all honesty... only two of those are big, scary vikings... the third is under 6 feet tall.)

:D

for some reason... A Bris seems more interesting with Jewish Vikings in the picture.... :D

Oooh, no.... it takes on 'drunk, with axes' connotations... :o

How is it a contradition? when he sends out the disciples, does he explicitly state "from now on, you will avoid all Gentiles and Samaritans..." or is that an Assumption on your part?

then you are saying that only Jews are saved then. nice. your posistion has been made clear.

and what really happens afterwards isn't the case, we are arguing what you and I believe are to be who are the true recipents of the Teachings of Jesus.

If I may intercede: The message itself is not salvation.

Having a specific audience does not mean avoiding other people.

Anyone can hear the message, regardless of who it is intended for.

and that wasn't your challange. your challange was to show when did he ever state he was there for someone other than the Jews. and when the Samaritan woman said "Christ would come and explain everything to us," Jesus replied "I am he" so he admitted that he was there to teach the Samaritans as well as the Jews.
Jesus didn't go specifically to speak to the Samaritans, he just spoke to her as he passed through, as it was on his way to Jerusalem.

John 4

19-20"Oh, so you're a prophet! Well, tell me this: Our ancestors worshiped God at this mountain, but you Jews insist that Jerusalem is the only place for worship, right?"

21-23"Believe me, woman, the time is coming when you Samaritans will worship the Father neither here at this mountain nor there in Jerusalem. You worship guessing in the dark; we Jews worship in the clear light of day. God's way of salvation is made available through the Jews. But the time is coming—it has, in fact, come—when what you're called will not matter and where you go to worship will not matter.

23-24"It's who you are and the way you live that count before God. Your worship must engage your spirit in the pursuit of truth. That's the kind of people the Father is out looking for: those who are simply and honestly themselves before him in their worship. God is sheer being itself—Spirit. Those who worship him must do it out of their very being, their spirits, their true selves, in adoration."

25The woman said, "I don't know about that. I do know that the Messiah is coming. When he arrives, we'll get the whole story."

26"I am he," said Jesus. "You don't have to wait any longer or look any further."

Can't ... believe ... Corneliu ... posted ... this ... :eek:

LOL! I have been known to pull surprises once in a while.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11103943&postcount=7242

This one was the best. Apparently, some people struggle with the word, judgement. We are having an intellectual discussion where we disagree. There is no judgement. I haven't condemned anyone or suggested that anyone is a bad person.

Is this an any argument I can think of because I can't defeat him on intellectual terms argument? Really, really disappointing.

You've accused me of misrepresenting the gospel and that I am calling Jesus a liar. That is judging Jocabia and I advise you to stop it less you be judged in the same manner.

You've accused me of misrepresenting the gospel and that I am calling Jesus a liar. That is judging Jocabia and I advise you to stop it less you be judged in the same manner.

No, I accused you of no such thing. I asked if he was wrong when he said something different than you say he meant or if he was lying (I also inserted the possiblity of flawed Gospels, but you denied that this was possible).

(In all honesty... only two of those are big, scary vikings... the third is under 6 feet tall.)

:D

I'm only just over 6 feet. But I do weigh a bit over 200 pounds with a fairly low body fat percentage and shoulders that are broader than most people several inches taller than me.

No, I accused you of no such thing. I asked if he was wrong when he said something different than you say he meant or if he was lying (I also inserted the possiblity of flawed Gospels, but you denied that this was possible).

No you most definitely judged me as twisting the bible.

No you most definitely judged me as twisting the bible.
See, the thing is... if you take this attitude, debate has to stop. If you start taking things personally (that weren't intended as such), there is no sense in proceeding.

never said it did. Sorry if I sounded like that.
OK, cool. I apologize for the tone I took. I tend to be a little ouchy from battles with certain other people. They sometimes lurk around conversations like this, you know, ready to jump in with remarks about other religions being false or just pale immitations of their own. That's why I tend to be hypersensitive about such little details. I know I'm being hypersensitive, but I'm also letting certain persons know I'm here, in case they feel like mixing it up.

Oddly, the things we discuss aren't even the places where I'm most educated. I read about 800 pages on EAM this week alone.
Well exercised brains can comprehend lots of different things. :)

PS: EAM = Que?

(In all honesty... only two of those are big, scary vikings... the third is under 6 feet tall.)

:D
THREE!!?? Crap, these frigging Vikings run all over like mice. Now I know how the ancient Romans felt. ;)

No you most definitely judged me as twisting the bible.
Or, instead of "jugding" and "accusing," he might have been saying that he thinks you are just mistaken, and he might have been trying to guide you to see the flaw in your argument for yourself by showing you how, if you keep following it, it will lead you in a direction away from your true way of thinking. This would mean that you would have to reevaluate your argument.

I'm not saying whether either one of you is right. It's not my argument to make. I'm just pointing out another way to view the exchange between you and Jocabia. Yes, his tone is tense, but that's Jocabia's style. You've got a fairly prickly style, too. Most of us do, wouldn't you agree?

So instead of taking umbrage (I like that word :)) at his snippiness, why not focus more on the content of the arguments rather than the style of it?

For instance, Jocabia is suggesting that there is an inconsistency in saying that the Gospels are the inerring guide to everything about Jesus while discounting inconsistencies within the Gospels. Well, it seeems you have a couple of choices, then.

1) You can tell Jocabia that he is wrong about the content of the Gospels, but then you have to show him and us how he is wrong. This seems to be what you've been trying to do, but not much progress has been made.

2) You can declare that the Gospels are inconsistent but not enough to affect their reliability as a religious guide. In that case, you would have to explain why you choose to dismiss some Gospel data as being minor inconsistencies, while accepting other Gospel data as proper data about Jesus. This would further require you to declare that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant.

There are probably other possible approaches, too, but those are what I thought of just now.

Or, instead of "jugding" and "accusing," he might have been saying that he thinks you are just mistaken, and he might have been trying to guide you to see the flaw in your argument for yourself by showing you how, if you keep following it, it will lead you in a direction away from your true way of thinking. This would mean that you would have to reevaluate your argument.

I'm not saying whether either one of you is right. It's not my argument to make. I'm just pointing out another way to view the exchange between you and Jocabia. Yes, his tone is tense, but that's Jocabia's style. You've got a fairly prickly style, too. Most of us do, wouldn't you agree?

So instead of taking umbrage (I like that word :)) at his snippiness, why not focus more on the content of the arguments rather than the style of it?

For instance, Jocabia is suggesting that there is an inconsistency in saying that the Gospels are the inerring guide to everything about Jesus while discounting inconsistencies within the Gospels. Well, it seeems you have a couple of choices, then.

1) You can tell Jocabia that he is wrong about the content of the Gospels, but then you have to show him and us how he is wrong. This seems to be what you've been trying to do, but not much progress has been made.

2) You can declare that the Gospels are inconsistent but not enough to affect their reliability as a religious guide. In that case, you would have to explain why you choose to dismiss some Gospel data as being minor inconsistencies, while accepting other Gospel data as proper data about Jesus. This would further require you to declare that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant.

There are probably other possible approaches, too, but those are what I thought of just now.

Good points and well made.

I think the debate is seeing the benefits of your contributions and those of Willamena - you both seem to be doing something that can't be done otherwise... a form of translation or explication... cutting through the bullshit, perhaps.

Maybe Jocabia and I are just too 'Viking-y' for the debate to drop naturally into that state... but several times, I have been glad of the attention you and Willamena have been paying to the arguments made.

:)

THREE!!?? Crap, these frigging Vikings run all over like mice. Now I know how the ancient Romans felt. ;)

Except, this time, we've learned our lesson... and now, when we conquer, we do it discreetly...



...and then we leave enigmatically ambiguous statements...

If I may intercede: The message itself is not salvation.

Having a specific audience does not mean avoiding other people.

Anyone can hear the message, regardless of who it is intended for.
Ture, but the challange was to find any verse where Jesus admits to being there for anyone other than the Jews.

Jesus didn't go specifically to speak to the Samaritans, he just spoke to her as he passed through, as it was on his way to Jerusalem.

John 4

19-20"Oh, so you're a prophet! Well, tell me this: Our ancestors worshiped God at this mountain, but you Jews insist that Jerusalem is the only place for worship, right?"

21-23"Believe me, woman, the time is coming when you Samaritans will worship the Father neither here at this mountain nor there in Jerusalem. You worship guessing in the dark; we Jews worship in the clear light of day. God's way of salvation is made available through the Jews. But the time is coming—it has, in fact, come—when what you're called will not matter and where you go to worship will not matter.

23-24"It's who you are and the way you live that count before God. Your worship must engage your spirit in the pursuit of truth. That's the kind of people the Father is out looking for: those who are simply and honestly themselves before him in their worship. God is sheer being itself—Spirit. Those who worship him must do it out of their very being, their spirits, their true selves, in adoration."

25The woman said, "I don't know about that. I do know that the Messiah is coming. When he arrives, we'll get the whole story."

26"I am he," said Jesus. "You don't have to wait any longer or look any further."
yes, but again, Jocabia's challange was not to look for an example where jesus Sought out anyone non jew, but admitted that he was there for someone other than a Jew.

the point being that his message was not for Jews alone. but for everyone while HE himself was there to save the Jews.

I'm only just over 6 feet. But I do weigh a bit over 200 pounds with a fairly low body fat percentage and shoulders that are broader than most people several inches taller than me.
ONLY JUST OVER 6 FEET... :rolleyes:

man, you Vikings are BEEG! :D

Good points and well made.

I think the debate is seeing the benefits of your contributions and those of Willamena - you both seem to be doing something that can't be done otherwise... a form of translation or explication... cutting through the bullshit, perhaps.

Maybe Jocabia and I are just too 'Viking-y' for the debate to drop naturally into that state... but several times, I have been glad of the attention you and Willamena have been paying to the arguments made.

:)
Thanks. I enjoy playing referee, so carry on. :)

Except, this time, we've learned our lesson... and now, when we conquer, we do it discreetly...



...and then we leave enigmatically ambiguous statements...
Do you still wear the funny hats?

I grew up with a Viking friend (he fit Jocabia's description by age 15 :eek:). He had this great plan once, but we never pulled it off, where he wanted to go down to the sailing pond in Central Park, NYC (where people sail model boats) with a remote controlled Viking longship and a whole cast of people in full Viking regalia, with appropriate soundtrack on a boombox, and sail about ramming other ships while chanting "ODIN!" and "RAMMING SPEED!" and so on. That would have been fun. :)

No you most definitely judged me as twisting the bible.

No, I did not judge you. If disagreeing with you is judging you then perhaps you should avoid debate. I simply took a logical stance towards your points. I told you explicitly that I didn't believe you were actually calling Jesus wrong or a liar, but I was simply pointing out where your point leads. Personalize it all you like, but you make a logical error and I extrapolated on it. I don't remember condemning you to hell or calling you a bad person. Please point it out and I will apologize.

Well exercised brains can comprehend lots of different things. :)

PS: EAM = Que?

Enterprise Asset Management. I often teach people how to more efficiently and safely care for assets. So Stuff like patient care equipment at a hospital or keeping facilities clean and operating at a school. I've been less than busy lately so I've been helping run other engineering and science projects. And I just got a ton of work in a new area of EAM so I've been reading like a madman. I'm exhausted and I need a backrub.

yes, but again, Jocabia's challange was not to look for an example where jesus Sought out anyone non jew, but admitted that he was there for someone other than a Jew.

the point being that his message was not for Jews alone. but for everyone while HE himself was there to save the Jews.

I did say to show that he sought out other than Jews or instructed others to seek out non-Jews. He never did either one. Yet, you guys are happy to assume he did even though there is no even remotely encouraging evidence that it ever occurred. Meanwhile, there is much evidence that he gave them exactly opposite instructions.

Ture, but the challange was to find any verse where Jesus admits to being there for anyone other than the Jews.

And you didn't find one. You found where they spoke of a Savior and Jesus said, that Savior is I.

Enterprise Asset Management. I often teach people how to more efficiently and safely care for assets. So Stuff like patient care equipment at a hospital or keeping facilities clean and operating at a school. I've been less than busy lately so I've been helping run other engineering and science projects. And I just got a ton of work in a new area of EAM so I've been reading like a madman. I'm exhausted and I need a backrub.
:eek: What a cool job.

I did say to show that he sought out other than Jews or instructed others to seek out non-Jews. He never did either one. Yet, you guys are happy to assume he did even though there is no even remotely encouraging evidence that it ever occurred. Meanwhile, there is much evidence that he gave them exactly opposite instructions.
now you are changing your challange.

this is what you posted.
I'll tell you what. Show a passage, any passage quoting Jesus in his life stating that he was here to help ANYONE that was not among the lost sheep. He does help on occasion, but usually reluctantly or to correct the inappropraite actions of his disciples (like the Roman ear).
no where in your quote on post 6888 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11086282&postcount=6888) do you ask if HE Sought out any non jew. neither does your challange ask for proof that he instructed anyone to seek specifically non Jews.

and again, I asked you for how you equate HIM (Jesus) being there to save the Jews to mean HIS TEACHINGS were only for the Jews.

now you are changing your challange.

this is what you posted.

no where in your quote on post 6888 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11086282&postcount=6888) do you ask if HE Sought out any non jew. neither does your challange ask for proof that he instructed anyone to seek specifically non Jews.

and again, I asked you for how you equate HIM (Jesus) being there to save the Jews to mean HIS TEACHINGS were only for the Jews.

I've been talking about this for over a hundred pages. I said I said what you're quoting. But I said lots of other things. I'll tell you what. If I can quote myself saying what you claim I didn't, you admit that you've full of it. Fair enough?

And you didn't find one. You found where they spoke of a Savior and Jesus said, that Savior is I.Exactly, they (Samaritans) spoke of a Savior comming to them (Samaritans) and Jesus said that he was that Savior (sent to the Samaritans.)

Exactly, they (Samaritans) spoke of a Savior comming to them (Samaritans) and Jesus said that he was that Savior (sent to the Samaritans.)

They spoke of the Savior and he said he was that Savior. The rest isn't confirmed or denied. Yet, we have explicit directions from Jesus. Every example you give is ambiguous yet you ignore the explicit examples. Interesting choice of priorities. Are you perhaps starting with conclusion in hand and simply dismissing explicit evidence to the contrary?

I've been talking about this for over a hundred pages. I said I said what you're quoting. But I said lots of other things. I'll tell you what. If I can quote myself saying what you claim I didn't, you admit that you've full of it. Fair enough?are you saying that the challange you typed is not what you typed?

you said alot of things, I said a lot of things and alot was also missed.

I did agree that it did seem that Jesus was sent for the Jews.

We both said and maintain that faith can save everyone.

I have stated that I never claimed the bible to be Flawless nor false, nor have I claimed anyone lying, nor absolutly truthfull.

but you insist that Jesus's Teachings are only for the Jews baised not on the Great Commission, but defined by two passages earlier in the bible. (which you state was EXACTLY what Jesus said.)

so one question you never answered was How can the Word of Jesus, instill faith in others if it was only meant to be passed only from Jew to Jew? You have not answered that.

I also asked how do you Equate Jesus being there to Save the Jews to mean that his Word and teachings were only meant for the Jews? You never answered that either.

and finally, your challange was not to find an example where he repeals any restrictions on who to preach to, (it can be aruged from here to Judgement Day that all nations and All people does/does not mean only jews.) nor was it that he 'Sought' anyone out. but to find any example where he stated that he was there to help anyone non-jewish. I even followed the implied meaning that it was not just performing Miracles but Him Actually teaching a group of people.

are you saying that the challange you typed is not what you typed?

you said alot of things, I said a lot of things and alot was also missed.

I did agree that it did seem that Jesus was sent for the Jews.

We both said and maintain that faith can save everyone.

I have stated that I never claimed the bible to be Flawless nor false, nor have I claimed anyone lying, nor absolutly truthfull.

but you insist that Jesus's Teachings are only for the Jews baised not on the Great Commission, but defined by two passages earlier in the bible. (which you state was EXACTLY what Jesus said.)

so one question you never answered was How can the Word of Jesus, instill faith in others if it was only meant to be passed only from Jew to Jew? You have not answered that.

I also asked how do you Equate Jesus being there to Save the Jews to mean that his Word and teachings were only meant for the Jews? You never answered that either.

and finally, your challange was not to find an example where he repeals any restrictions on who to preach to, (it can be aruged from here to Judgement Day that all nations and All people does/does not mean only jews.) nor was it that he 'Sought' anyone out. but to find any example where he stated that he was there to help anyone non-jewish. I even followed the implied meaning that it was not just performing Miracles but Him Actually teaching a group of people.

I'm saying it's not the only challeng I issued. And it's not really important. If you want to pretend my criteria was more strict than it was, have fun, but you still didn't meet it. At all.

It's funny how others seem to have no difficulty understanding me, but you struggle. Wonder why that is?

They spoke of the Savior and he said he was that Savior. The rest isn't confirmed or denied. Yet, we have explicit directions from Jesus. Every example you give is ambiguous yet you ignore the explicit examples. Interesting choice of priorities. Are you perhaps starting with conclusion in hand and simply dismissing explicit evidence to the contrary?
LOL...

if you take the Bible to be accurate (if you want, I can quote you on this), then it was confirmed that this was said for it was in the Bible. It happened. Jesus did personally teach the Samaritans.

or are you now going to say that only some parts of the telling of Jesus's life and teachings are true while others are specualtion.

This is an amusing argument considering the complete lack of evidence to suggest that Jesus lived, as a savior or as a historical figure. He left no writings of his own, and all writings that have been found about him were written decades after his supposed crucifixion.

Yes. Try to define it and I laugh. Repeatedly.

I'm saying it's not the only challeng I issued. And it's not really important. If you want to pretend my criteria was more strict than it was, have fun, but you still didn't meet it. At all.

It's funny how others seem to have no difficulty understanding me, but you struggle. Wonder why that is?
no it wasn't, but it was the only challange you issued to me.

again, you didn't answer my questions tho. funny that you insist that others answer your questions, but ignore questions put to you?

This is an amusing argument considering the complete lack of evidence to suggest that Jesus lived, as a savior or as a historical figure. He left no writings of his own, and all writings that have been found about him were written decades after his supposed crucifixion.

Utter bilge. There are contemporary Roman and Jewish sources that verify his existence as a rabbi of some sort. As for his divinty, even the gospels shy from fully asserting it.

No, but this poll is almost exactly even.
almost 2000 votes also.

Enterprise Asset Management. I often teach people how to more efficiently and safely care for assets. So Stuff like patient care equipment at a hospital or keeping facilities clean and operating at a school. I've been less than busy lately so I've been helping run other engineering and science projects. And I just got a ton of work in a new area of EAM so I've been reading like a madman. I'm exhausted and I need a backrub.
Cool. What a clean white collar you've got there. :cool:

are you saying that the challange you typed is not what you typed?

No, I'm not. I'm saying there was much more to what I typed than what you quoted. Meanwhile what you showed was not what the quoted challenge said.

you said alot of things, I said a lot of things and alot was also missed.

I did agree that it did seem that Jesus was sent for the Jews.

Yes, but that is the point I'm arguing with Corny and you keep contradicting me when I am showing evidence for exactly that point. My point is and was that Paul contradicted Jesus. That's how this comes up every time. Paul contradicted Jesus as described in the Gospels. You agree then stop contradicting the point.

We both said and maintain that faith can save everyone.

I have stated that I never claimed the bible to be Flawless nor false, nor have I claimed anyone lying, nor absolutly truthfull.

but you insist that Jesus's Teachings are only for the Jews baised not on the Great Commission, but defined by two passages earlier in the bible. (which you state was EXACTLY what Jesus said.)

You forget that I am arguing with several people. If you don't take the text an accurate description of the story of Jesus, then you're not actually having the argument you think you're having. I stated it was exactly what was said when y'all were accusing me of amending the words of Jesus.

so one question you never answered was How can the Word of Jesus, instill faith in others if it was only meant to be passed only from Jew to Jew? You have not answered that.

The design and what will happen are not necessarily the same. I'm not saying it's a secret. Just that it's not for any but the Jews. That's the point. Perhaps Jesus knew that the Goyim would steal his message and bastardize it, using it as an excuse for wars for 2000 years.

I answered this question before. It's unfortunate that you're not paying attention.

I also asked how do you Equate Jesus being there to Save the Jews to mean that his Word and teachings were only meant for the Jews? You never answered that either.

Yes, I did. Jesus said he was sent only for the Jews. When he sent the disciples out, he gave them the same commission. In absent of opposing evidence, it seems that the Word and his teachings are part of why he was sent. You have offered no opposing evidence.

and finally, your challange was not to find an example where he repeals any restrictions on who to preach to, (it can be aruged from here to Judgement Day that all nations and All people does/does not mean only jews.) nor was it that he 'Sought' anyone out. but to find any example where he stated that he was there to help anyone non-jewish. I even followed the implied meaning that it was not just performing Miracles but Him Actually teaching a group of people.

hmmm... replies I wrote to you. All of which are challenges of some level or another -

Really? John 4. It seems like he makes it pretty clear to her that he doesn't think much of the Samaritans. He says again that faith will save. Where does he say he was sent to the Gentiles? It seems like he only set out to get some water. And he was too kind to abandon them. A little bit less than compelling particularly when trying to contradict the expressed words of the Christ.


Quotes, please? You reference vague quotes. There is no convincing evidence that he ever taught with consideration for Gentiles or Samaritans.

So other than those two verses? I've shown that there is nothing contradictory in the Gospels about those verses unless one chooses to interpret to be a contradiction. So choose to believe the Jesus contradicted himself. Or choose to believe Matthew was wrong. But I don't have to say "other than" when I'm talking about this, because you can't give me one example that means he MUST have been sent to other than the Jews. But I gave you examples that say the opposite of what you're arguing. The best argument you could make against it is that the verses I'm quoting should be ignored according to you, that I must look at verses "other than", that Matthew must have made a mistake and gotten what he said wrong. You have to dismiss those verses because you want so desperately what Paul errantly told us, you want for it to be true.


He didn't mistreat them. But there is no evidence he ever said the opposite of Only for the Jews. None. The only quotes we have are either ambiguous or very clearly on my side of the argument. There are none from the original Gospels that you can quote that say otherwise.


I find no conflict. That is because I don't WANT it to say something it does not say. I don't take one apostle over the others. They don't conflict. AT ALL. You add context that is not there and claim conflict. There is NO evidence that Jesus came for other than Jews and much that he came ONLY to the Jews. Is the only way you can make the argument now to simply claim Matthew is wrong? Odd.

You cannot take it as whole and deny that it EXPLICITLY says that Jesus came ONLY for the Jews. You create a conflict and then claim that anyone that doesn't make up the same conflict is putting Matthew above other accounts. I take them all in context and they agree. Jesus came ONLY for the Jews.

I quite distinctly challenge you to find evidence contrary to my position. Something you failed at miserably without simply dismissing what the Gospels actually say and suggesting that you evidence is that stuff might have been left out. This is just a weak argument. You accused me of amending the Gospels and then you suggest I need to ignore several verses so I can land on your position. It's amusing.

Cool. What a clean white collar you've got there. :cool:

Actually, you'd be surprised. I often require steel-toed boots to do my job and around last Christmas one of my coworkers was killed on the job while doing testing in the middle of the night. On the job before this one, in order to better learn the jobs of some sign maintenance workers, I road around with them and helped them do their job. It's a varied and interesting job. The collar changes based on the day and who I'm talking to.

Exactly, they (Samaritans) spoke of a Savior comming to them (Samaritans) and Jesus said that he was that Savior (sent to the Samaritans.)
Um, no.. he didn't say he was sent to the Samarians, at least not in John 4.

Is there another passage another that I am missing where it is said?

Um, no.. he didn't say he was sent to the Samarians, at least not in John 4.

Is there another passage another that I am missing where it is said?
read when the samaritan woman describes the savior they were waiting for.

25The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
and Jesus's reply is
26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.admittion that he is the one to tell them (Samaritans) all things.

go throught the different translations and they all say the same thing.

Actually, you'd be surprised. I often require steel-toed boots to do my job and around last Christmas one of my coworkers was killed on the job while doing testing in the middle of the night. On the job before this one, in order to better learn the jobs of some sign maintenance workers, I road around with them and helped them do their job. It's a varied and interesting job. The collar changes based on the day and who I'm talking to.ouch... sorry to hear about your Co-worker.

read when the samaritan woman describes the savior they were waiting for.

and Jesus's reply is
admittion that he is the one to tell them (Samaritans) all things.

go throught the different translations and they all say the same thing.

Again, vagueness that you try to make specify the opposite of his other quotations. He says essentially "you're talkign to the Savior." It doesn't say anything about being there for them, though you try to say otherwise.

ouch... sorry to hear about your Co-worker.

It was quite sad. He was newly married and his wife was a couple of weeks pregnant. It was very hard for the coworker who was there as well. They were switiching back and forth and some of the readings required both of them. They were minutes from being finished and the other worker was just about to get out of the vehicle when it happened. He was destroyed for some time afterward.

Plus, the truckdriver who hit him was in a vehicle that was on fire for 45 minutes. I assume he died, but I actually never found out. The person who was in the safety truck that was protecting my coworkers (it got hit as well) was injured severely, but ended up recovering nicely. For the people involved, I truly feel for their families and friends. It was devestating.

It was hard listening to the coworker who survived tell the story. He obviously needed to tell it, but it was graphic and disturbing.

The good news. The other coworker is flourishing. He and his family are doing well.

The pregnant wife is still having a very healthy pregnancy and everything seems to be well. We have made sure she is cared for and has everything she needs. She is also flourishing. And she recognizes that the work her husband was doing when he died makes the roads a safer place for all people. It may not be as glamorous as being a cop, a firefighter or a doctor, but he risked his life to make people safer in their daily lives and she is very proud of the sacrifice he made.

Again, the man in the safety truck (a government employee I didn't know) recovered completely.

Again, vagueness that you try to make specify the opposite of his other quotations. He says essentially "you're talkign to the Savior." It doesn't say anything about being there for them, though you try to say otherwise.
but for someone who can be soo specific, it's funny that he does accept that responsiblity for others that are non-Jew. by Accepting it, he does counter the implied restriction that his teachings are for jews only.

unless you're going to claim that the Samaritans "Stole" his lessions as well.

There are gods and godesses, but they are not all-powerful, and they are not responsible for every death, nor every good turn. That is life. However, there are higher powers out there.

It was quite sad. He was newly married and his wife was a couple of weeks pregnant. It was very hard for the coworker who was there as well. They were switiching back and forth and some of the readings required both of them. They were minutes from being finished and the other worker was just about to get out of the vehicle when it happened. He was destroyed for some time afterward.

Plus, the truckdriver who hit him was in a vehicle that was on fire for 45 minutes. I assume he died, but I actually never found out. The person who was in the safety truck that was protecting my coworkers (it got hit as well) was injured severely, but ended up recovering nicely. For the people involved, I truly feel for their families and friends. It was devestating.

It was hard listening to the coworker who survived tell the story. He obviously needed to tell it, but it was graphic and disturbing.

The good news. The other coworker is flourishing. He and his family are doing well.

The pregnant wife is still having a very healthy pregnancy and everything seems to be well. We have made sure she is cared for and has everything she needs. She is also flourishing. And she recognizes that the work her husband was doing when he died makes the roads a safer place for all people. It may not be as glamorous as being a cop, a firefighter or a doctor, but he risked his life to make people safer in their daily lives and she is very proud of the sacrifice he made.

Again, the man in the safety truck (a government employee I didn't know) recovered completely. :eek: he was hit by a FLAMING truck? Man... that really... :( prayers to her and her child.

you know Jocabia... the whole meat of our (Yours and Mine) discussion is wether or not All Nations means only Jews or all people reguardless. You can define it by his previous statement, I can define it as a lifting of all restrictions (if any) placed on his teachings.

As I understand it, You take the bible as being accurate. I take the Lessions in the Bible to be the more important focus.

we can argue back and forth, each one not agreeing to and not seeing the other's definitions and interpretations.

let's just say that then between both our schools of thought, we got the world covered.

Agreed?

Utter bilge. There are contemporary Roman and Jewish sources that verify his existence as a rabbi of some sort. As for his divinty, even the gospels shy from fully asserting it.
Unless they lived during the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived, which they did not, it doesn't count as reliable historical evidence.

okay this has been draggin on for a long time, and gone almost nowhere, the question as do you have faith in God not what happened in th bible.

And even then, I dare the christian religion to put forth real evidence that those ancient texts weren't just some sham created by a great many people and then preached and taught as a test of the stupidity of man. even though the ancient texts may be authentic how can you prove that they weren't a lie?

There is NO EVIDENCE that any of those things were true considering they cannot be proven or disproven, andd until something like it describes happens again, or revelations or whatever, the seven years blah blah blah... you are going tohave ahard time roving other religons wrong and depicting christianity as anything but a weapon to those atheiast and those who didn't grow up having it drilled into their heads as truth

Good luck with that one

If one can die JUST because someone shoots us - then death is purely biological.

If sin is the cause of death, then it shouldn't matter if you disintegrated Jesus into his component atoms... he would still be physically alive.

Unless the 'sin/death' connection is just propaganda.
Yes!!!
Ka-POW! :sniper:

As well:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11091468&postcount=6981
:mp5:

Just because sin results in death does not necessarily mean that death is the direct result of sin in one's lifetime. Jesus committed no sin until he accepted the sin on the cross--at which point God could no longer look upon him as His perfect son (ref "eli eli lama sabachthani"--"father, father, why have you forsaken me"). Jesus sinned only upon the cross so that he could descend into Hell and thus conquer Death, thereby providing the pathway to reuniting us natural sinners with the kingdom of Heaven.
Hmmm. Jesus =/= God. Good point.

The differance is that it was our sins ... not his.
Born of virgin, died a virgin ... what a waste. :)

Oh wait, not all books say the same thing about that little ditty, now, do they?

but for someone who can be soo specific, it's funny that he does accept that responsiblity for others that are non-Jew. by Accepting it, he does counter the implied restriction that his teachings are for jews only.

unless you're going to claim that the Samaritans "Stole" his lessions as well.

Who said stole? They aren't secrets. They simply aren't designed for them. Quit arguing strawmen. Meanwhile, the 'implied' restriction is found in a quote where he says "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal." Yep, very 'implied'.

you know Jocabia... the whole meat of our (Yours and Mine) discussion is wether or not All Nations means only Jews or all people reguardless. You can define it by his previous statement, I can define it as a lifting of all restrictions (if any) placed on his teachings.

But you have no evidence of such 'lifting'. None. All 'evidence' you've presented is rather ambiguous and argues about a time when he was recorded saying the opposite. So if you use the evidence you claim then he didn't lift anything but simply either said something or was misquoted as saying something that was NOT true.

As I understand it, You take the bible as being accurate. I take the Lessions in the Bible to be the more important focus.

I don't take the Bible as being accurate. I told you the purpose of my argument. I do take the messages of Jesus as fairly clear. One of them was that he came only for the Jews.

we can argue back and forth, each one not agreeing to and not seeing the other's definitions and interpretations.

let's just say that then between both our schools of thought, we got the world covered.

Agreed?
We don't actually disagree much. I we were both argue only what we actually believe the argument would be pretty boring. Faith saves. We agree on that.

:eek: he was hit by a FLAMING truck? Man... that really... :( prayers to her and her child.

Actually to be clear, no. He was hit by the safety truck that was hit by the semi. The semi then busted through the cement divider wall and burst into flames. He never saw or felt anything from what I heard from my coworker. And she and her child have them, prayers that is.

I guess we'll all find out the truth when we die! :p
No, you stop existing with the mental capacities to record and interpret information. It's one of the defining characteristics of death, not existing.
*shakes head*

Yeah, well, there are powders for that.
This is the sequel to the "dickens" scenario. *nods*

What, like:
"Not tonight honey. You're not ideologically sound tonight."

or

"Not tonight love. Your poll ratings aren't high enough."

or

"Did I mention I want to tear your clothes of with my teeth and have mad, passionate sex with you when you argue about federal argicultural rights like that?"

:p
EXACTLY!


Wait ... what was i talking about? Was i talking about Corneliu?
:confused:

In my beliefs, I think it's because God can't.
Either God is outside Her creation, or He is the creation. In both cases, She can't enter because it would tear reality apart.

A bit like how a human can't sail the ship they built inside a bottle.

In a way I think God is present, just not affecting us or able to communicate with us.

If that doesn't make sense, don't worry. Sometimes I give myself a headache. ;)
Zim zum.
Not the bandmember, either. *bows*

I am god! Mwahahaaha!!! :eek:

Besides, why would a loving God decide that the vast majority of the world is going to rot in hell forever simply because they had no Hebrew blood?(Good bumpersticker)
Because God's a racist, homophobic, insecure, misanthropic maladroit with the emotional integrity of a terrible-two year old ...?
Offhand, anyway.

I am god! Mwahahaaha!!! :eek:
Get in line.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11047146&postcount=36

:D

Ref:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485024

Get in line.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11047146&postcount=36

:D

Ref:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485024

Bitch! Don't you dare! :eek:

I pwn YOU! You must bow down before me and eat Swedish cheese!

Actually, you'd be surprised. I often require steel-toed boots to do my job and around last Christmas one of my coworkers was killed on the job while doing testing in the middle of the night. On the job before this one, in order to better learn the jobs of some sign maintenance workers, I road around with them and helped them do their job. It's a varied and interesting job. The collar changes based on the day and who I'm talking to.
Macho.

It was quite sad. He was newly married and his wife was a couple of weeks pregnant. It was very hard for the coworker who was there as well. They were switiching back and forth and some of the readings required both of them. They were minutes from being finished and the other worker was just about to get out of the vehicle when it happened. He was destroyed for some time afterward.

Plus, the truckdriver who hit him was in a vehicle that was on fire for 45 minutes. I assume he died, but I actually never found out. The person who was in the safety truck that was protecting my coworkers (it got hit as well) was injured severely, but ended up recovering nicely. For the people involved, I truly feel for their families and friends. It was devestating.

It was hard listening to the coworker who survived tell the story. He obviously needed to tell it, but it was graphic and disturbing.

The good news. The other coworker is flourishing. He and his family are doing well.

The pregnant wife is still having a very healthy pregnancy and everything seems to be well. We have made sure she is cared for and has everything she needs. She is also flourishing. And she recognizes that the work her husband was doing when he died makes the roads a safer place for all people. It may not be as glamorous as being a cop, a firefighter or a doctor, but he risked his life to make people safer in their daily lives and she is very proud of the sacrifice he made.

Again, the man in the safety truck (a government employee I didn't know) recovered completely.
This is terrible. I feel so bad for these people, and I respect you all the more.

The key question, of course, is how did everything begin? Was there a big bang like science says - and all the components of the universe just appeared out of nothing? Well that’s a pretty preposterous idea, really. Or maybe there was a God and he said “the Word2 and that god had already been existing for a whole eternity doing nothing just waiting for the right time to say the word. Equally preposterous.

So in other words - it’s a toss up, an I don’t know, whether there is a god or not. It can only be 50/50 because there is no evidence either way.

The best evidence for a god(s) is that people pray to him and get an answer, however, it doesn’t matter whether they are Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Confucian, Maori, Wicca or any other breed of religion they all get answers from him or her. Now that can be interpreted two different ways …

Either there is a god and s/he really doesn’t care which religion you follow - Or men get answers from somewhere inside themselves that they call god. So really its not much of an argument for either side.

However - it now gives us a slightly different position - there is a 50/50 chance that there was some sort of divine creator - but apparently s/he doesn’t really care how we worship them ….

As to the Bible – its an interesting book. I have read most of it over the years. What is really interesting is if you compare the stories in the bible to various myths that were around about the world at the same sort of time. Many of the stories are the same or similar - across the various myths and the Bible. Now if you take a big step and treat the bible as a mythological document - and do a comparative mythological study on it with those other text from about the same time - you get a high level of correlation. Many of those other mythologies had the same, or similar, miracles accredited to other gods.

What is even more interesting, is if you do the same sort of tests on other known myths - for example the Celtic myths - and even the robin hood myth - you see the same sorts of correlations and you see the same sort of transfer of miraculous/magic deeds. It even works with things like Robin Hood and King Arthur.

So evidence there that the bible is a mythological hodgepodge - especially the earlier chapters. There is a semi-sensible timeline appears in the old testament - However, the only reason that makes an real historical sense - is because the explorers who started digging up ancient Egypt and all of those other historical places - were devout Christians who believed in the bible and its time line - and they made the information fit what they knew. Modern archaeological research - really asks some very hard questions about that time line.

Take that with modern discoveries and the Biblical timeline really starts to look questionable. Not only are there the various chemical/physical dating techniques, which are often called in to question (although most of the articles that questions them really exaggerate the margin of error). However, recent evidence from seismological studies and earth science, back up the age ranges proposed by other scientists. In fact, if you take the biblical time line as accurate - you have to do away with most modern advanced scientific observation. You need to start questioning Biology, earth science, astronomy and a fair few others. All in all, the evidence against a biblical time line is start to stack up.

Indeed, there is stuff that looks historically accurate in the old testament, and like any enduring story, it has to be based on the society that people of the times would recognise. For an example - go read, ‘First Among Equals’ by Jeffrey Archer. Lots of really good information about the British parliament in there - but a total fiction from one end to the other. Read it in a few years time and it might look historically accurate ….

So that pretty much blows the Old Testament, Judaism and the basics of Islam out of the window.

So that just leaves Jesus, Mohammed, the various Buddha’s and a few prophets to deal with. I suspect they were all very able politicians who worked what ever system they had at the time. Jesus worked with Judaism (and very probably believed it him self) to get the political point across that he wanted. Same with Mohammed. And they both did a very good job of it, so did many of the Buddha’s and other prophets. Their philosophies are still going strong today.

However, as soon as the churches become organised - they start to get political - take the Muslim leaders now - Or even the pope - his rulings that contraceptives are bad and that homosexuality is a sin - have caused all sorts of hardship and pain for untold millions of people.

IMO There might be a god, but there is about a 0000.1% chance of it being any of the gods that are worshipped (although it might be an amalgam of all of them) – and there are a few successful philosophies that are fighting for supremacy - and sometimes it comes down to physical fighting - sometimes it stays as name calling …
Good post. *bows*

This thread is still on topic?

This is terrible. I feel so bad for these people, and I respect you all the more.

I'll tell you I NEVER speed in work zones where workers are present because of where I'm working now. Those are peoples' mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, children, internet lunatic vikings, etc. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in the country (not the most, but up there) and they do it for us. We don't spend that much time out on the road but I couldn't have more respect for those workers.

Bitch! Don't you dare! :eek:

I pwn YOU! You must bow down before me and eat Swedish cheese!
Now now ... we'll just let the thread and the poll do the talking. :)

Besides, i'm not finished supping on Ladamesansmerci.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb276.gif


Thanks for the offer, though!

I'm agnostic. I admit that I have no proof that god doesn't exist, but I have no proof that he does either.

I don't have any proof either way, therefore I can't make any specific conclusion that's factual. I can't prove my imaginary friend does exist and I can't prove that he doesn't. So therefore, I can't prove anything. So I can't say he does or doesn't exist.

If I had to pick, I would say no. Why? Look around you. Look me in the eye and tell me a two year old getting raped is due justice for her not letting god into her life, or her parents not letting god into their life even. For me, it's not a balance. Human beings are screwed up, I'll give you that. But if we're so unintelligent and unperfect and can't help but to screw up, why do we deserve hell? That's like saying a toddler who runs into a lions cage without knowing the repercussions of it deserves to get mauled by the lion. I don't believe anyone deserves to be left out or tormented. No one.

I don't believe in "right" and "wrong". They aren't universal. It all depends on where you were raised and what you believe. People have killed believing they are right just as much as people have encouraged peace believing they are right. Morality is subjective. Yes, I still have my own beliefs of what I feel isn't okay and is okay, but that doesn't make them the truth and it doesn't give me the right to tell other people what to believe and what not to believe.

I think we should all tolerate eachother, even if we disagree so much. But then again, I'm not dumb enough to think that that's actually going to happen.
Good post.
Welcome to NS Forums, if such courtesy hasn't yet been extended.

I'll tell you I NEVER speed in work zones where workers are present because of where I'm working now. Those are peoples' mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, children, internet lunatic vikings, etc. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in the country (not the most, but up there) and they do it for us. We don't spend that much time out on the road but I couldn't have more respect for those workers.
I'm not a driver, only a passenger, but like you, it drives me insane when people don't use caution around work crews and don't pull over far and promptly for emergency vehicles, etc. If I'm stuck in a car with a driver who doesn't do the right thing, they hear about it constantly for the whole rest of the ride. It infuriates me.

Go back a couple pages. It should be the same as the ten pages before it.

Jocab:"He said Jews"
AnA:"He said all nations more"
Corny:"Be quiet"
Junii:"Just overlook those verses"
Ah.
Anyone else take note of how many non-posting puppets came up to "help" this poll along?

As well:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11108586&postcount=7318

erm, and here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11108587&postcount=7319
..too much to expect corroboration here, i suspect ...
:)

Good post.
Welcome to NS Forums, if such courtesy hasn't yet been extended.

A welcome from me, too. Nice to see someone else who admits to the impossibility of spiritual certainty.

No

A welcome from me, too. Nice to see someone else who admits to the impossibility of spiritual certainty.
Agreed. *bows*
My own personal experience says as much.

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!

So, as you can see, it was always a Tom Lehrer reference.....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11108505&postcount=7310
Prwned.



Some people .... ;)

Now, that is disturbing.... :)
Right here's where i'd normally say, "Welcome to my world. :( " ... but it would appear you've been here for quite some time! ;)

LOL! I have been known to pull surprises once in a while.
You had another good one earlier. :)
Forgive me for how many posts passed making it somewhat difficult to retrieve ... :(

Ignored in my own thread :(

Yes. Try to define it and I laugh. Repeatedly.
Wouldn't the "Yes." kinda tipoff a definition, by its very nature? Implication?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/265.gif

Ignored in my own thread :(
:fluffle:
I am your God, and i shall not abandon ye, Ill Rufferto. Except when it suits me or i lack in some fashion in which you need me to be competent ... admittedly unbecoming of a deity, but hey, you get what you signed up for.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11047146&postcount=36

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/hug_tweetz.gif

:fluffle:
I am your God, and i shall not abandon ye, Ill Rufferto. Except when it suits me or i lack in some fashion in which you need me to be competent ... admittedly unbecoming of a deity, but hey, you get what you signed up for.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11047146&postcount=36

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/hug_tweetz.gif
:eek:

*goes back to delete post*
*remebers self is postwhore*
*clicks big red x*

one hell of a long thread....499 500 soon jesus....

Hey all, first of all, I am a Brit and a second generation aethiest.

I do not, have not and never will need to believe in some omnipotent, omnicognisent and omnipresent being to explain things that can't be explained by a more logical method (and there are very few of those remaining).

I also don't need some god to live my life to the ideals of charity and being the best person I can be.

I have always believed in things that can be proved - which begs the question, if a god did exist would it cease to do so if everyone stopped believing? (qudos to Terry Pratchett) - and I see no proof of gods.

If I was to start to believe in the Christian idea of a god without proof, I may as well believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and The Flying Spaghetti Monster (in all his noodly goodness). I see no logic to the idea of a God. I see huge holes in it all.

Sorry if this overly long post offends you, but a religious conversation usually will offend those that believe and not those that don't.

:eek:

*goes back to delete post*Revisionist, are we? :p


*remebers self is postwhore*
*clicks big red x*Well, as long as you aren't one of those "hang around in Limbo" kinda minions. :)

Besides, i'm not so bad - i don't ask much. Other than an unwavering salivatory appreciation of Kari Byron, and a few other folk who bothered with that thread as well.

well i have to say about people who have faith in god is...

Fuck you and him! Go 666

DEATH TO GOD AND HIS BELIVERS

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:


one last thing................:upyours:

...wow...this has been up for weeks now, and i still haven't voted....i've debated and everything...i've converted back to methodism 3 times, and nothing...no votes...

Revisionist, are we? :p

Well, as long as you aren't one of those "hang around in Limbo" kinda minions. :)

Besides, i'm not so bad - i don't ask much. Other than an unwavering salivatory appreciation of Kari Byron, and a few other folk who bothered with that thread as well.
I think I helped in that thread.. do I get unwavering salivatory appreciation?

:D

What happens when a thread exceeds 500 pages? I seem to remember threads getting archived at that point.

This is an amusing argument considering the complete lack of evidence to suggest that Jesus lived, as a savior or as a historical figure. He left no writings of his own, and all writings that have been found about him were written decades after his supposed crucifixion.
They are discussing him in context, so none of that matters.

read when the samaritan woman describes the savior they were waiting for.

and Jesus's reply is
admittion that he is the one to tell them (Samaritans) all things.

go throught the different translations and they all say the same thing.
Yeah, I did read that part, and I say you are misinterpreting it. Jesus was passing through, they get to talking, the old woman says, "When that saviour fellow arrives, then we'll get the real story." And Jesus says, "Hey, that's me."

That doesn't mean he was coming to speak specifically to them. All it indicates is that word came to them beforehand that he was coming, which the desciples could have done in John 4:8, but it was already all the news since the Pharisees made such a stink about him (John 4:1-3).

well i have to say about people who have faith in god is...

Fuck you and him! Go 666

DEATH TO GOD AND HIS BELIVERS




one last thing................

Meh.

Thread is too long...

Do you still wear the funny hats?

I grew up with a Viking friend (he fit Jocabia's description by age 15 :eek:). He had this great plan once, but we never pulled it off, where he wanted to go down to the sailing pond in Central Park, NYC (where people sail model boats) with a remote controlled Viking longship and a whole cast of people in full Viking regalia, with appropriate soundtrack on a boombox, and sail about ramming other ships while chanting "ODIN!" and "RAMMING SPEED!" and so on. That would have been fun. :)

That would rock... it sounds like a piece of 'performance art' just waiting to happen... (being an artist is an excuse for just about anything... :))

Utter bilge. There are contemporary Roman and Jewish sources that verify his existence as a rabbi of some sort. As for his divinty, even the gospels shy from fully asserting it.

There really aren't, you know...

Zim zum.
Not the bandmember, either. *bows*

I wonder how many people 'got it'. :)