NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a new game coming out based on the Left Behind series: Left Behind: Eternal Forces. (linky (http://pc.ign.com/articles/730/730911p1.html))

September 6, 2006 - The Left Behind series, which speculates on what would happen if the Christian concepts of the End of Days and the Rapture came to pass, has enjoyed tremendous popularity, more than a little controversy and a fair amount of spin-offs and cross-media tie-ins. It seems inevitable that the apocalyptic novels would eventually serve as the basis for a video game. Created by Left Behind Games, Left Behind: Eternal Forces lets players take on the role of the otherwise moral and righteous folks who are left to oppose the Antichrist after the Christians disappear from the world.

Sounds fun. :D

There's a new game coming out based on the Left Behind series: Left Behind: Eternal Forces. (linky (http://pc.ign.com/articles/730/730911p1.html))



Sounds fun. :D

Oooh. Left Behind is a good read, but feh, not so much all the Christian- ness. But it does soun dkinda cool....

I find the title of this thread offensive.

Frankly, I can't wait to get my copy of the game.

I find the title of this thread offensive.
Meh, it's the NSG version of "XXX GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS! XXX" flashing in neon. Just trying to attract attention to the thread, no need to be offended. :cool:

And having read all the Left Behind books, I'm really interested in the game. I wasn't kidding -- it does sound fun. :D

There's a new game coming out based on the Left Behind series: Left Behind: Eternal Forces. (linky (http://pc.ign.com/articles/730/730911p1.html))



Sounds fun. :D

There's already a game based on the books. I would never buy it. You win by going to heaven and lose by going to hell. I think that heaven and hell are much too serious to make a game out of.

I read all but one of the Left Behind series and thought that they were good for the contemporary fiction group, but I disagree with some of their interpretations of Revelation.

And having read all the Left Behind books, I'm really interested in the game. I wasn't kidding -- it does sound fun. :D

Does that include the prequals to or just the first 12 books?

Looks like TA with fuckin' awesome graphics

Does that include the prequals to or just the first 12 books?

Just the first 12. I read the first eight (there were only that many out at the time) at one a day for the eight days before I went to boot camp. I finished the 12 to find out how it was going to finish, but I didn't really have any interest in the prequels.

Just the first 12. I read the first eight (there were only that many out at the time) at one a day for the eight days before I went to boot camp. I finished the 12 to find out how it was going to finish, but I didn't really have any interest in the prequels.

Was curious.

Besides, the last book in the series comes out in March of 2007. :D

Still, I cannot wait to get this game.

There's already a game based on the books. I would never buy it. You win by going to heaven and lose by going to hell. I think that heaven and hell are much too serious to make a game out of.
The game's not in the conclusion, it's in the journey. Much like life.

I read all but one of the Left Behind series and thought that they were good for the contemporary fiction group, but I disagree with some of their interpretations of Revelation.
I agree. Most of the Christian fiction I like isn't for the philosophy, but for the fiction element itself.

[QUOTE]The game's not in the conclusion, it's in the journey. Much like life.

OOOOOOO!! That's deep. :p

I still think the conlusion is as much a part of the game as the journey. That's the point of a game - to reach or fail to reach a desired goal for the purpose of entertaining oneself or others. When that goal is trivializing something so serious as eternal bliss and eternal damnation, I won't support it, though.

What does "frag" mean?

Video games are a waste of time. Get off your fat ass and run a mile or something.

What does "frag" mean?

Video games are a waste of time. Get off your fat ass and run a mile or something.

:rolleyes:
Wow, you're so superior.

What does "frag" mean?

Video games are a waste of time. Get off your fat ass and run a mile or something.

(source (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/frag.html)) "Frag is a commonly used term in first-person shooter game. When you kill an opponent in the game you call it a "frag" rather than kill. The term frag is commonly associated with multiplayer deathmatch games.

The word frag was first used in the Vietnam war, but there is some discrepancies as to the meaning of word from this time. Some references point to it being used to describe a soldier who was brutally killed by a grenade, while other resources state "to frag" is a term used in wartimes to describe the use of a fragmentation grenade "to cool the ardor of any officer or NCO too eager to make contact with the enemy"."

As for running a mile, I did. It took me seven minutes. That leaves 23 hours, 53 minutes to kill. I think I'll play Halo.

What does "frag" mean?

Video games are a waste of time. Get off your fat ass and run a mile or something.

Says the guy posting on an internet forum... :rolleyes:

I could see a game with a similar concept, expect it's a RPG with black comedy abouts. Christian version of Fallout FTW!!

Says the guy posting on an internet forum... :rolleyes:

...which is itself part of a video game.

What does "frag" mean?

Video games are a waste of time. Get off your fat ass and run a mile or something.

Preaching to the wrong crowd, there, buddy, most of us are too lazy to get up to eat, let alone run four laps around a high school track.

Besides that, an RTS based on a Christian book (the religion that tells you not to kill people, which is contradictary to the purpose of video games) seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.

Besides that, an RTS based on a Christian book (the religion that tells you not to kill people, which is contradictary to the purpose of video games) seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.

Actually, Biblical or traditional Christianity tells the civil government to kill people. And it also says it is permissible to kill people in self defense (if it is truly self defense).

I'd only play it if there's a mod that lets you play as Satan's followers. Xtians are boring.

Preaching to the wrong crowd, there, buddy, most of us are too lazy to get up to eat, let alone run four laps around a high school track.
Speak for yourself, fatass. :P

I'd rather play as a seven foot tall superhuman cyborg in the 26th century.

Wait a second.

:p

Speak for yourself, fatass. :P

You'll never take my out-of-shape ass alive!

You'll never take my out-of-shape ass alive!

So be it.

*scopes in*

I'd only play it if there's a mod that lets you play as Satan's followers. Xtians are boring.

Multiplayer mood is your friend in that case.

I'd only play it if there's a mod that lets you play as Satan's followers. Xtians are boring.

Meh. Satan would be pretty boring in the Left Behind series too, it's the most ridiculously stereotyped side (not that the other side isn't silly as well). The Antichrist is the UN Secretary General who's also a former Romanian Prince, for example. It's cartoonish stuff.

I played the demo, it was terrible.

Oooh. Left Behind is a good read, but feh, not so much all the Christian- ness. But it does soun dkinda cool....I kinda disagree. The excerpts that I've read were horrendous.

I'd only play it if there's a mod that lets you play as Satan's followers. Xtians are boring.From what I've read, you can't play them in the campaign, but you can in multiplayer.

Actually, Biblical or traditional Christianity tells the civil government to kill people. And it also says it is permissible to kill people in self defense (if it is truly self defense).
I particular like Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

I particular like Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Oh, yeah, that one (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html).

I particular like Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

I have no problem with it. There's a difference between occasional disobedience and rebellion. The rebellion is to be punished with death. If they refuse to listen to their parents (assuming, of course, the parents are requiring that which is in accord with God's Law) how is the child going to be able to listen to anybody?

But this is a subject for another thread.

But this is a subject for another thread.
Yeah, the one condemning Sharia and similar barbaric codes of laws.

I have no problem with it.
Really? I'm a Christian and even I have a problem with it.

Really? I'm a Christian and even I have a problem with it.

You're allowed to have a problem with it. But you're not allowed to disregard it or cancel it out simply because it is unpopular with society.

You're allowed to have a problem with it. But you're not allowed to disregard it or cancel it out simply because it is unpopular with society.
No, but I am allowed to cancel it out with Matthew 13:24-30.

Wow... I tried to read the first Left Behind book and it sucked. I mean, it was terrible. I thought the Rapture was ficticious anyways.

I guess they better make a double pack featuring this Left Behind game and JFK Reloaded.

The Left Behind Series is some of the best writing I've read in years. However, I will say that Harry Potter is better but LB is still excellent.

No, but I am allowed to cancel it out with Matthew 13:24-30.

No, that's speaking to those who are in the Church. The heathen is not to be let in in the first place (the rebellious youth), but those who are in the Church (the field) because they claim to be Christians and live as one but are not (they decieve themselves) are to be left alone until the end. We are not to go on witch hunts.

Preaching to the wrong crowd, there, buddy, most of us are too lazy to get up to eat, let alone run four laps around a high school track.


you are so talking about me. I'm not fat, because I'm too lazy to eat:p

Yeah, the one condemning Sharia and similar barbaric codes of laws.
How is sharia law barbaric?

you are so talking about me. I'm not fat, because I'm too lazy to eat:p:eek:

And I thought I was the only one...

No, that's speaking to those who are in the Church. The heathen is not to be let in in the first place (the rebellious youth), but those who are in the Church (the field) because they claim to be Christians and live as one but are not (they decieve themselves) are to be left alone until the end. We are not to go on witch hunts.
I disagree with your interpretation.

The rebellious youth, in this metaphor, are the weeds planted in among the wheat by the enemy. They grow amongst the wheat, just like rebellious youth grow up in the society of other righteous people. However, the price of uprooting these weeds is that the wheat gets hurt in the process. Similarly, expelling or eliminating those rebellious youth in a society has a damaging effect on their parents, friends, loved ones, etc. which is not worth the marginal gains.

I have no problem with it. There's a difference between occasional disobedience and rebellion. The rebellion is to be punished with death. If they refuse to listen to their parents (assuming, of course, the parents are requiring that which is in accord with God's Law) how is the child going to be able to listen to anybody?

But this is a subject for another thread.

So you're required to listen to your parents unless you think they're wrong. That's logical.

Given the nature of your arguments and their non-compliance with that which is ACTUALLY found in the words of the Savior, I'm fairly sure I would qualify as a rebellious youth in your eyes.

I disagree with your interpretation.

The rebellious youth, in this metaphor, are the weeds planted in among the wheat by the enemy. They grow amongst the wheat, just like rebellious youth grow up in the society of other righteous people. However, the price of uprooting these weeds is that the wheat gets hurt in the process. Similarly, expelling or eliminating those rebellious youth in a society has a damaging effect on their parents, friends, loved ones, etc. which is not worth the marginal gains.

Interpret Scripture with Scripture.

No, that's speaking to those who are in the Church. The heathen is not to be let in in the first place (the rebellious youth), but those who are in the Church (the field) because they claim to be Christians and live as one but are not (they decieve themselves) are to be left alone until the end. We are not to go on witch hunts.

Wow, did you read that at all? Jesus says plainly it's nor for you to try and remove or even deal with people you feel don't belong among the righteous. At all. Jesus says not to worry about those you think don't belong because he will take care of it. You appear not to trust that he's actually capable of doing so.

Interpret Scripture with Scripture.
Are you telling me to do that or making a mental note, because you didn't use any for your interpretation either.

So you're required to listen to your parents unless you think they're wrong. That's logical.

Given the nature of your arguments and their non-compliance with that which is ACTUALLY found in the words of the Savior, I'm fairly sure I would qualify as a rebellious youth in your eyes.

I really have to say you annoy me.

If the child truly believes that his/her parents commands are against God's Law, s/he should be willing to die for it. Of course, the elders and judges should see that the parents are going against God's Word when the issue comes before them.

Wow, did you read that at all? Jesus says plainly it's nor for you to try and remove or even deal with people you feel don't belong among the righteous. At all. Jesus says not to worry about those you think don't belong because he will take care of it. You appear not to trust that he's actually capable of doing so.

Interpret Scripture with Scripture. You are disregarding Paul's letters. The Bible cannot contradict itself, and Paul says to expel the wicked from the Church.

Interpret Scripture with Scripture.

In other words you have no reply. Could that be because what he said was completely in line with the scripture both there and in other places where Jesus said you're not in a position to deal with such things? At least you're aware of it.

Back to the game, did anyone notice that women are only allowed to be nurses and nothing else? Apparently, women can't be good Christian recruiters of musicians. They can only care for the wounded.

Are you telling me to do that or making a mental note, because you didn't use any for your interpretation either.

I'm telling you to do that. I looked and saw that Jesus came to uphold the Law and that Scripture cannot contradict itself. God says many times in the OT to purge the evil from among us. How else can Jesus and God's words in the OT be in accord? Unless Jesus repeals some of the Law, which He said He was not there to do.

Interpret Scripture with Scripture. You are disregarding Paul's letters. The Bible cannot contradict itself, and Paul says to expel the wicked from the Church.

Are you telling me that Jesus said not to do so and Paul said to do so, so you take the words of Paul over Jesus? Seriously? Did you just chastise me for listening to what Jesus explicitely said? How sad.

According to you the weeds are the wicked and the field is the Church and the righteous are the wheat. So the obvious point of the scripture in blatant words is that we are not to pull the weeds. But, hey, don't listen to Jesus, Paulian.

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "


If the field is the Church, then Jesus tells us explicitly not to remove the weeds (the wicked).

I really have to say you annoy me.

If the child truly believes that his/her parents commands are against God's Law, s/he should be willing to die for it. Of course, the elders and judges should see that the parents are going against God's Word when the issue comes before them.

I annoy you? Why? Because I take the words of Jesus above all else? Hmmm... I could see how that might upset you. However, unlike you I worship God and God alone. I don't place people in the place of God and amend the words of God with the words of man. Jesus was God. Do you deny it? He said what we are to do. You're argument against what he said are the words of whom? Not God in the flesh, I promise you that.

The Bible cannot contradict itself...You've never read Genesis, have you?

I'm telling you to do that. I looked and saw that Jesus came to uphold the Law and that Scripture cannot contradict itself. God says many times in the OT to purge the evil from among us. How else can Jesus and God's words in the OT be in accord? Unless Jesus repeals some of the Law, which He said He was not there to do.

Or some of what you are reading you are misinterpreting which nearly any Jew could tell you. Hmmm... what's more likely. You're wrong. Or Jesus was. Hmmmm... I think I know the answer.

Are you telling me that Jesus said not to do so and Paul said to do so, so you take the words of Paul over Jesus? Seriously? Did you just chastise me for listening to what Jesus explicitely said? How sad.

According to you the weeds are the wicked and the field is the Church and the righteous are the wheat. So the obvious point of the scripture in blatant words is that we are not to pull the weeds. But, hey, don't listen to Jesus, Paulian.

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "


If the field is the Church, then Jesus tells us explicitly not to remove the weeds (the wicked).

The weeds are those who live as Christians and claim to be. I said that we are under no obligation to tolerate those who do not claim to be Christians or live lives contrary to a true Christian lifestyle. In fact we are commanded to not tolerate the actions of such a person (by Paul, an Apostle and therefore someone who speake with infallibility on issues of doctrine).

You've never read Genesis, have you?

If you're referring to the "two different creation stories", the first tells of what happened in the scheme of days and the second goes into detail of happened on the sixth day.

I'm telling you to do that. I looked and saw that Jesus came to uphold the Law and that Scripture cannot contradict itself. God says many times in the OT to purge the evil from among us. How else can Jesus and God's words in the OT be in accord? Unless Jesus repeals some of the Law, which He said He was not there to do.
And yet Jesus dismissed the purity laws in Mark 7:1-23.

In fact, isn't that why we Christians can eat shrimp even though Leviticus 11:10 explicitly states we cannot.

Let's travel further down the page to Mark 7:24-30. Jesus helps a gentile woman despite his initial reluctance. If the field really is only the church, originally from the covenant of the Old Testament and then augmented with the arrival of Christ, then why is Jesus tending crops that are not his own?

If you're referring to the "two different creation stories", the first tells of what happened in the scheme of days and the second goes into detail of happened on the sixth day.Does it, now?

Or some of what you are reading you are misinterpreting which nearly any Jew could tell you. Hmmm... what's more likely. You're wrong. Or Jesus was. Hmmmm... I think I know the answer.

Well, apparently you know, so educate me. Or at least show me where I might be educated. :rolleyes:

The weeds are those who live as Christians and claim to be. I said that we are under no obligation to tolerate those who do not claim to be Christians or live lives contrary to a true Christian lifestyle. In fact we are commanded to not tolerate the actions of such a person (by Paul, an Apostle and therefore someone who speake with infallibility on issues of doctrine).
Thomas was also an Apostle, why is his gospel not consider infallible?

The weeds are those who live as Christians and claim to be. I said that we are under no obligation to tolerate those who do not claim to be Christians or live lives contrary to a true Christian lifestyle. In fact we are commanded to not tolerate the actions of such a person (by Paul, an Apostle and therefore someone who speake with infallibility on issues of doctrine).
Okay, let's take this slowly. The weeds are those who are in the Church who you deem to be wicked. Jesus said not to expel them from the field and that He would take care of it when the harvest occurs. You claim that we are directed to do the opposite. I think I'll listen to Jesus.

Does it, now?

Yes, otherwise Scripture would contradict itself and it cannot do so. Why? Because I know by faith that it cannot. Most people hate that answer, but that's it.

Well, apparently you know, so educate me. Or at least show me where I might be educated. :rolleyes:

Sure, I'll direct you to where you might be educated. First, get a copy of the Torah. Next, get someone who is an expert on the Torah to help you to begin to examine. What you'll find is that while the Jews are the chosen people according to Christians, Christ and God, that we've ignored their religion on which Christianity was founded. Jesus made it clear what he came to change and that was the behavior of men toward our fellow men, particularly those who were of the Church, but he did not disgard the Law or the Prophets. It took the Catholic Church for that to happen.

Yes, otherwise Scripture would contradict itself and it cannot do so. Why? Because I know by faith that it cannot. Most people hate that answer, but that's it.

What did the scripture say at the time that passage was written?

Thomas was also an Apostle, why is his gospel not consider infallible?

Or how about Judas?

And yet Jesus dismissed the purity laws in Mark 7:1-23.

In fact, isn't that why we Christians can eat shrimp even though Leviticus 11:10 explicitly states we cannot.

Let's travel further down the page to Mark 7:24-30. Jesus helps a gentile woman despite his initial reluctance. If the field really is only the church, originally from the covenant of the Old Testament and then augmented with the arrival of Christ, then why is Jesus tending crops that are not his own?

He was speaking to the traditions of the Pharisees that were not found in Scripture. Much like many of the traditions found in the Roman Catholic Church today.

And no, the reason we can eat shrimp is because the gentiles are not required to follow the laws of separation or the laws which were given to the Jews to separate them from the other nations.

We are to help everyone, even the wicked. And the gentiles are part of the field, also, though they are of a later "sowing".

He was speaking to the traditions of the Pharisees that were not found in Scripture. Much like many of the traditions found in the Roman Catholic Church today.

And no, the reason we can eat shrimp is because the gentiles are not required to follow the laws of separation or the laws which were given to the Jews to separate them from the other nations.

We are to help everyone, even the wicked. And the gentiles are part of the field, also, though they are of a later "sowing".

Quick, Jesus gave us a very simple summary of the Law and the Prophets. What did He say was the most important thing for us to understand?

Thomas was also an Apostle, why is his gospel not consider infallible?

Because the Gospel of Thomas wasn't written by Thomas or one once removed from him or another whom Jesus called specificallyn as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were.

Because the Gospel of Thomas wasn't written by Thomas or one once removed from him or another whom Jesus called specificallyn as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were.

Prove it. The Gospel of Thomas appeared at nearly the same time as the other Gospels and does not appear to be derivative like some of the other Gospels. Meanwhile, who put you in a position to judge which Gospels are infallable and which aren't?

Quick, Jesus gave us a very simple summary of the Law and the Prophets. What did He say was the most important thing for us to understand?

Love, which does not uate to acceptance of all and everything.

Sure, I'll direct you to where you might be educated. First, get a copy of the Torah. Next, get someone who is an expert on the Torah to help you to begin to examine. What you'll find is that while the Jews are the chosen people according to Christians, Christ and God, that we've ignored their religion on which Christianity was founded. Jesus made it clear what he came to change and that was the behavior of men toward our fellow men, particularly those who were of the Church, but he did not disgard the Law or the Prophets. It took the Catholic Church for that to happen.

Well, I'm not Roman Catholic. And every Bible I've read has consulted Jewish historians and theologians for an understanding of their ideas of what the Torah speaks of. But, they can only be fully understood in light of the fullest revelation available to us and that means including all the books up to Revelation.

Prove it. The Gospel of Thomas appeared at nearly the same time as the other Gospels and does not appear to be derivative like some of the other Gospels. Meanwhile, who put you in a position to judge which Gospels are infallable and which aren't?

I didn't. The Council of Niceae did. And they were in a much better position to judge than you or me. And I think I'll trust them over the claims of the modern revisionist historians.

Love, which does not uate to acceptance of all and everything.

And does killing someone count as love?

Well, I'm not Roman Catholic. And every Bible I've read has consulted Jewish historians and theologians for an understanding of their ideas of what the Torah speaks of. But, they can only be fully understood in light of the fullest revelation available to us and that means including all the books up to Revelation.

It has? Are you sure? Pretty much all experts in Judaism would disagree.

I'll try an easy question, since you know the scripture so well and it cannot be contradicted. To whom did Jesus say he was sent?

I didn't. The Council of Niceae did. And they were in a much better position to judge than you or me. And I think I'll trust them over the claims of the modern revisionist historians.

Ok, and what Church was the Council of Niceae part of? Who conducted the Council of Niceae?

If I may cut in, Jocabia, I think I've got a better one:

2 Samuel 24:9 or 1 Chronicles 21:5?

Ok, and what Church was the Council of Niceae part of? Who conducted the Council of Niceae?

The Church, as there was yet no split. The bishops (Constantine was hardly ever there.)

And does killing someone count as love?

Love for God by following His commands.

It has? Are you sure? Pretty much all experts in Judaism would disagree.

I'll try an easy question, since you know the scripture so well and it cannot be contradicted. To whom did Jesus say he was sent?

Well, I'm a Christian, not a Jew. Jesus said He was sent to the Jews, but He sent His Apostles to the Gentiles as well.

And I am keeping my roomate awake, so I'm leaving for today. Feel free to TG me if you feel the need.

I hate to do this, but I think he missed my question:
2 Samuel 24:9 or 1 Chronicles 21:5?

The Church, as there was yet no split. The bishops (Constantine was hardly ever there.)

So Constantine DIDN'T convene the council and direct it? According to whose history? Do you know what other things Constantine did? He incorporated the birth of Mithras into Christianity, a practice that still exists today. He moved, literally moved, the date of the birth of Christ. He also moved the date of the resurrection to make it coincide with pagan ritual. Shall I go on? Constantine was a powermonger who intentionally corrupted a religion in order to be more powerful.


Love for God by following His commands.

Okay and God walked on earth. He gave us commands. Who did He say was permitted to throw stones? What did God do when He came across someone 'enforcing God's Law' in exactly the way you support? What did he about expelling the weeds from the Church? What did he say about judging? You seem to not care an iota for what Jesus taught. Sad, really.


Well, I'm a Christian, not a Jew. Jesus said He was sent to the Jews, but He sent His Apostles to the Gentiles as well.

And I am keeping my roomate awake, so I'm leaving for today. Feel free to TG me if you feel the need.

No, you're a Paulian. We've established that if Paul and Jesus say something that does not appear to be in line that you take the word of Paul over Christ. Those are Paulians.

And no, He didn't. He sent his apostles to the Jews alone. You can find him explicitely telling him not to go to the Gentiles. But, hey, Paul said otherwise, so I can see why you wouldn't want to take Christ's word for it.

If I may cut in, Jocabia, I think I've got a better one:

2 Samuel 24:9 or 1 Chronicles 21:5?

Of course you may. We don't have to agree, but it would be nice if people who edit the words of Jesus through the mouth of Paul would simply admit that they don't worship Christ above all others.

I hate to do this, but I think he missed my question:

That's what happens when the controlling value of the text is more important to the people compiling it than the religious message.

Of course you may. We don't have to agree, but it would be nice if people who edit the words of Jesus through the mouth of Paul would simply admit that they don't worship Christ above all others.
It's rather disheartening. I've spent all this time reading the bible so that when I came across someone who would discard logic in favour of scripture I would still be able to deal with it. I mean, I also did it because I'm a Christian, but I won't deny it was the idea of having a way to communicate with fundamentalists that really gave me that push to read the whole thing.

It's rather disheartening. I've spent all this time reading the bible so that when I came across someone who would discard logic in favour of scripture I would still be able to deal with it. I mean, I also did it because I'm a Christian, but I won't deny it was the idea of having a way to communicate with fundamentalists that really gave me that push to read the whole thing.

I read the Bible, but it was discussing the Bible with people I disagree with, people who reject the teachings of Jesus in the name of Paul who drove me to learn about the history, about the context, about the culture of the times when it was written. Amusingly, many Paulians call learning such things, revisionist, as one did in this thread, however a bit of studies shows that it is the 'fundamentalist' point of view that has revised the teachings. Much of what they teach are relatively new concepts that are not born of the scripture and were not taught in the early Church.

I read the Bible, but it was discussing the Bible with people I disagree with, people who reject the teachings of Jesus in the name of Paul who drove me to learn about the history, about the context, about the culture of the times when it was written. Amusingly, many Paulians call learning such things, revisionist, as one did in this thread, however a bit of studies shows that it is the 'fundamentalist' point of view that has revised the teachings. Much of what they teach are relatively new concepts that are not born of the scripture and were not taught in the early Church.
I'll have to look into that. Thank you.

This game looked interesting up to the point I saw the picture from it that was essentially ID propaganda, playing on the idiocy of "ZOMG EYE AND OTHER STUFF IS SOOOO COMPLEX SO NATURE IS STUPID AND CANT HAVE MADE IT THUS IT IS GOD!" at which point I chucked the idea of playing it in the garbage. I'll be playing Supreme Commander instead, when it comes out.

I'll have to look into that. Thank you.

Contrary to what some would have you believe, learning these things make more sense of the message Jesus taught. They would have you believe that if in doing so you land in disagreement with one Church or another that you are being mislead, but the evidence isn't planted. It was made available to us by the same source that gave us Jesus Christ. There is no indication in any teaching of Jesus that He would have us do otherwise and much within His teachings that he wished us to explore these things and our own PERSONAL relationship with the Christ.

This game looked interesting up to the point I saw the picture from it that was essentially ID propaganda, playing on the idiocy of "ZOMG EYE AND OTHER STUFF IS SOOOO COMPLEX SO NATURE IS STUPID AND CANT HAVE MADE IT THUS IT IS GOD!" at which point I chucked the idea of playing it in the garbage. I'll be playing Supreme Commander instead, when it comes out.

Again, the best part is that they require women to be nurses. They are not permitted to be the recruiters or the musicians, even.

Again, the best part is that they require women to be nurses. They are not permitted to be the recruiters or the musicians, even.
That too. This game is all propaganda and no real substance. I'll bet you it's a piece of shit, and the only reason IGN is raving about it is that they are paid to do so by the company making the game. IGN is a piece of shit. I rarely if ever trust their opinion on ANYTHING.

I hate to do this, but I think he missed my question:

I didn't miss it. I haven't thought enough about it to give an a dequate response yet.

So Constantine DIDN'T convene the council and direct it? According to whose history? Do you know what other things Constantine did? He incorporated the birth of Mithras into Christianity, a practice that still exists today. He moved, literally moved, the date of the birth of Christ. He also moved the date of the resurrection to make it coincide with pagan ritual. Shall I go on? Constantine was a powermonger who intentionally corrupted a religion in order to be more powerful.

According to the history used for 2000 years. Not this modern revisionist stuff.

Okay and God walked on earth. He gave us commands. Who did He say was permitted to throw stones? What did God do when He came across someone 'enforcing God's Law' in exactly the way you support? What did he about expelling the weeds from the Church? What did he say about judging? You seem to not care an iota for what Jesus taught. Sad, really.

You seem not to take what Jesus taught in the context of the whole of Scripture which is what one must do to understand it properly.

No, you're a Paulian. We've established that if Paul and Jesus say something that does not appear to be in line that you take the word of Paul over Christ. Those are Paulians.

I'm a Christian as the word has been defined for the past two millenia. You are not. Call yourself a Christite or a Jesusian or whatever, but your theology, especially the rejection of Paul's writings, is not consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine.

And no, He didn't. He sent his apostles to the Jews alone. You can find him explicitely telling him not to go to the Gentiles. But, hey, Paul said otherwise, so I can see why you wouldn't want to take Christ's word for it.

Before His asencion, yes. But in the Great Commision, He tells them to go to people of all nations. And in Acts God sends Gentiles to Peter after giving him the vision of cleansing the unclean.

...
I'm a Christian as the word has been defined for the past two millenia. You are not. Call yourself a Christite or a Jesusian or whatever, but your theology, especially the rejection of Paul's writings, is not consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine.
...

Oh no, now you've done it. You've mentioned his "Christianity" in a negative light, he's going to counter that with his signature feigning of victimhood.

He will begin by implying that only bigots and closed minded fundies never accept Christians of other denominations from themselves etc., and appeal for public sympathy based on the fact that you have attacked whether or not his theology is in fact Christianity at all . Of course though, he will totally ignore the fact that he's been the one advancing the most strictest and narrowly focused theology of Christianity that I’ve seen practically anywhere, and demanding through insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that every other version or ideology of Christianity that he does not agree with, or does not agree with his version verbatim, is a revisionist teaching and/or anti-Christ teaching completely, and is only believed by the ignorant and/or uneducated and that it needs to be abolished and so on and so forth... But hey, whatever.

Ah well, I guess he had it coming, mainly for picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like and tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it. The irony is that he is the one dismissing the oldest Christian writings to ever to put the good news down as written word and he then goes around calling everyone else the revisionist?!?! ;) He's funny that way.

Oh no, now you've done it. You've mentioned his "Christianity" in a negative light, he's going to counter that with his signature feigning of victimhood.

He will begin by implying that only bigots and closed minded fundies never accept Christians of other denominations from themselves etc., and appeal for public sympathy based on the fact that you have attacked whether or not his theology is in fact Christianity at all . Of course though, he will totally ignore the fact that he's been the one advancing the most strictest and narrowly focused theology of Christianity that I’ve seen practically anywhere, and demanding through insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that every other version or ideology of Christianity that he does not agree with, or does not agree with his version verbatim, is a revisionist teaching and/or anti-Christ teaching completely, and is only believed by the ignorant and/or uneducated and that it needs to be abolished and so on and so forth... But hey, whatever.

Ah well, I guess he had it coming, mainly for picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like and tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it. The irony is that he is the one dismissing the oldest Christian writings to ever to put the good news down as written word and he then goes around calling everyone else the revisionist?!?! ;) He's funny that way.

what exactly do you think it means to be a Christian?

I am just curious.

What does "frag" mean?

Video games are a waste of time. Get off your fat ass and run a mile or something.

No please, do not bring your fat ass to move my wheelchair.
your fat brain should do.

According to the history used for 2000 years. Not this modern revisionist stuff.

That is the history. I don't see how closing your eyes to reality hepls you. You see it was them that changed history. It's us trying to change it back.


You seem not to take what Jesus taught in the context of the whole of Scripture which is what one must do to understand it properly.

According to you that means amending the teachings of God with the teachings of man which is exactly what Jesus was correcting.




I'm a Christian as the word has been defined for the past two millenia. You are not. Call yourself a Christite or a Jesusian or whatever, but your theology, especially the rejection of Paul's writings, is not consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine.

No, you are a Christian as the word has been defined by the Catholic Church for the last millenia. PRior to that Christianity meant to follow and worship Chirst alone. Modern Christians are Paulians. You've admitted that you amend the words of Christ with the words of a man named Paul. If Paul trumps Christ, then you're a Paul. You put the words of Paul above all others. That's Paulian. I am not Paulian.



Before His asencion, yes. But in the Great Commision, He tells them to go to people of all nations. And in Acts God sends Gentiles to Peter after giving him the vision of cleansing the unclean.

So was God wrong when He said only Jews or was He lying. Or is it possible, just possible, that God was neither wrong nor lying and your understanding of the text is faulty?

Oh no, now you've done it. You've mentioned his "Christianity" in a negative light, he's going to counter that with his signature feigning of victimhood.

He will begin by implying that only bigots and closed minded fundies never accept Christians of other denominations from themselves etc., and appeal for public sympathy based on the fact that you have attacked whether or not his theology is in fact Christianity at all . Of course though, he will totally ignore the fact that he's been the one advancing the most strictest and narrowly focused theology of Christianity that I’ve seen practically anywhere, and demanding through insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that every other version or ideology of Christianity that he does not agree with, or does not agree with his version verbatim, is a revisionist teaching and/or anti-Christ teaching completely, and is only believed by the ignorant and/or uneducated and that it needs to be abolished and so on and so forth... But hey, whatever.

Ah well, I guess he had it coming, mainly for picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like and tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it. The irony is that he is the one dismissing the oldest Christian writings to ever to put the good news down as written word and he then goes around calling everyone else the revisionist?!?! ;) He's funny that way.

Wow, dude, just wow. I'm not dismissing Christian writings. I'm taking them in context. I haven't dismissed the teachings of Paul. I just don't take them over the teachings of Christ. For example, in this very thread, you know, before you came in and starting with your ridiculous whining about me, the person you are talking to said that Christ told us to leave the weeds (which he says means the wicked) among the wheat (which he says are Christiants) in the fields (which he says is the Church). I happen to agree with him that this is the translation of the passage, but it was the Paulian you were talking to who translated it that way. But he said we are not to follow that passage denoting the words of the Christ, because Paul told us to do the opposite. That's not me claiming they disagree. That's him.

Meanwhile, the rest of your post just shows you to be a rather sad individual. Strict and narrow, huh? My problem with Paulians is that they try to force their views on others through legislation or threats of damnation. I do none of these things. I explain my view. And the crux of my view is this and this alone "love God and love everyone else". Yep, that sure is strict. The poster I was replying to was advocating stoning. Gosh, I hope one day I can become less strict with the requiring people not to mercilessly and violently kill one another. Also, sadly, in another thread you rejected a quote from Exodus without giving any reasons at all, while accusing ME of picking and choosing. Hypocrite, thy name is Poot.

Am I the only one noticing that this is the second thread where rather than engage in debate, he has made absurd comments about the poster? Have you really resorted to going from thread to thread to shout "your momma"?

what exactly do you think it means to be a Christian?

I am just curious.

Well, obviously Christianity is not about following the teachings of Christ. That would be absurd.

(Have you noticed that some people are quite obsessed with me. He entered the thread not to speak to the topic or to respond to a post but simply to make things up about me. Much like Snow Eaters did in another thread. Two people in two days. I'm glad this stuff isn't done in person.)

Well, obviously Christianity is not about following the teachings of Christ. That would be absurd.

(Have you noticed that some people are quite obsessed with me. He entered the thread not to speak to the topic or to respond to a post but simply to make things up about me. Much like Snow Eaters did in another thread. Two people in two days. I'm glad this stuff isn't done in person.)

It's because you are so damned pretty.

Smunkee and I touched on this issue the other day... in context of women in the ministry. A woman could be a Judge in Israel, but a lot of denominations see a problem with a woman ministering to us, now...

My view, is that they are drawing on Paul's 'women should sit down and shut up in the church' angle... which, to me sounds like following a 'Pauline' rather than a 'Christian' dogma. I see that as a flaw.

Again - to me... Christians should follow Christ. That's kind of what I get from it. That would make any of the other writings 'commentary', to my way of thinking.

Not necessarily wrong... but certainly not as 'right' as the other text.

Or - am I just confused because I am a Godless Heathen (TM)?.

Call yourself a Christite or a Jesusian or whatever, but your theology, especially the rejection of Paul's writings, is not consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine.

Then, the problem must lie with this 'orthodox Christian doctrine', must it not?

If an adherence to what Jesus said (I believe he is supposed to be the central figure of that whole New testament book), is considered somehow contrary to a version of 'Christianity'... wouldn't that have to mean there was something wrong with that 'version'?

It's because you are so damned pretty.

Smunkee and I touched on this issue the other day... in context of women in the ministry. A woman could be a Judge in Israel, but a lot of denominations see a problem with a woman ministering to us, now...

My view, is that they are drawing on Paul's 'women should sit down and shut up in the church' angle... which, to me sounds like following a 'Pauline' rather than a 'Christian' dogma. I see that as a flaw.

Again - to me... Christians should follow Christ. That's kind of what I get from it. That would make any of the other writings 'commentary', to my way of thinking.

Not necessarily wrong... but certainly not as 'right' as the other text.

Or - am I just confused because I am a Godless Heathen (TM)?.

Well, let's see Jesus let women come along with the ministry and they held some of the closest positions to Jesus, but this game and many sects of Christianity apparently thinks he was wrong to do so and that what God really wanted was for women to be subservient to men even though when God was on earth he gave no such indication.

Meanwhile, what text is red in your Bible? I'm pretty sure it's not the words of Paul. I wonder why they make them red. One might speculate because they're more important. Nah, I take it back. That would again be absurd.

It's because you are so damned pretty.

Smunkee and I touched on this issue the other day... in context of women in the ministry. A woman could be a Judge in Israel, but a lot of denominations see a problem with a woman ministering to us, now...

My view, is that they are drawing on Paul's 'women should sit down and shut up in the church' angle... which, to me sounds like following a 'Pauline' rather than a 'Christian' dogma. I see that as a flaw.

Again - to me... Christians should follow Christ. That's kind of what I get from it. That would make any of the other writings 'commentary', to my way of thinking.

Not necessarily wrong... but certainly not as 'right' as the other text.

Or - am I just confused because I am a Godless Heathen (TM)?.

For me, Christianity is all about Christ. All of the "other stuff" is fluff. I don't care if you are premillinal or post..........or if you sing with guitars in church or think that Mary was 12 or 20, or if you think that Adam and Eve is allegory or literal truth, it's what you believe about Jesus that makes you a Christian.

but........I am a fundamentalist, so meh.

Well, let's see Jesus let women come along with the ministry and they held some of the closest positions to Jesus, but this game and many sects of Christianity apparently thinks he was wrong to do so and that what God really wanted was for women to be subservient to men even though when God was on earth he gave no such indication.

Meanwhile, what text is red in your Bible? I'm pretty sure it's not the words of Paul. I wonder why they make them red. One might speculate because they're more important. Nah, I take it back. That would again be absurd.

Well, I've literally dozens of Bibles... and not all of them even have red letters.... in those that do, however, I believe they are all supposed to be the words of that 'Living Jesus' guy.

(I say supposed, because one of my pet heresies is the idea that John (another rampant commentator) occassionally blurs the lines).

But - if we limit it to the three 'historical' Gospels... yep, I'm all over the idea of the 'red text' being somehow special. And, being the 'word' of The Word, so to speak.

For me, Christianity is all about Christ. All of the "other stuff" is fluff. I don't care if you are premillinal or post..........or if you sing with guitars in church or think that Mary was 12 or 20, or if you think that Adam and Eve is allegory or literal truth, it's what you believe about Jesus that makes you a Christian.

but........I am a fundamentalist, so meh.

I adore you.

I adore you.

You're clearly biased. Oh, I'm sorry, less than unbiased.

You're clearly biased. Oh, I'm sorry, less than unbiased.

When it comes to Smunkee, I am biased and cheerfully admit it. She rocks and rolls all night.

And, since I have noticed several other people agreeing with me, this is no longer bias, but graven-in-stone fact. ;)

When it comes to Smunkee, I am biased and cheerfully admit it. She rocks and rolls all night.

And, since I have noticed several other people agreeing with me, this is no longer bias, but graven-in-stone fact. ;)
that is so freaking sig worthy..........

that is so freaking sig worthy..........

And, well deserved. We might not see eye to eye on every issue, but I respect the hell out of you, so to speak.

I played a cheap computer gaem called "War On heaven" Where you chose your side.... I loved it.... I always played hell though, because the voice that read the scripture was just so f'in hot.

[QUOTE]That is the history. I don't see how closing your eyes to reality hepls you. You see it was them that changed history. It's us trying to change it back.

And I see no evidence to support the way it is being changed except that the changes support the changers' preconceived notions of what God should be like.


According to you that means amending the teachings of God with the teachings of man which is exactly what Jesus was correcting.

Since the whole of Scripture is God's Word, you are incorrect.

No, you are a Christian as the word has been defined by the Catholic Church for the last millenia. PRior to that Christianity meant to follow and worship Chirst alone. Modern Christians are Paulians. You've admitted that you amend the words of Christ with the words of a man named Paul. If Paul trumps Christ, then you're a Paul. You put the words of Paul above all others. That's Paulian. I am not Paulian.

I am not Roman Catholic and never will be (because God has promised to preserve me). If you are not Pauline (the proper adjective), you are not Christian. We follow and worship Christ alone, because we went back past the Roman Catholic Church and saw what was really being taught by the whole of Scripture, including the Word of God given to us by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul.

So was God wrong when He said only Jews or was He lying. Or is it possible, just possible, that God was neither wrong nor lying and your understanding of the text is faulty?

Or is it possible that your understanding of the text is faulty? I think I'll go with this last option because it upholds the whole of Scripture better. Never mind the fact that all the Biblical Christian theologians disagree with you.

Then, the problem must lie with this 'orthodox Christian doctrine', must it not?

If an adherence to what Jesus said (I believe he is supposed to be the central figure of that whole New testament book), is considered somehow contrary to a version of 'Christianity'... wouldn't that have to mean there was something wrong with that 'version'?

No, it would mean that the revisionist modernist "Christians" are taking things out of context of the whole of Scripture preferring to use their own sense to mold what God says to suit their desires. This is idolatry and conceit of the highest degree, to say that one can disregard portions of God's Word at one's whim. So then, Scripture is no longer God's Word, because we can't be conceited idolators, can we? And then you have nothing to base anything on, which suits everyone just fine, becaus they can do what is right in their own eyes. Which God condemns in Scripture.

what exactly do you think it means to be a Christian?

I am just curious.

I think the Bible shows us how good works alone cannot save us or make us acceptable to God. Titus 3:5, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

So, a Christian is someone who has been born-again and has put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

A Christian is someone who has repented of their sin and trusts in Jesus Christ alone. A Christian believes Jesus Christ died on the cross as payment for our sins and rose again on the third day to obtain victory over death and to give eternal life to all who believe in Him. The mark of a Christian is love for others and obedience to God’s Word.

...
Meanwhile, what text is red in your Bible? I'm pretty sure it's not the words of Paul. I wonder why they make them red. One might speculate because they're more important. Nah, I take it back. That would again be absurd.

You are trying to pretend (and perhaps fooling yourself even that it's a legitimate concern) that the scriptures disagree with each other and therefore you accept the teachings of one book over the teachings of another NT book using the justification of exaggerated importance of which author quoted whom directly (or not), or any other reason to rate one NT book as more valid than another, is simply an excuse for being able to pick and choose which verses you want to follow.

You try to paint a pretty picture of why you choose one over the other, but in the end, you are simply picking what you want the message from Christ to be, over any other message. And then you attempt to dismiss other messages and interpretations in other verses and books by claiming superiority of the book you used in the NT over the other books…

All of this stuff you are doing for justification is nothing but erroneous methodology. I’ll show you why. Lets take the method to it’s extreme, and suggest there are two Jesus’s in the Bible.

Jesus 1
Luke 12
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Luke 13
3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Luke 13
28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

Jesus 2

Luke 6
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Luke 6
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Luke 3
3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."

5The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"

6He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.



Now, when we compare the sayings of Jesus 1 against the sayings of Jesus 2, it seems as if they contradict each other, they don’t have the same type of lessons and if we act and think like you do in regard to differentiating which NT books we like and which ones we don’t like, we could determine that we will obey the lessons of one Jesus and not the other and we might argue (for whatever arbitrary deciding factor we used between them) that the ‘other’ Jesus lesson’s are in fact wrong…

Hopefully people can now see the how and why your methodology is flawed, because the truth is that the lessons of BOTH Jesus’s from my example and the lessons of all the NT books (counter to your claims) are equally ‘right.’ The only questions are when and where lessons and verses should be applied to our lives. There are different seasons for different lessons. The entire NT is valid instruction for all Christians.


All of the NT was written by authors. None of it was written by Jesus himself. IF you believe the the Holy Spirit inspired the authors then so be it and believe in it and pray for understanding when you read it. But to pretend that Matthew or Luke are Better Christians and better for Christian instruction than Peter, James or Paul because they wrote gospels instead of letters is absurd. And to call Paul the revisionists, when his writings are actually the oldest Christian writings we have, shows your eagerness to dismiss rather than logical analyses of the material.

I think the Bible shows us how good works alone cannot save us or make us acceptable to God. Titus 3:5, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

So, a Christian is someone who has been born-again and has put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

A Christian is someone who has repented of their sin and trusts in Jesus Christ alone. A Christian believes Jesus Christ died on the cross as payment for our sins and rose again on the third day to obtain victory over death and to give eternal life to all who believe in Him. The mark of a Christian is love for others and obedience to God’s Word.

I agree. Amusing that you would say it since you spend so much time demonstrating your hatred for your fellow man. But that's another subject.



You are trying to pretend (and perhaps fooling yourself even that it's a legitimate concern) that the scriptures disagree with each other and therefore you accept the teachings of one book over the teachings of another NT book using the justification of exaggerated importance of which author quoted whom directly (or not), or any other reason to rate one NT book as more valid than another, is simply an excuse for being able to pick and choose which verses you want to follow.

False and you know it's false. I do not reject any of the teachings of the NT. I just read them in the context of who they were written by, what the original language said, when they were written, the culture of the time and any other information I can gather about what they meant. I don't listen to the likes of you trying to tell me what they are supposed to say or that if you think Paul said something that I should respect your weak translations over the explicit words of Christ. Paul explicits states that some of what he says is NOT the word of God but that of a scholar. Christ's words however are ALWAYS the word of God incarnate.

I believe that God walked on earth and instructed us directly. I believe that this is the ONLY time that God walked on earth and instructed us directly. I look at the other scripture through the magnifying glass of the words of God incarnate. I do not look at the words of God incarnate through the magnifying glass of Paul, like Paulians do. That is not the same as rejecting Paul.

And I don't think one can exaggerate the importance of the expressed words of God incarnate. It's curious that you would think this is possible.

Meanwhile, my friendly neighborhood hypocrite didn't you use being from Exodus as an excuse to COMPLETELY ignore quoted scripture. I guess it's only picking and choosing if you look at all scripture through the glass of Christ. Apparently as long as you hold Paul in top regard you can pick and choose as you like. Good to know that Jesus's teachings about hypocrites are as applicable today as ever. It is a lesson I'm constantly excited to learn. Thank you for being such a wonderful example of what He was warning us about.


You try to paint a pretty picture of why you choose one over the other, but in the end, you are simply picking what you want the message from Christ to be, over any other message. And then you attempt to dismiss other messages and interpretations in other verses and books by claiming superiority of the book you used in the NT over the other books…

I am picking the message of Christ as He taught, not as taught by men. I know this upsets you because if you have to listen to Christ you'd have to be a loving Christian, you'd have to not judge, you'd have to refuse to throw stones, you'd have to do all the things God instructed us to do as Christ. But, hey, you don't want to and I can't make you. I understand.

I don't claim the superiority of the 'book' I used. I claim superiority of the stated words of God incarnate. It would be amusing that you don't if you weren't trying to lead others into blasphemy.


All of this stuff you are doing for justification is nothing but erroneous methodology. I’ll show you why. Lets take the method to it’s extreme, and suggest there are two Jesus’s in the Bible.

Suggesting there are two Jesus's in the Bible is your method, not mine. I suggest there is only ONE time God walked among as man and that His words must be heeded. I do not ignore any words offered by Him. Not a one. You ignore them or amend them with the words of others. Splitting his message from God himself treating as if Christ's words and Christ himself aren't of equal importance to our faith. In trying to separate the message from the voice you are claiming that you can attack or change or amend or edit or whatever nice word you like for it the message of Christ without insulting Christ himself. I make the opposite assertion that message and voice cannot be separated no matter who speaks the words. So if the words come from Man that must be considered and if the words come from God's mouth that also must be considered.



Jesus 1
Luke 12
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

This is a prediction of what people would do with his message. He was correct in saying. People who are of a favored group will always be upset with those who wish to make everyone equal. Jesus wished for equality and he predicted that by doing so we would see a division of people who accepted his word on acting with love from those who would see his message destroyed by oppressing certain groups or by violence or by various other messages. Completely consistent with all other words of Christ.


Luke 13
3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Consistent with his argument that we all are guilty, every one and that faith is how we are saved. The wages of sin are death.


Luke 13
28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

Again, completely consistent with the idea of salvation by faith in God.


Jesus 2

Luke 6
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Luke 6
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Luke 3
3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."

5The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"

6He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.



Now, when we compare the sayings of Jesus 1 against the sayings of Jesus 2, it seems as if they contradict each other, they don’t have the same type of lessons and if we act and think like you do in regard to differentiating which NT books we like and which ones we don’t like, we could determine that we will obey the lessons of one Jesus and not the other and we might argue (for whatever arbitrary deciding factor we used between them) that the ‘other’ Jesus lesson’s are in fact wrong…

No, it doesn't. Not in any way. There is a significant difference between when Jesus points out the result of his teachings and the need for faith and he guides what he deems to be Christian behavior. They are very clear. There is no inconsistency in these texts in context.

I also don't believe that Paul was inconsistent. However the popular Christian teachings of judgment and casting people out of Churches or casting stones is a violation of the teaching of Christ, plain and simple, and they are not found here no matter how badly you want God's endorsement for your unloving and hypocritical behavior.


Hopefully people can now see the how and why your methodology is flawed, because the truth is that the lessons of BOTH Jesus’s from my example and the lessons of all the NT books (counter to your claims) are equally ‘right.’ The only questions are when and where lessons and verses should be applied to our lives. There are different seasons for different lessons. The entire NT is valid instruction for all Christians.

I never disagreed that there is much to be learned from the entire NT and the OT for that matter. I notice you never mention the OT. It seems it is YOU who is picking and choosing.

Meanwhile, I find the lessons of Jesus to be completely consistent and you've not shown one single way that they are not. Not one.

It's funny. You made up my methodology and then argued for why it was false. I was under the impression that's called a strawman. A more colloquial term for it is lying. If you're comfortable with lying about me, I can't stop you. But don't mind if I laugh that this is what you are comfortable resorting to.



All of the NT was written by authors. None of it was written by Jesus himself. IF you believe the the Holy Spirit inspired the authors then so be it and believe in it and pray for understanding when you read it. But to pretend that Matthew or Luke are Better Christians and better for Christian instruction than Peter, James or Paul because they wrote gospels instead of letters is absurd. And to call Paul the revisionists, when his writings are actually the oldest Christian writings we have, shows your eagerness to dismiss rather than logical analyses of the material.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit inspired the authors. I believe that Jesus was an honest man and that he said his words would be preserved in the mouths of the Apostles. All of the Apostles, some of whom you reject.

We aren't talking about who is a 'better Christian'. Never has that been a part of my argument. Some of the NT is the recorded life and teachings of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and you wish to amend those teachings with the words of men because you want it to say something different. I will not amend the words of the Lord. You may do so at your peril.

I think everyone who has read what I have to say can see the falseness of your preaching. I think everyone can also see that you are not replying to me or to what I say but preaching. Worse, you are preaching that we should not heed the words of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, as the word of someone we regard to be our Savior. You have to tell people that I say something rather than quote me to argue about my methodology, an obvious sign or your dishonest, while I can simply quote your methodology and they can see it for themselves.

Easy question - When Jesus was alive was his message complete, meaning did he teach us everything we need to know to be good Christians?

I think the Bible shows us how good works alone cannot save us or make us acceptable to God. Titus 3:5, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

So, a Christian is someone who has been born-again and has put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

A Christian is someone who has repented of their sin and trusts in Jesus Christ alone. A Christian believes Jesus Christ died on the cross as payment for our sins and rose again on the third day to obtain victory over death and to give eternal life to all who believe in Him. The mark of a Christian is love for others and obedience to God’s Word.

so it doesn't have anything to do with Paul then?

so it doesn't have anything to do with Paul then?

Yes, from what Poot wrote one might gather that following the teachings of Christ was exactly what Christ asked of us, but since in the rest of his post he argues that Christ had no special monopoly on Truth that other men didn't have, I'm guessing that's not actually what he's saying.

so it doesn't have anything to do with Paul then?

You should re-read the words God inspired Paul to write, preserved for us through the posterity of the NT. Without them we would have a far less, a far smaller understanding of what salvation in Christ entails and means.

Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.

You should re-read the words God inspired Paul to write, preserved for us through the posterity of the NT. Without them we would have a far less, a far smaller understanding of what salvation in Christ entails and means.

Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.

Paul is not more inspired than say anyone else who wrote commentary. I read Paul's letters, I also read other religious texts. I don't always agree 100% with what they say, divinely inspired or not, humans are human. I will always choose Christ's teachings over Paul's.

To say that someone is less of a Christian because they choose Christ over someone else, it a tad hypocritical isn't it?

You should re-read the words God inspired Paul to write, preserved for us through the posterity of the NT. Without them we would have a far less, a far smaller understanding of what salvation in Christ entails and means.

Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.

Let's see according to your interpretation -

Using only the teachings of Christ - You must become a Jew to become a Christian.

Using the teachings of Paul - You needn't become a Jew to become a Christian.

That's a contradiction no matter how you slice it. The contradiction doesn't go away because you say it's not a contradiction.

Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."

Yep, I'm sure Dad wouldn't feel contradicted there. Not only contradicted, but essentially ignored is how he would feel. But maybe if Mom just says something like "I never contradict you" and it'll all be alright. Because as long as we say it's not a contradiction apparently it can be as contradictory as one wants it to be.

Meanwhile, I would deny that Jesus ever says one must be a Jew in order to become Christian.

Paul is not more inspired than say anyone else who wrote commentary. I read Paul's letters, I also read other religious texts. I don't always agree 100% with what they say, divinely inspired or not, humans are human. I will always choose Christ's teachings over Paul's.

To say that someone is less of a Christian because they choose Christ over someone else, it a tad hypocritical isn't it?

What is hypocritical is to say, for example, that Matthew quoting Christ is a more reliable recording of the events than Peter saying what Jesus said without quoting him in a letter...

Both are recordings written by authors, both inspired by the Holy Ghost at the time of writing, both are conveying the same message from the same inspiration. The teachings of Christ are equally in the letters as well as the gospels.

To quote Jesus or to quote the Holy Spirit is not one better than the other, they are both quotes of one and the same.

Without the Holy Ghost there are no recordings of any kind, neither Gospel or Letter. The Holy Ghost is required for any of the NT to exist and to have any accuracy. And as Christians ourselves we can believe in the accuracy of the NT because we do believe in the Holy Spirit. Gospel or Letter, the Holy Ghost inspired them.

What is hypocritical is to say, for example, that Matthew quoting Christ is a more reliable recording of the events than Peter saying what Jesus said without quoting him in a letter...

Both are recordings written by authors, both inspired by the Holy Ghost at the time of writing, both are conveying the same message from the same inspiration. The teachings of Christ are equally in the letters as well as the gospels.

To quote Jesus or to quote the Holy Spirit is not one better than the other, they are both quotes of one and the same.

Without the Holy Ghost there are no recordings of any kind, neither Gospel or Letter. The Holy Ghost is required for any of the NT to exist and to have any accuracy. And as Christians ourselves we can believe in the accuracy of the NT because we do believe in the Holy Spirit. Gospel or Letter, the Holy Ghost inspired them.
so the Bible is unreliable?

also, didn't you say that Christs teachings were incomplete and Paul had to finish them? then wouldn't Paul's letters be of more worth to you than the incomplete teachings of Christ?

I am having trouble following.

What is hypocritical is to say, for example, that Matthew quoting Christ is a more reliable recording of the events than Peter saying what Jesus said without quoting him in a letter...

Both are recordings written by authors, both inspired by the Holy Ghost at the time of writing, both are conveying the same message from the same inspiration. The teachings of Christ are equally in the letters as well as the gospels.

To quote Jesus or to quote the Holy Spirit is not one better than the other, they are both quotes of one and the same.

Without the Holy Ghost there are no recordings of any kind, neither Gospel or Letter. The Holy Ghost is required for any of the NT to exist and to have any accuracy. And as Christians ourselves we can believe in the accuracy of the NT because we do believe in the Holy Spirit. Gospel or Letter, the Holy Ghost inspired them.

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. That is not the same thing. Meanwhile, Jesus is known to have told the Apostles that they would preach his word unerringly. He gave no such direction or indication of infalliblity to Paul.

Meanwhile, why are other Gospels not in the NT not a part of your studies, young padawan and equally infallible? Because the Catholic Church said they shouldn't be? I guess the Holy Ghost was only right some of the time by your estimation and it's actually far more important to allow men to decide when the Holy Ghost was right or not.

Me, I prefer to read everything every written in Gospels or Letters regarding the early Church and to look to God to help me sort it out. But, hey, you've already proven that you're all for contradicting God (though of course you denying you're doing so), so why should I be surprised that all that matters to you is what man chose to bind together and not what God chose to offer us in the way of the teachings of Himself incarnate.

Let's see according to your interpretation -

Using only the teachings of Christ - You must become a Jew to become a Christian.

Using the teachings of Paul - You needn't become a Jew to become a Christian.

That's a contradiction no matter how you slice it. The contradiction doesn't go away because you say it's not a contradiction.

Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."

Yep, I'm sure Dad wouldn't feel contradicted there. Not only contradicted, but essentially ignored is how he would feel. But maybe if Mom just says something like "I never contradict you" and it'll all be alright. Because as long as we say it's not a contradiction apparently it can be as contradictory as one wants it to be.

Meanwhile, I would deny that Jesus ever says one must be a Jew in order to become Christian.


LOL, that's so funny. Not an hour after writing a post protesting how I 'made up' a story to show why I thought you were wrong, and you called it an unfair strawman, saying I should actually quote you instead of making stuff up, YOU do it yourself here. hahahaha, oh my goodness. *wipes away laughter tear*

Anyway, as to your attempted counter-point there...

Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Three weeks later, at a different meal...
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."

*Corrected to show actual time lapse between events...

so the Bible is unreliable?

also, didn't you say that Christs teachings were incomplete and Paul had to finish them? then wouldn't Paul's letters be of more worth to you than the incomplete teachings of Christ?

I am having trouble following.

No, he said, that Christ said one thing and then Paul changed it. Christ wasn't incomplete, apparently he was either lying or wrong. But it's not contradiction when someone teaches one thing and someone else comes and teaches the opposite. So says the Gospel according to Pootwaddle.

No, he said, that Christ said one thing and then Paul changed it. Christ wasn't incomplete, apparently he was either lying or wrong. But it's not contradiction when someone teaches one thing and someone else comes and teaches the opposite. So says the Gospel according to Pootwaddle.

Ohhh.......no wonder I couldn't follow, that doesn't make any logical sense. ;) thanks.

LOL, that's so funny. Not an hour after writing a post protesting how I 'made up' a story to show why I thought you were wrong, and you called it an unfair strawman, saying I should actually quote you instead of making stuff up, YOU do it yourself here. hahahaha, oh my goodness. *wipes away laughter tear*

Anyway, as to your attempted counter-point there...


*Corrected to show actual time lapse between events...

First of all, did you or did you not notice the part where I said Jesus never directed us to do the first part so thus the second part is not a contradiction. It was a contradiction according to what YOU say it says, not according to what I know it says. You're the trying to claim that Paul negated the teachings of Jesus. But, hey, it's not like honesty matters to you.

Meanwhile, at a different meal? So this is a different life? A different world? A different what? Jesus's words no longer have the weight they once did because he was talking about different souls? Different salvation?

Do Jesus's words apply to me or not? According to you Jesus was talking about a different meal and thus no longer apply. Can you please give me a list of the verses of Jesus's teachings that no longer apply because they were a different meal?

And you claim you're not denying the words of Christ. Amusing. I guess saying that his words no longer apply to the situation is not denying Him in your odd little world.

Ohhh.......no wonder I couldn't follow, that doesn't make any logical sense. ;) thanks.

Did you see the new reply? According to him when Jesus gave us directions it was at a different time, but because this is 'three weeks later, at a different meal' that Paul is who we should listen to. Gosh, wasn't it he who was claiming that we must take the scripture as a whole and not negate bits and peices of it as we see fit.

Like I said when this started, according to Pootwaddle we can pick and choose as long as we choose Paul. Apparently our souls are like garbage and whoever touches them last gets to take them out.

so the Bible is unreliable?

also, didn't you say that Christs teachings were incomplete and Paul had to finish them? then wouldn't Paul's letters be of more worth to you than the incomplete teachings of Christ?

I am having trouble following.


If you don't believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit, you might not trust the reliability of the NT. But I'm sure you already know that.

Was Jesus done at the cross? Jesus still had work to do. In fact, Jesus is STILL doing work on earth, provided you believe in the Holy Spirit.

It’s not hard to follow, you’re making it too difficult on yourself. Jesus taught many people many things, each of them to record what they best understood. It's not Jesus vs. Paul. It's Jesus through Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James etc., and so on and so forth… ALL of the NT books are Jesus’ teachings.

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. That is not the same thing. Meanwhile, Jesus is known to have told the Apostles that they would preach his word unerringly. He gave no such direction or indication of infalliblity to Paul. ...


This is telling. Obviously you don't 'really' believe in the resurrection of Christ in the physical form. Thus, also, probably, why you don't believe in inspiration through the Holy Spirit.

Did you see the new reply? According to him when Jesus gave us directions it was at a different time, but because this is 'three weeks later, at a different meal' that Paul is who we should listen to. Gosh, wasn't it he who was claiming that we must take the scripture as a whole and not negate bits and peices of it as we see fit.

Like I said when this started, according to Pootwaddle we can pick and choose as long as we choose Paul. Apparently our souls are like garbage and whoever touches them last gets to take them out.

And you call me the liar :rolleyes:

If you don't believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit, you might not trust the reliability of the NT. But I'm sure you already know that.

Was Jesus done at the cross? Jesus still had work to do. In fact, Jesus is STILL doing work on earth, provided you believe in the Holy Spirit.

It’s not hard to follow, you’re making it too difficult on yourself. Jesus taught many people many things, each of them to record what they best understood. It's not Jesus vs. Paul. It's Jesus through Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James etc., and so on and so forth… ALL of the NT books are Jesus’ teachings.

According to YOU:

At one point, we were told through the Gospels that one must become a Jew before becoming a Christian (I would love to see that doctrine, but, hey, let's not get caught up on little things like evidence. I know how you hate that.)

Then another person comes along and says that the Holy Ghost said that you DON'T have to become a Jew before becoming a Christian.

So here's my question? Was it wrong when Jesus said it? Did he change his mind? Was he lying? How do we judge who Jesus is speaking through if they actively contradict an earlier teaching (again, this is according to you)?

Did you see the new reply? According to him when Jesus gave us directions it was at a different time, but because this is 'three weeks later, at a different meal' that Paul is who we should listen to. Gosh, wasn't it he who was claiming that we must take the scripture as a whole and not negate bits and peices of it as we see fit.

Like I said when this started, according to Pootwaddle we can pick and choose as long as we choose Paul. Apparently our souls are like garbage and whoever touches them last gets to take them out.

God is eternal and unchanging, just and truthful, if Jesus really is God then you would think that would extend to Him........but I guess not.
If you don't believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit, you might not trust the reliability of the NT. But I'm sure you already know that.
I trust in the Holy Spirit, I have no doubt in the reliability of the new testament, you seem to have a problem with it.

If however I see a contradiction, I am going to err on the side of Christ, being that He is perfect, He is the truth, He is my lord. Paul......just some guy who wrote a bunch of letters.
Was Jesus done at the cross? Jesus still had work to do. In fact, Jesus is STILL doing work on earth, provided you believe in the Holy Spirit.

I don't doubt that. Why don't you hold modern day comentary in as high a regard as Paul's? surely if Paul's is better because it came later than ones being writen now are all the more Holy?

It’s not hard to follow, you’re making it too difficult on yourself. Jesus taught many people many things, each of them to record what they best understood. It's not Jesus vs. Paul. It's Jesus through Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James etc., and so on and so forth… ALL of the NT books are Jesus’ teachings.
It's not exactly simple when you keep contradicting your own points.

And you call me the liar :rolleyes:

Interesting that I can refer to the post where you explicitly said that the direction I was referring to, that YOU said comes from the Gospels and Jesus, no longer applies and that this is why there is no contradiction. Seeing you for what you are isn't lying.

For those who care to see Pootwaddle exposed -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11668877&postcount=119

Original quote:
Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."
Dad is represented in the analogy by the direction of Jesus (according to Pootwaddle) in the Gospels we must become Jews before becoming a Christian but Paul said that wasn't necessary. So Paul is Mom in the scenario and Jesus is Dad in the scenario.

Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.

I was showing that it was a contradiction.

Poot responded by editing my analogy as such -
Edited quote-
Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.
*Corrected to show actual time lapse between events...

As you can see, he clearly states that the direction by Dad (Jesus) no longer applies (in this case because it's a different meal) and thus is not contradicted by Mom's (Paul's) completely opposite direction.

...
So here's my question? Was it wrong when Jesus said it? Did he change his mind? Was he lying? How do we judge who Jesus is speaking through if they actively contradict an earlier teaching (again, this is according to you)?

Which author of Jesus quotes do you prefer?

Which author of Jesus quotes do you prefer?

All of them. So far we just have made up tripe from you. Quote the direction from Jesus that one must be a Jew first to become Christian.

Meanwhile, was the author wrong, was Jesus wrong, is God NOT unchanging and inerrant and thus Jesus changed his mind, was Jesus lying, was the author lying? Since we are to accept what Paul said and not what Jesus said (according to you on both what he said and whose teachings to accept), then Paul must be right and thus anything that said otherwise was either wrong, a lie or changed. So please tell me did the unchanging and inerrant God change or did someone either authoring or quoted in the Bible lie or make a mistake?

I'm hardly able to contain myself any longer, so I'm going to leave this thread. Pootwaddle, keep fighting! Smunkee, consider Scripture, the whole of Scpriture, and nothing but the Scripture when making judgements in your faith. Jocabia, you are twisting Jesus words for your own means and disregarding the divinely ispired writings of the Apsostles which even you must rely on to make the claims which you do. Repent and be forgiven by God who loves you and wishes to see you in right doctrine.

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Then, the problem must lie with this 'orthodox Christian doctrine', must it not?

If an adherence to what Jesus said (I believe he is supposed to be the central figure of that whole New testament book), is considered somehow contrary to a version of 'Christianity'... wouldn't that have to mean there was something wrong with that 'version'?


No, it would mean that the revisionist modernist "Christians" are taking things out of context of the whole of Scripture preferring to use their own sense to mold what God says to suit their desires. This is idolatry and conceit of the highest degree, to say that one can disregard portions of God's Word at one's whim. So then, Scripture is no longer God's Word, because we can't be conceited idolators, can we? And then you have nothing to base anything on, which suits everyone just fine, becaus they can do what is right in their own eyes. Which God condemns in Scripture.

...
It's not exactly simple when you keep contradicting your own points.

No, you're just simply trying to deny (probably to yourself) that Christ actually helped Paul write the letters he wrote. You don't believe it, you don't want to believe it. You then say, Matthew's quotes I like. Mark's are so-so, John is the worst and Luke is just right.

Which one is the Christ? Matthew's? Mark's? Luke's or John's? They don't all say the same exact thing, one must be more reliable that the other? No, that is not the case. They are ALL equally good at relaying what Christ intended through that Author.

Your criteria for determining which you accept and which you do not (words of Christ or not) are nothing more than quotations marks on an ancient piece of papaya, and the other ancient piece of lamb skin writing doesn't have the quotation marks so you evaluate one as higher authority than the other.

The criteria check you use is insufficient and cannot be measured to be more accurate than random coin flipping. IF there is a Holy Spirit inspiring the NT, then the quotations marks (red letters as Jacobia calls them) are equally Holy Spirit inspired letters with all of the non-red-letter words. If you believe in the holy Ghost and the Judgment of the Apostles then Paul's writings are equally "Christian" with the other authors.

Smunkee, consider Scripture, the whole of Scpriture, and nothing but the Scripture when making judgements in your faith.

not even divine inspiration? :(

I consider all the scripture, I consider who wrote it, when they wrote it, who they wrote it to, what was going on during the time it was written, when it was written, how it applies to my life, and I am careful to seperate the truth from the fluff.

I don't intend to wander around ignorant of those things, and I certainly don't intend to leave my spiritual understanding up to people who can't seem to coherently explain what they think they might believe.

I'm hardly able to contain myself any longer, so I'm going to leave this thread. Pootwaddle, keep fighting! Smunkee, consider Scripture, the whole of Scpriture, and nothing but the Scripture when making judgements in your faith. Jocabia, you are twisting Jesus words for your own means and disregarding the divinely ispired writings of the Apsostles which even you must rely on to make the claims which you do. Repent and be forgiven by God who loves you and wishes to see you in right doctrine.

Is that the same God who told us to love God and each other but who you claim really meant that we should kill people. Is that the same God who told us to leave the weeds among the wheat and that He would take care of it at the harvest but who you claim really meant to pull up the weeds whenever you THINK you find them? Is that the same God who you claimed would prefer it that you try to weed out the wicked even if that means punishing the chaste despites God incarnate's direction to us to let He who is without sin cast the first stone?

No, you're just simply trying to deny (probably to yourself) that Christ actually helped Paul write the letters he wrote. You don't believe it, you don't want to believe it. You then say, Matthew's quotes I like. Mark's are so-so, John is the worst and Luke is just right.
how's that?

Which one is the Christ? Matthew's? Mark's? Luke's or John's? They don't all say the same exact thing, one must be more reliable that the other? No, that is not the case. They are ALL equally good at relaying what Christ intended through that Author.
and?

Your criteria for determining which you accept and which you do not (words of Christ or not) are nothing more than quotations marks on an ancient piece of papaya, and the other ancient piece of lamb skin writing doesn't have the quotation marks so you evaluate one as higher authority than the other.
my criteria rests on what I actually know of God and my personal relationship with Him, it also goes back to actually studying the Bible, a LOT of what Paul said is often misused and misunderstood, and a few things directly contradict what Jesus Himself taught, those things are what I chalk up to Paul being human (you know he was human right?)

The criteria check you use is insufficient and cannot be measured to be more accurate than random coin flipping. IF there is a Holy Spirit inspiring the NT, then the quotations marks (red letters as Jacobia calls them) are equally Holy Spirit inspired letters with all of the non-red-letter words. If you believe in the holy Ghost and the Judgment of the Apostles then Paul's writings are equally "Christian" with the other authors.
So, is everything Dobson says divinely inspired? does he not slip back into his "old spirit"? He claims to be inspired by the holy spirit.

How do you choose who to believe and who not to without disecting every single thing they say against scripture? how do you choose what is right and what is wrong without listening to Christ above all others?

No, you're just simply trying to deny (probably to yourself) that Christ actually helped Paul write the letters he wrote. You don't believe it, you don't want to believe it. You then say, Matthew's quotes I like. Mark's are so-so, John is the worst and Luke is just right.

Which one is the Christ? Matthew's? Mark's? Luke's or John's? They don't all say the same exact thing, one must be more reliable that the other? No, that is not the case. They are ALL equally good at relaying what Christ intended through that Author.

Your criteria for determining which you accept and which you do not (words of Christ or not) are nothing more than quotations marks on an ancient piece of papaya, and the other ancient piece of lamb skin writing doesn't have the quotation marks so you evaluate one as higher authority than the other.

The criteria check you use is insufficient and cannot be measured to be more accurate than random coin flipping. IF there is a Holy Spirit inspiring the NT, then the quotations marks (red letters as Jacobia calls them) are equally Holy Spirit inspired letters with all of the non-red-letter words. If you believe in the holy Ghost and the Judgment of the Apostles then Paul's writings are equally "Christian" with the other authors.

So again, what about all of the inspired writings not included in the NT? You must hold them with equal regard or do you admit that you let the Catholic Church decide which texts are scripture and which aren't rather than asking that question of the Almight as Smunkee and I do.

All of them. So far we just have made up tripe from you. Quote the direction from Jesus that one must be a Jew first to become Christian.


Matthew 15:24
"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Don't worry though, God also open a new door, and replaced the invited guests with people off of the streets, he attached a new branch to the tree for the gentiles. Stuff like this is explained by the Holy Ghost through some of the letters, even some of the ones Paul was inspired to write...

how's that?

You said so yourself, here... I consider all the scripture, I consider who wrote it, when they wrote it, who they wrote it to, what was going on during the time it was written, when it was written, how it applies to my life, and I am careful to seperate the truth from the fluff.


You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like, just like I said you do.


my criteria rests on what I actually know of God and my personal relationship with Him, it also goes back to actually studying the Bible, a LOT of what Paul said is often misused and misunderstood, and a few things directly contradict what Jesus Himself taught, those things are what I chalk up to Paul being human (you know he was human right?)

And so were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John human. That doens't mean they messed up the quotation marks any more, or less, than Paul got and relayed the message to us from from the Holy Spirit either. Paul is no more, or less, fallible than the other authors.


How do you choose who to believe and who not to without disecting every single thing they say against scripture? how do you choose what is right and what is wrong without listening to Christ above all others?

Test the spirits. If it confirms that Christ came in the Flesh and died for our sins then it comes from God. If not, then it is not divining inspired.

1 John 4
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

And a lot of prayer.

So again, what about all of the inspired writings not included in the NT? You must hold them with equal regard or do you admit that you let the Catholic Church decide which texts are scripture and which aren't rather than asking that question of the Almight as Smunkee and I do.


There you go again, making a stawman about how I do it and then implying that you are better at it and thus a better Christian than someone else... It's sad really how much you complain about others doing it when you do it consistently. Attempting to boast of yourself instead of boasting only in Christ.

My stomach pain will bring about the rapture, and my poor, acid filled belly (five cups of coffee this afternoon) will ascend into heaven, along with all of the other acid filled bellies, and they will find the mylanta of Jesus there.

how's that?


and?


my criteria rests on what I actually know of God and my personal relationship with Him, it also goes back to actually studying the Bible, a LOT of what Paul said is often misused and misunderstood, and a few things directly contradict what Jesus Himself taught, those things are what I chalk up to Paul being human (you know he was human right?)


So, is everything Dobson says divinely inspired? does he not slip back into his "old spirit"? He claims to be inspired by the holy spirit.

How do you choose who to believe and who not to without disecting every single thing they say against scripture? how do you choose what is right and what is wrong without listening to Christ above all others?

Here's the amusing part. If my mother and my father, whose word had equal weight, each gave me directions on what I must do, I would follow the one with stricter instructions because I figure if I'm wrong the one who was less strict wouldn't be angry at me for doing more than they asked.

However, according to Pootwaddle, Jesus told us we must be Jews to become Christians and Paul told us we needn't be and Pootwaddle accepts the instructions by Paul as those that we should follow. Hmmmm... let's see... now who is taking on the less strict interpretation?

But hey, it must be Smunkee who is listening to what she wants. I mean she is listening to Christ's word and filtering through the writing Jesus said we each have on our hearts, but hey, if she's not rejecting the stricter instructions to her for her behavior and love for others and instead listening to the instructions that allow us to be judgemental, lax in our faith and rude to others, then she must be wrong, huh?

There you go again, making a stawman about how I do it and then implying that you are better at it and thus a better Christian than someone else... It's sad really how much you complain about others doing it when you do it consistently. Attempting to boast of yourself instead of boasting only in Christ.

Ha. We aren't talking about who is and who isn't a better Christian. This isn't about behavior. This is about teachings.

Amusingly, the only time I'm doing it is when my words are filtered through your interpretation. Last I checked I never called you a bad Christian. I merely am defending the taught words of Christ as they were recorded for us. If that makes you feel like a bad Christian perhaps you should analyze that for yourself. It is not present in my words.

Matthew 15:24
"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Don't worry though, God also open a new door, and replaced the invited guests with people off of the streets, he attached a new branch to the tree for the gentiles. Stuff like this is explained by the Holy Ghost through some of the letters, even some of the ones Paul was inspired to write...

You cannot become a lost sheep of Isreal, my friend. And nothing about that passage says that you must become one before becoming a Christian. You are amending the words of Christ again.

Show the rest of that passage, my editing friend -
22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Keep in mind that the lost children of Isreal are an ethnicity and a descendency.

Meanwhile, he says he was sent to save the Jews, but what was the result of faith? She didn't become Jewish. She earned salvation through faith not through being Jewish. Nowhere in that passage does Jesus refer to making her a Jew or her becoming a Jew. He even refers to her by a common ethnic reference. Then when she demonstrates great faith she is saved. This is a lesson for all.

Are you so cynical that you're willing to lie about what Jesus said and make one story appear to teach the exact opposite of the actual events recorded in the Gospel? Really? Is it so important to you to make this argument that you'll amend the quoted word of God incarnate?

He was sent to the Jews and that was who his message was intended for but Christ showed repeated that ANYONE can be saved by faith. Your claims of what contradicted Paul does not exist anywhere in the scripture.

You said so yourself, here...

You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like, just like I said you do.
Again, you have no problem amending the words of others. I mean I know you are willing to do that with the words of Christ, but amazing even when you can be proven wrong it doesn't seem to stop you.

She said she analyzes the text and brings her questions to God. She searches for what has the most truth, not what she likes. You can bastardize her posts all you like, but don't expect everyone not to notice your attempts at deceipt.


And so were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John human. That doens't mean they messed up the quotation marks any more, or less, than Paul got and relayed the message to us from from the Holy Spirit either. Paul is no more, or less, fallible than the other authors.

Not according to Christ. According to Christ, his words would be etched into their memories. Christ declared that his Apostles, the specific ones standing in front of him, would be able to report his teachings accurately. Was Christ wrong or are you?


Test the spirits. If it confirms that Christ came in the Flesh and died for our sins then it comes from God. If not, then it is not divining inspired.

1 John 4
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

And a lot of prayer.

So according to you since Smunkee and I are both acknowledging Jesus then we must all be right, even though none of us have the same views on God. Or perhaps you're misinterpreting the passage. Jesus told us that we are to analyze a tree for the fruit it bears. Give that in this very post you willing lie about Smunkee's methodology for analyzing scripture, you've lied about what I said, what you said, what I believe, what I've expressed, and lying is against the commandments, also known as the Law, then I guess we can see the rot in your fruit.

Given the actions of the Catholic Church and their openly murderous, aggressive, violent ways that are counter to the teachings we can also see that it's fruit does not come from a good tree.

Thus I look outside of the influence of the Pharisees for guidance and I am guided to do per the words of Jesus.

And with Paul, since he openly admits that some of what he says is not of God, but of a man, I think I'll take the words that Jesus said were Divine over the words that Jesus gave no such direction about.

His fruit is not bad or good but the Church that ordained them the word of God and based itself on misinterpretations of his teachings RATHER than the teachings of Christ has born bad fruit and controlled his message for millenia. Thus, I look for the fruit of trees that will not poison me.

Not according to Christ. According to Christ, his words would be etched into their memories. Christ declared that his Apostles, the specific ones standing in front of him, would be able to report his teachings accurately. Was Christ wrong or are you?

And how did it come to pass that you should know what Christ said? Which author recorded those words for you so that you could refer to them now? Perhaps it was a person inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as all the other NT books and letters were recorded.


... Give that in this very post you willing lie about Smunkee's methodology for analyzing scripture, you've lied about what I said, what you said, what I believe, what I've expressed, and lying is against the commandments, also known as the Law, then I guess we can see the rot in your fruit.

As you said, lying is against the commandments, you should stop doing it.

...And with Paul, since he openly admits that some of what he says is not of God, but of a man, I think I'll take the words that Jesus said were Divine over the words that Jesus gave no such direction about.

Again, how did it come to pass that you would be able to know the words of Christ if it didn't come from the NT authors? Arguing that they are more reliable when they print in red letters then when they do not is essentially silly. See, even I can do it. But red recordings are no more reliable than other recordings. Someone had to record it for you to know it. If I say, "Jesus said, 'so on and so forth,'" it is no more reliable than if I say, "in the spirit, so on and so forth."

the NT authors are either inspired by the Holy Spirit or they are not, they are not more inspired simply because someone used red ink.

And how did it come to pass that you should know what Christ said? Which author recorded those words for you so that you could refer to them now? Perhaps it was a person inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as all the other NT books and letters were recorded.

I came upon them in the text and I prayed upon them. I tested them against the writings of Christ placed upon my heart as directed to do by the scriptures and the Savior. Also, I didn't have to ignore Christ in order to accept them and they were consistant with the teachings of every one of the Apostles unlike your claims of what the text says.



As you said, lying is against the commandments, you should stop doing it.

So you've abandoned the "your momma" arguments and you've moved up to "I know you are but what am I". Would you please stop getting your arguments from gradeschool children and actually evidence something? This is just sad.


Again, how did it come to pass that you would be able to know the words of Christ if it didn't come from the NT authors? Arguing that they are more reliable when they print in red letters then when they do not is essentially silly. See, even I can do it. But read recordings are no more reliable than other recordings. Someone had to record it for you to know it. If I say, "Jesus said, 'so on and so forth,'" it is no more reliable than if I say, "in the spirit, so on and so forth."

the NT authors are either inspired by the Holy Spirit or they are not, they are not more inspired simply because someone used red ink.

Okay, let's take a first set of authors who were the direct students of a person I revere. We'll call them group 1. Group 1 lays down a set of teachings often quoting the original teacher. Their quotes and texts agree with one another.

Okay, group 1 very much appears to be a reliable source particularly where they are in accordance with history and teachings at the time when the teacher was alive. Group claims to be accurately recording the history of the teacher and every one of them claims to be doing by special intervention of said teacher.

Now, let's look at Group 2. First Group 2 says that Group 1 is right and infallible. Group 2 has never met the teacher in the flesh, but has only been exposed to the teachings of the teacher by Group 1 and in the spirit. Group 2 says they are fallible and says explicitly at one point to be giving the opinion of someone who is an expert on Group 2 but not the word of God.

Now which is more reliable, there, Group 1 that everyone agrees 1) had the closest relationship to the person we wish to study 2) are absolutely and inerrantly correct 3) were directed directly by that person to pass on the teachings and to whom to pass on those teachings or Group 2 who 1) is only confirmed by Group 2 2)did not write their texts as texts for the passing on of the teachings but instead as letters to a particular party 3) admit in their own texts to not be speaking for the teacher but instead as experts on Group 1.

I think that's a pretty easy decision. Given that there is no reason to doubt the authenticiy of the Gospels and they are the earliest teachings of the Church written for the purpose of passing on the teachings of God incarnate, I accept them according to my personal direction from God. Given that the writings of Paul are were letters not written for the purpose of being a religious text, in which Paul admits that he is at least occasionally speaking as a man and not the words of God and they occasionally say things that are not found in the words of the man Paul himself tells us is the incarnate God. I'm going to have to take Paul's writings with the same intention Paul himself directed to take his writings with.

No one but the Church commands us to treat the NT authors like they are all equal and to do so would simply be silly. When we are given the command of the infallible scripture, much of the scripture didn't exist and when Paul said it his scripture certainly didn't. Meanwhile, he admits at least some of his statements are not infallible or the command of the Lord, counter to your claims.

For example:
1 Corinthians 7: 25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

According to Paul, the Apostles were writing the Truth and he was a commentator who while trustworthy was not speaking from command of the Lord (at least at times). Even Paul says different than your claims about him. Now doesn't that just make you look silly?

You said so yourself, here...

You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like, just like I said you do.

no, what I find true, right and relevent to me.

It's called studying the Bible. Maybe you don't do that....

...
Okay, let's take a first set of authors who were the direct students of a person I revere. We'll call them group 1. Group 1 lays down a set of teachings often quoting the original teacher. Their quotes and texts agree with one another.

Okay, group 1 very much appears to be a reliable source particularly where they are in accordance with history and teachings at the time when the teacher was alive. Group claims to be accurately recording the history of the teacher and every one of them claims to be doing by special intervention of said teacher.

Now, let's look at Group 2. First Group 2 says that Group 1 is right and infallible. Group 2 has never met the teacher in the flesh, but has only been exposed to the teachings of the teacher by Group 1 and in the spirit. Group 2 says they are fallible and says explicitly at one point to be giving the opinion of someone who is an expert on Group 2 but not the word of God.

Now which is more reliable, there, Group 1 that everyone agrees 1) had the closest relationship to the person we wish to study 2) are absolutely and inerrantly correct 3) were directed directly by that person to pass on the teachings and to whom to pass on those teachings or Group 2 who 1) is only confirmed by Group 2 2)did not write their texts as texts for the passing on of the teachings but instead as letters to a particular party 3) admit in their own texts to not be speaking for the teacher but instead as experts on Group 1.

You see, you've already messed up your position. There are no different groups of authors. Except what the authors say about themselves, the words of Christ are in all of the books equally. The authors of the gospels in the NT are the same authors and or similarly qualified authors, and truthfully speaking some of them must actually be younger than the other authors of the NT books and couldn't have been eye witnesses (such as Luke). The oldest writings are Paul's, then the gospels were written. To argue that the quotes of Jesus are only reliable when they are in red is still silly.

Here's another example; Using your methodology we could say that the words of Peter, recorded in more than one book, are more reliable when they are recorded in the book of Matthew then they are when then are recorded in the book of Peter, because one is a Gospel and the other is simply a letter.

See, it's silly.

Now, to compound YOUR methodology beyond all usefulness and making it defunct, is the fact that Jesus didn't write any books at all. NONE, you know this, but you don't realize what it means (apparently), it means you can't compare the words of Jesus against other words of Jesus, you can only compare the words of Jesus recorded by one author against the words of other NT authors. It means that the gospels must be equally inspired writings, the same as the letters of the NT, regardless of who wrote them, or else they are suspect. There might not be any eyewitnesses who actually recorded any words of Christ in writing, but it is all inspired by the Holy Ghost, equally, book or gospel

...
For example:
1 Corinthians 7: 25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

According to Paul, the Apostles were writing the Truth and he was a commentator who while trustworthy was not speaking from command of the Lord (at least at times). Even Paul says different than your claims about him. Now doesn't that just make you look silly?

What this is is good stuff then. Thankfully Paul tells us when something is inspired and when it is not. That should make him one of the better and easier to understand NT authors, not one of the least trusted, like you say about him, that would make no sense whatsoever.

...
It's called studying the Bible. Maybe you don't do that....

I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... :( That's too bad.

You see, you've already messed up your position. There are no different groups of authors. Except what the authors say about themselves, the words of Christ are in all of the books equally. The authors of the gospels in the NT are the same authors and or similarly qualified authors, and truthfully speaking some of them must actually be younger than the other authors of the NT books and couldn't have been eye witnesses (such as Luke). The oldest writings are Paul's, then the gospels were written. To argue that the quotes of Jesus are only reliable when they are in red is still silly.

I have? Not two groups, just the Apostles and everyone else. Those that met Christ in the flesh and those who didn't. I guess that doesn't qualify as two groups unless you don't speak English. The first group under the rules of evidence can testify in a court of law. The second group is not eligible as it is heresay. Again you fail at a basic logical level.

You keep saying it is silly, but your complete absense of proof seems to show how strong even you deem your position to be. Now Paul referenced the same teachings found in the Bible. Whether the Gospels are found in their current form or not at the time Paul wrote the letters, Paul as well as Christ and the authors ALL claim that those writings are infallible. However, nobody ANYWHERE in the Bible claims that every writing of Paul's is infallible. But then, you could show where ANYONE in the Bible claims that the letters of Paul are absolutely infallible. Go ahead.

Actually, the oldest writings are expected to be the Q, the earliest Christian writings on which much of the Gospels are based. Where the earliest Pauline letter is from as much as a decade later. We know for sure that the teachings found in the Gospels were widely spread among a people famous for oral tradition and even Paul confirms this.


Here's another example; Using your methodology we could say that the words of Peter, recorded in more than one book, are more reliable when they are recorded in the book of Matthew then they are when then are recorded in the book of Peter, because one is a Gospel and the other is simply a letter.

See, it's silly.

Or I could analyze the text like an educated person and determine where they came from, the origins of the teachings, whether they conform to the teachings of Christ by both analysis and prayer.

Meanwhile, I know the letters of Peter to be the expressed thoughts of Peter as an original source of Peter's beliefs. But where Peter summarizes the words of Christ his summary are not as reliable as the expressed words of Christ. Throughout the scriptures Jesus explicitly accuses them of not summarizes or understanding his words properly. But Christ does trust them to tell his tales, his explicit actions and words accurately because he puts a divine protection on their ability to convey his story even where they may misunderstand. The Apostles were not infallible and their mistakes riddle the Bible stories, but they were designated by Christ to tell his story.

However, even Paul doesn't claim that his statements are the expressed teachings of Christ; it is not direct quotations or a direct expression of the actions or teachings of Christ. However, the Gospels do claim to be the original teachings of Christ and Paul seems to agree.




Now, to compound YOUR methodology beyond all usefulness and making it defunct, is the fact that Jesus didn't write any books at all. NONE, you know this, but you don't realize what it means (apparently), it means you can't compare the words of Jesus against the words of Jesus, you can only compare the words of Jesus against the words of other NT authors. It means that the gospels must be equally inspired writings, the same as the letters of the NT, regardless of who wrote them, or else they are suspect. There might not be any eyewitnesses who actually recorded any words of Christ in writing, but it is all inspired by the Holy Ghost, equally, book or gospel

Again, in a court of law a direct source is a reliable source for evidence, but hearsay is not. Paul is expressing hearsay. The quotes of Jesus are exactly that. They are the words of God from the mouth of God. Unless you're claiming they were wrong, in which case you've been lying throughout.

Either you admit that they were right when they said the words of Christ were protected Divinely and thus they are first source while anything else by nature MUST be second source at least since they are not quotes of the Christ. Or you admit you're lying and that you don't believe them to be true. So which is it?

What this is is good stuff then. Thankfully Paul tells us when something is inspired and when it is not. That should make him one of the better and easier to understand NT authors, not one of the least trusted, like you say about him, that makes no sense whatsoever.

He does? I know that the word 'inspire' appears five times in the Bible, not once in the fashion you claim. Since he says that his word is inspired by the Lord you can show where in each letter he makes the claim that his letters are the command of the Lord. I'll wait.

Because according to Paul we should take him as trustworthy and an expert but NOT as speaking the command of the Lord at all times. And I treat him as exactly that. Since you claim he always tells us I suppose I can assume that unless he tells me has the command of the Lord in hand that I am reading the words of the man, Paul.

You avoid answering questions because you know you're wrong, but here's one - The Gospels quote the words of Jesus. Are they correct? If they are they are a first source, the expressed teachings of God incarnate. If they are not, then you don't actually believe they are infallible.

Meanwhile, a quote of someone is first source, a summary is second source. By all logic, a first source is and always will be more reliable than a second source.

I tried reading the first novel in the series with an open mind. I got through the first chapter, and threw it down out of disgust for its completly rediculous introduction.

I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... :( That's too bad.

What do you call it when someone tells you that they figure out their beliefs through introspection, study, prayer, the guidance of God, etc., and your response is:

You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like, just like I said you do.

Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?

What do you call it when someone tells you that they figure out their beliefs through introspection, study, prayer, the guidance of God, etc., and your response is:



Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?

Shucks, beat me to it and more eloquent as well.

Amusingly, he dismissed an argument I made because it came from Exodus and then has the gall to accuse people of picking and choosing. I wonder what color that sky is?

By the way, speaking of hypocrisy, this is his first post in this thread. It's not an argument regarding the topic. It is pure and simply an attack on me, unprovoked and absent any substance. Here's some evidence for you, Poot. -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11667484&postcount=90
Oh no, now you've done it. You've mentioned his "Christianity" in a negative light, he's going to counter that with his signature feigning of victimhood.

Amusing that this is EXACTLY what you accused me of doing and when Smunkee simply reflected a comment back at you, you were suddenly the 'poor victim'.


He will begin by implying that only bigots and closed minded fundies never accept Christians of other denominations from themselves etc., and appeal for public sympathy based on the fact that you have attacked whether or not his theology is in fact Christianity at all . Of course though, he will totally ignore the fact that he's been the one advancing the most strictest and narrowly focused theology of Christianity that I’ve seen practically anywhere, and demanding through insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that every other version or ideology of Christianity that he does not agree with, or does not agree with his version verbatim, is a revisionist teaching and/or anti-Christ teaching completely, and is only believed by the ignorant and/or uneducated and that it needs to be abolished and so on and so forth... But hey, whatever.

Ah well, I guess he had it coming, mainly for picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like and tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it. The irony is that he is the one dismissing the oldest Christian writings to ever to put the good news down as written word and he then goes around calling everyone else the revisionist?!?! ;) He's funny that way.

Amusingly, your argument seems to be pretty much anyone who is Christian and disagrees with you is "picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like". Hmmm... now what did you accuse Smunkee of doing even though she explained to you her way of analyzing the text... "You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like". I guess this is just your pocket insult. It's amusing that you insult her by claiming she does these things on a whim and then cry when she tells you how she does it and suggests that if you disagree with her methods perhaps you don't.

It's amusing that when your arguments fail you, and they have, that you go on the attack, but since you started your arguments on the attack, why should anyone be surprised?

The above is the entirety of Poot's post. Not a single argument. Not a reply to something said to you. You entered this thread with one purpose, attacking me. If you think such behavior is wrong perhaps you should start with a mirror.

I have? Not two groups, just the Apostles and everyone else. Those that met Christ in the flesh and those who didn't. I guess that doesn't qualify as two groups unless you don't speak English. The first group under the rules of evidence can testify in a court of law. The second group is not eligible as it is heresay. Again you fail at a basic logical level...

I don’t have enough time right to rebut all of your post yet, but even right here, right at the beginning, you make a known error in assignment of who wrote what. You said earlier that you had studied the NT, who wrote what and when and to whom etc., so I took your word for it. However, it appears that you haven’t actually done that work yet.

Here’s a basic summary for you, you can look this up elsewhere (I’m sure you won’t take my word for any of it) and then we can continue our discussion once you’ve caught up with the basics.

None of the gospels were written before 60 AD. Mark was written in 65 or later, the Gospel of Luke never even claims to be written by an eye witness but was written near 80AD or later, The Gospel of Matthew was written 80AD or later as well, and the Gospel of John was written no sooner than 90AD or later. Paul, on the other hand, was nearly finished writing his letters before any of the Gospels were even recorded.

For you to keep insisting that somehow the Gospels are more literally the word of God than the Epistles or Letters because they quote Jesus is irrational, based on the fact that your attack against the letters can equally be made against the Gospels authenticity AND you compound it by saying you don’t believe in divine inspiration. So how could the gospels be anything other than hearsay IF there is not inspiration by the Holy Spirit? By your own methodology the Gospels can’t be trusted because they weren’t written by eyewitnesses.

In the end, your position makes no sense. Saying “Jesus Said,” before a sentence is not proof of authentic authority. If the Holy Spirit can make the gospels sacred and true (which it does), it can do the same for the other NT books as well (which it also does).

This is telling. Obviously you don't 'really' believe in the resurrection of Christ in the physical form. Thus, also, probably, why you don't believe in inspiration through the Holy Spirit.

I believe that the scripture tells us that Jesus was present but some couldn't see him (Acts 9), it also tells us that his wounds were not healed (John 20) and he passed through locked doors, Paul called it a bright light (Acts 22). He eats at one point and certainly they can witness his fatal wounds, but all indications (he's not healed, passes through solid objects, appears as a light and could not be seen by some when appearing to Paul) are that whatever form he was in, it was not the form we are in.

And it's funny that you claim what Paul says is infallible and Paul said he was not incarnate when he met him and you believe him. Unless people usually describe a person is the 'light' and such. Whether Jesus was in the flesh when he was resurrected before the Apostles, Acts tells us that he appeared before Paul in a less than corporeal form. A little bit of scholarship would a go a long way here, Pooty. You could stop this embarrassment by simply reading the book you claim is infallible and the source of your knowledge on the subject.

I don’t have enough time right to rebut all of your post yet, but even right here, right at the beginning, you make a known error in assignment of who wrote what. You said earlier that you had studied the NT, who wrote what and when and to whom etc., so I took your word for it. However, it appears that you haven’t actually done that work yet.

Here’s a basic summary for you, you can look this up elsewhere (I’m sure you won’t take my word for any of it) and then we can continue our discussion once you’ve caught up with the basics.

None of the gospels were written before 60 AD. Mark was written in 65 or later, the Gospel of Luke never even claims to be written by an eye witness but was written near 80AD or later, The Gospel of Matthew was written 80AD or later as well, and the Gospel of John was written no sooner than 90AD or later. Paul, on the other hand, was nearly finished writing his letters before any of the Gospels were even recorded.

For you to keep insisting that somehow the Gospels are more literally the word of God than the Epistles or Letters because they quote Jesus is irrational, based on the fact that your attack against the letters can equally be made against the Gospels authenticity AND you compound it by saying you don’t believe in divine inspiration. So how could the gospels be anything other than hearsay IF there is not inspiration by the Holy Spirit? By your own methodology the Gospels can’t be trusted because they weren’t written by eyewitnesses.

In the end, your position makes no sense. Saying “Jesus Said,” before a sentence is not proof of authentic authority. If the Holy Spirit can make the gospels sacred and true (which it does), it can do the same for the other NT books as well (which it also does).

First, none of the Gospels were written [in the form we know them] before 60 AD (this doesn't mean they weren't written down at all) except for the Q Gospel which is the earliest writing we know of that was a source for the NT. However, we know that the Gospels used previous sources or likely did. Thus, you're complaints are unfounded. Amusingly, while you're trying to call me ignorant I mentioned the actually timing of Q in the past post. Q being written about a decade in many scenarios before Paul wrote his letters. If you're going to make accusations of what I know and don't know, you'll embarrass yourself less if you do when on the same page I'm not proving you wrong, for one thing, and proving that I'm educated on the subject, for another. Sad.

Meanwhile, again, I claim the Gospels are infallible which is claimed both internally and externally. I claim they are the recorded explicit words of Christ. Now either you agree or you think the authors either lied or were wrong. Now if you agree and you claim to then the quoted words out of the mouth of the Savior is first-hand while the words of Paul are at best second-hand.

You fail at this. You keep saying "by your methodology" and then using your methodology. When you want to prove my methodology wrong, use an example that ACTUALLY USES my methodology. Or keep embarrassing yourself. Whatever trips your trigger. If the quotes of Jesus were passed down through writings and they appear to have been, then they are the recorded words of Christ something Christ claimed would be protected. Now can you tell me where Christ claimed that the words of Paul were the word of God? I'll wait.

How about this time you use some evidence rather than simply creating strawman arguments.

You're trying to tell fellow Christians, equally covered in the salvation of Christ, that you reprimand them, using scriptures you found in Exodus? Interesting.

Perhaps you should think more about what Christ himself said about disagreeing with other Christians, and how you should react to them...

You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like, just like I said you do.

Hmmm... apparently picking and choosing is acceptable as long as you agree with Pootwaddle. And apparently it's important to heed what Christ himself said when it's Poot's argument. Sucks to shoot yourself in the foot, huh?

Let's keep going -
tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it

Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.

Hmmmm... oh, look who is claiming that Paul reversed the teachings of Jesus. And yes, claiming that Jesus said you have to be Jew and Paul told us we didn't is Paul overriding Jesus. Good thing picking and choosing isn't allowed, huh, Pooty? I guess it's not allowed so long as one it disagrees with your interpretation.

My response -
Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."

Yep, I'm sure Dad wouldn't feel contradicted there. Not only contradicted, but essentially ignored is how he would feel.
I pointed out that his wrong interpretation places them in direct contradiction.

Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Three weeks later, at a different meal...
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."
Apparently, Jesus dying mean that Paul was able to override his directions for us, according to Poot. If you just wait a little while, the teachings of Jesus no long apply.,

Now, let's analyze Poot's intentional mishandling of the scripture -
Quote the direction from Jesus that one must become a Jew first to become Christian.

Matthew 15:24
"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Apparently this is a direction to "become a Jew" according to PootWaddle. That's just making up contradictions.

The actual passages shows us Jesus saving a woman who is not a Jew because he is impressed by her faith. The clear and obvious point is that we may be saved by great faith even if we are not Jewish.
22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Apparently not only does Poot expect Paul to edit the words of God incarnate, but he is allowed to do so as well.

Of course, according to Paul, Jesus is not God and thus can't be God incarnate.
Where did you get the idea that Christ had anything against the existence of Hierarchy? He, subservient to God

Okay now let's look at his admonition of people's 'behavior'.
It's called studying the Bible. Maybe you don't do that....
I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... That's too bad.

Now let's see who she learned it from. Here's you making the EXACT same comment to me -
You’re not in the habit of actually reading the words of Christ yourself, or so it would seem.

Hmmmm... is anyone else giggling yet?

Keep in mind that he came into the thread to insult me and to complain about how evil people are who feel attacked and complain about it -
Oh no, now you've done it. You've mentioned his "Christianity" in a negative light, he's going to counter that with his signature feigning of victimhood.

Remember this -
It's called studying the Bible. Maybe you don't do that....
I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... That's too bad.
Oh, that's just too precious. Got caught feigning victimhood, didn't you?

And just to finish up let's pull out some juicy ones that make it clear how full of it PW is -
Your clairvoyance is quite impressive, almost as big as your ego apparently.

The linked to article already did that for me. If you would have read it you would know. Perhaps your entire post is really just a display from you to show support for your friend and tells the rest of us that you've chosen sides based on "faith" in your comrade over positions on the table? Yes, I think that's it but to be sure we should ask GnI, he could use his "insight" and tell us what we "meant" to say.

He will begin by implying that only bigots and closed minded fundies never accept Christians of other denominations from themselves etc., and appeal for public sympathy based on the fact that you have attacked whether or not his theology is in fact Christianity at all . Of course though, he will totally ignore the fact that he's been the one advancing the most strictest and narrowly focused theology of Christianity that I’ve seen practically anywhere, and demanding through insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that every other version or ideology of Christianity that he does not agree with, or does not agree with his version verbatim, is a revisionist teaching and/or anti-Christ teaching completely, and is only believed by the ignorant and/or uneducated and that it needs to be abolished and so on and so forth... But hey, whatever.

Ah well, I guess he had it coming, mainly for picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like and tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it. The irony is that he is the one dismissing the oldest Christian writings to ever to put the good news down as written word and he then goes around calling everyone else the revisionist?!?! He's funny that way.

This is telling. Obviously you don't 'really' believe in the resurrection of Christ in the physical form. Thus, also, probably, why you don't believe in inspiration through the Holy Spirit.
Wasn't Pooty just complaining that GnI was trying to tell people what's inside their heads.

I could go on, but this is a bloodbath.

I could show you the number of posts where Pooty claims that GnI has a giant ego for telling people what they meant to say, and then the number of posts where he tells me what I'm 'really' saying or I 'really' believe.

I could show you the number of posts where he claims people must be more polite while he is insulting people out the other side of his mouth, instead of the brief examples I showed.

I can show where amends the scripture a dozen or so times while claiming it's all infallible. I can show where he blatantly lies about what people have said, what they believe, who they are. But then, everyone can read. What more needs to be said?

The only way I'd ever buy this game is if there's a way to make the Fundies lose and go to Hell, while everyone else goes to Heaven.

Meh, it's the NSG version of "XXX GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS! XXX" flashing in neon. Just trying to attract attention to the thread, no need to be offended. :cool:

ever wonder about those strip bars that advertise "LIVE GIRLS" I mean... what's the alternative...

... *snipped great big honor role posting assuming it has done something damaging*...

I thank you for your efforts. You attempt to do to my posts what you do to the scripture when you read it. You take it out of context and piecemeal it back together again in an attempt to try and make it say what you want it to say.

It's too bad for you though; that your efforts here resulted in such triviality and inconsequence, I think your idea of what a "bloodbath" is is quite different than mine. On the other hand though, I'm rather proud that your attempt to search and find mud to fling at me has produced and found such little dirt for your efforts... But please feel free to continue, I'll try to not let my ego get too big.

Maybe I should have quoted the whole thing instead of snipping it though, so you can't delete it, maybe someday I will like to print it for posterity's sake.

ever wonder about those strip bars that advertise "LIVE GIRLS" I mean... what's the alternative...

The alternative is far superior. *corpse fap*




But the truth is that the alternative is videos of girls... but it's fun to dream.

ever wonder about those strip bars that advertise "LIVE GIRLS" I mean... what's the alternative...

ewww. :p

I thank you for your efforts. You attempt to do to my posts what you do to the scripture when you read it. You take it out of context and piecemeal it back together again in an attempt to try and make it say what you want it to say.

It's too bad for you though; that your efforts here resulted in such triviality and inconsequence, I think your idea of what a "bloodbath" is is quite different than mine. On the other hand though, I'm rather proud that your attempt to search and find mud to fling at me has produced and found such little dirt for your efforts... But please feel free to continue, I'll try to not let my ego get too big.

Maybe I should have quoted the whole thing instead of snipping it though, so you can't delete it, maybe someday I will like to print it for posterity's sake.

I'm not slinging dirt. I'm show how illogical your claims are. I showed you contradicting yourself on every point. I was trying to be respectful of the reader. No honest person behind your keyboard can act like that's all I have. Seriously, are you going to actually lie and pretend like there aren't a number of clear examples of your absurd inability to be introspective.

Trust me, when you take on Smunkee accusing her of being 'disappointing' for her abuse everyone reading is laughing at you. I challenge you to find someone who thinks you're less abusive than Smunkeeville. They don't exist.

I'm not slinging dirt.

I know you're not slinging dirt, and that's the part I was proud of, that you weren't able to find any dirt to throw ... So you had to try and stick it to me for my supposed absurd inability to be introspective , ;)

Thanks again. You're apparently going out of your way to make my first post in this thread a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I know you're not slinging dirt, and that's the part I was proud of, that you weren't able to find any dirt to throw ... So you had to try and stick it to me for my supposed absurd inability to be introspective , ;)

Thanks again. You're apparently going out of your way to make my first post in this thread a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Or perhaps slinging dirt is not the point. And I'm not complaining about your behavior towards me. I'm offering proof that your argument is just a bit inconsistent. The only one who played the victim was you, as I proved.

I love how your best argument is that I intended to say something other than I did. How sad. I attempted to show how absurd your claims are. I did. You have nothing to say about it than be glad I didn't add in more of your absurd behavior. That may be the funniest argument I've ever seen.

Pooty: "Phew, at least he didn't put in the really bad stuff"

That's hilarious.

ever wonder about those strip bars that advertise "LIVE GIRLS" I mean... what's the alternative...

Aww you never saw a necrophilia bar? :D

Or perhaps slinging dirt is not the point. I love how your best argument is that I intended to say something other than I did. How sad. I attempted to show how absurd your claims are. I did. You have nothing to say about it than be glad I didn't add in more of your absurd behavior. That may be the funniest argument I've ever seen.

Pooty: "Phew, at least he didn't put in the really bad stuff"

That's hilarious.

I must have really struck a nerve with you with that first post of mine, it must have hit too close to home I’m sure. I said what you would do and then you've been solidly doing it ever since and now you would rather try to change the topic than admit that the Quotes of Jesus in the gospels must have been safe-guarded by the holy spirit and divine inspiration for them to exist as truth but you can’t actually say that or else you won’t be able to explain why the other letters in the NT can’t have divine instruction as well. That's the hysterical part, but also sad, that you insist on miraculous intervention for your proof to exist but claim that there is no such thing.

I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... :( That's too bad.

actually no, I got it from you, I thought maybe you would catch it, but turns out you didn't.

Jocabia did, so that was fun.

I still don't understand your arguement.......that Jesus' words can't be trusted because they were written down late, but that everything Paul ever said must have been inspired by God through the Holy Spirit?

I get that Paul was inspired, I really do, but inspired by God, if Jesus is God shouldn't I really trust what He says?

It's like when I tell my kids to go into the living room to give their dad a message

"go tell your dad that I am almost done taking out my hot rollers so he can warm up the car"
"okay"
*kid walks into the living room*
"mom said to go warm up the car or you will make us late"

I must have really struck a nerve with you with that first post of mine, it must have hit too close to home I’m sure. I said what you would do and then you've been solidly doing it ever since and now you would rather try to change the topic than admit that the Quotes of Jesus in the gospels must have been safe-guarded by the holy spirit and divine inspiration for them to exist as truth but you can’t actually say that or else you won’t be able to explain why the other letters in the NT can’t have divine instruction as well. That's the hysterical part, but also sad, that you insist on miraculous intervention for your proof to exist but claim that there is no such thing.

Prove it. You know that thing people do in debate to make you look silly. Try using it against me and provide some evidence. Thus far all you have are complaints and claims.

I didn't say the letters of the NT can't have divine inspiration. I said that I take them with a grain of salt, based on my prayer, my study and by the actual statement by Paul that not everything he wrote down was the word of the Lord. See, that's what I do, I actually listen to the scripture itself. When a man says "some of what I say is not with the command of the Lord", I don't say, "Liar, you're infallible." So continue to argue the strawman that the NT CAN'T have divine inspiration, but you'll find the only thing you'll actually be accomplishing is destroying your own strawman. Forgive us if no one is impressed by the hay.

I have news for you much like the entire basis of your argument, things are true just because you make claims. Prove I've done any of the things you claim or quit embarrassing yourself.

actually no, I got it from you, I thought maybe you would catch it, but turns out you didn't.

Jocabia did, so that was fun.

I still don't understand your arguement.......that Jesus' words can't be trusted because they were written down late, but that everything Paul ever said must have been inspired by God through the Holy Spirit?

I get that Paul was inspired, I really do, but inspired by God, if Jesus is God shouldn't I really trust what He says?

It's like when I tell my kids to go into the living room to give their dad a message

"go tell your dad that I am almost done taking out my hot rollers so he can warm up the car"
"okay"
*kid walks into the living room*
"mom said to go warm up the car or you will make us late"

He doesn't believe Jesus was God. He specifically said Jesus is not God.

He doesn't believe Jesus was God. He specifically said Jesus is not God.

wow. I don't meet many of them.......

I mean there are the JW's and the Mormons that come around but that's about it.

…I still don't understand your arguement.......that Jesus' words can't be trusted because they were written down late, but that everything Paul ever said must have been inspired by God through the Holy Spirit?

I get that Paul was inspired, I really do, but inspired by God, if Jesus is God shouldn't I really trust what He says?

It's like when I tell my kids to go into the living room to give their dad a message

"go tell your dad that I am almost done taking out my hot rollers so he can warm up the car"
"okay"
*kid walks into the living room*
"mom said to go warm up the car or you will make us late"

You missed the a primary flaw with Jocabia's interpretation then. HE insists that he trusts Jesus words because they are divine and protected, so he can believe in them, but he insists additionally that there is no such thing as divine Inspiration. Thus, his flawed understanding collapses his theory craft when it is revealed that the gospel are recorded after the fact by people that weren’t there anymore than Paul was there.

You can't have Jesus' words to read and understand unless an author, an author no different and likely coming after reading Paul’s letters, is divinely directed to write them down for us. And IF you have divine inspiration that record the words of Jesus correctly after the fact, then Jocabia has to explain why Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can have it but James, Paul and Peter can not or do not.

I DO believe that Jesus words can be trusted, I also believe that the letter writers can equally be trusted. They can all be equally divinely inspired, I will not pretend one is more divine than another nor if they are, that ‘we’ can establish their pecking order.

He doesn't believe Jesus was God. He specifically said Jesus is not God.

Oh my goodness :rolleyes:

Prove it. You know that thing people do in debate to make you look silly. Try using it against me and provide some evidence. Thus far all you have are complaints and claims.

I didn't say the letters of the NT can't have divine inspiration. I said that I take them with a grain of salt, based on my prayer, my study and by the actual statement by Paul that not everything he wrote down was the word of the Lord. See, that's what I do, I actually listen to the scripture itself. ....

Really? Well, let's see what you have said, shall we?

...
I don't believe the Holy Spirit inspired the authors. I believe that Jesus was an honest man and that he said his words would be preserved in the mouths of the Apostles. All of the Apostles, some of whom you reject...


I think the word you like to use is, "liar." It seems to apply here.

He doesn't believe Jesus was God. He specifically said Jesus is not God.
Oh my goodness :rolleyes:

Let's see if I can use that magical quote function -

Where did you get the idea that Christ had anything against the existence of Hierarchy? He, subservient to God, and likewise others subservient to him, others in places of first to last.

Apparently, Christ is subservient to God. Whoops. Either Jesus IS God or He is subervient to God.

Really? Well, let's see what you have said, shall we?



I think the word you like to use is, "liar." It seems to apply here.

The quote function is not your friend.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit inspired the authors. I believe that Jesus was an honest man and that he said his words would be preserved in the mouths of the Apostles. All of the Apostles, some of whom you reject...
I absolutely said "I don't BELIEVE the Holy Spirit inspired the authors."

Now what did you claim I said -
or else you won’t be able to explain why the other letters in the NT can’t have divine instruction

What did I say I never said and don't believe -
I didn't say the letters of the NT can't have divine inspiration.
...
So continue to argue the strawman that the NT CAN'T have divine inspiration

I even wrote the operative word in all caps so you'd notice it. I never said divine inspiration is impossible. I said I don't BELIEVE they are the result of Divine Inspiration, but never that they CAN'T be.

Apparently, I'm lying because you're not versed in the meaning of fairly common English words. No surprise. You've been having trouble reading a text you've had access to your whole life. You only read my post for a few minutes. I'm sorry I set the bar so high. Go ahead and keep reacting to what you THINK I say.

Let's see if I can use that magical quote function -

Apparently, Christ is subservient to God. Whoops.

Yup, that's what I said, mainly because Jesus said it too...

Luke 22:69
But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

Acts 5:31
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Matthew 26:64
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Mark 9:12
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?

Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."



Even for you, Jesus quotes are good, you said so yourself.

Yup, that's what I said, mainly because Jesus said it too...

Luke 22:69
But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

Acts 5:31
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Matthew 26:64
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Mark 9:12
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?

Even for you, Jesus quotes are good, you said so yourself.

Ha. Amusing. So you are arguing that Jesus is NOT God. Good one. Why'd you roll your eyes then? Or perhaps some of what he said, might just mean something other than what you're claiming. But hey, who needs context when PootWaddle is here telling us what it DOESN'T mean.

...
Apparently, I'm lying because you're not versed in the meaning of fairly common English words. No surprise. You've been having trouble reading a text you've had access to your whole life. You only read my post for a few minutes. I'm sorry I set the bar so high. Go ahead and keep reacting to what you THINK I say.

You better start kicking faster, because you're not even treading water at this point, you're plainly sinking.

Nope, I don’t see any capital letters that are out of place here…

...
I don't believe the Holy Spirit inspired the authors.

As usual, you seem to be backing out of your previous positions without giving credence to 'why.' Obviously you've painted yourself into a corner and you are trying to scramble out of it.

Ha. Amusing. So you are arguing that Jesus is NOT God. Good one. Why'd you roll your eyes then? Or perhaps some of what he said, might just mean something other than what you're claiming. But hey, who needs context when PootWaddle is here telling us what it DOESN'T mean.

I didn't say he isn't God, I said he was subservient to God, which he clearly said and agreed with himself. Your twist the words all you want, it's plainly clear what Jesus said about it. He didn’t teach us to pray by saying “Our Jesus which art in Heaven…”

We could get into teaching the mystery of the trinity if you like, but I don’t think this forum/thread is ready for it.

You better start kicking faster, because you're not even treading water at this point, you're plainly sinking.

Nope, I don’t see any capital letters that are out of place here…

Ha, and you suggest I'm lying. If you really can't tell the difference between the conclusion I've come to based on the evidence and what is possible, then I can't help. Unfortunately for you, most people can read so they'll rely on what my posts say not what you claim they say.


As usual, you seem to be backing out of your previous positions without giving credence to 'why.' Obviously you've painted yourself into a corner and you are trying to scramble out of it.

Backing out. I still openly state that I don't believe they are Divinely inspired. I've not changed that position ever. I don't believe they are and the proponderance of evidence supports that assertion. That doesn't make it impossible, however, just not a logical conclusion from the evidence.

Let's see I say I don't believe something happened and continue to support that assertion. You change what I said to me saying that it's impossible. I point out that I said and still say that I don't believe something happened. And my consistency is backing down because I didn't switch to the thing you made up that I said? Honestly, what color is the sky? Really? See, in my world, people tend to keep arguing their position not the position you made up for them.

I didn't say he isn't God, I said he was subservient to God, which he clearly said and agreed with himself. Your twist the words all you want, it's plainly clear what Jesus said about it. He didn’t teach us to pray by saying “Our Jesus which art in Heaven…”

We could get into teaching the mystery of the trinity if you like, but I don’t think this forum/thread is ready for it.

I don't think you're ready for it. You've claimed that when Jesus healed the daughter of a woman because of her great faith that he was instead trying to teach us to become Jews rather than have great faith, against all logic and certainly against the scripture.

You claim that we must accept all scripture exactly as you interpret it but then you reject an argument because it comes from Exodus.

You claim that Jesus is subservient to God and when you get caught you pretend like you didn't say it. Jesus is God. It ends there. I'm sorry if you don't believe it, but don't pretend like you do. It's just sad.

Accept defeat my friend. You've been proven to be a hypocrite. You've been proven to claim people said things they didn't say. You've been proven to lie. You've been proven to bastardize the scripture. All of this is proven simply using the scripture and your posts, no commentary from me is necessary, though it sure is fun.

Come on, even the Raiders can admit the game's over at this point. Pretending like they are winning won't make all the spectators ignore the fact that SD is running all over their behinds. (See that's a metaphor, I'm not actually suggesting you're the Raiders or that I'm the San Diego Chargers. Just trying to help. You seem to struggle with metaphors based on your claims about Jesus being subservient to God.)

...
Accept defeat my friend. You've been proven to be a hypocrite. You've been proven to claim people said things they didn't say. You've been proven to lie. You've been proven to bastardize the scripture. All of this is proven simply using the scripture and your posts, no commentary from me is necessary, though it sure is fun.


Your self-deception seems to know no bounds, you are entirely delusional at this point. I've heard that they have rooms for this sort of thing, when people completely break down and loose their rational understanding of reality.

You missed the a primary flaw with Jocabia's interpretation then. HE insists that he trusts Jesus words because they are divine and protected, so he can believe in them, but he insists additionally that there is no such thing as divine Inspiration.

An outright lie. Quote me, liar. Where did I say there is no such thing as Divine Inspiration? There's a quote function. I've exposed your dishonesty with it twice now. You keep claiming I'm lying. Quote me. Quote me saying it. You're caught, liar.

Thus, his flawed understanding collapses his theory craft when it is revealed that the gospel are recorded after the fact by people that weren’t there anymore than Paul was there.
My theory is that Jesus claimed to have protected the word something he promised in quotes of him you and I both claim are infallible. Divine Inspiration is not necessary to protect the words of Jesus if God incarnate says they will be protected. I'm sorry that the words of Jesus are not enough for you.


You can't have Jesus' words to read and understand unless an author, an author no different and likely coming after reading Paul’s letters, is divinely directed to write them down for us. And IF you have divine inspiration that record the words of Jesus correctly after the fact, then Jocabia has to explain why Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can have it but James, Paul and Peter can not or do not.

So did Jesus say his words were protected or not? You can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile, I did not say they can't. I've told you this. At this point it can't be an error that you continue to claim I said it's impossible. You are clearly lying.


I DO believe that Jesus words can be trusted, I also believe that the letter writers can equally be trusted. They can all be equally divinely inspired, I will not pretend one is more divine than another nor if they are, that ‘we’ can establish their pecking order.

If Jesus's words can be trusted than they are divinely protected for accuracy according to Jesus Himself. According to you that is not enough. I claim that it is. Prove that Divinely protection of the accuracy of the explicit teaching of Jesus and the stories of Jesus cannot stand on it's own.

Seriously, don't make up an argument. I'm stating it again now. You agree that Jesus's words can be trusted (I notice you didn't use the word infallible), and if this is true we must accept that he while he was alive claimed that would be kept untainted. Given this, how can you claim that if none of the authors are Divinely inspired that Jesus's would not be protected by His claim. Go ahead. Unless you're afraid to argue against my actual argument as opposed to the one you made up?

Your self-deception seems to know no bounds, you are entirely delusional at this point. I've heard that they have rooms for this sort of thing, when people completely break down and loose their rational understanding of reality.

My young friend, we're not the only ones reading these posts and since you've entered the thread, or really any thread, seen anyone actually not laugh at you. People email me to tell me things they're afraid they'll get banned if they write in the forum, but my friend, it's not me that is embarassing himself.

Come on, you claimed you didn't have time to respond to my earlier post but since you've posted a half dozen posts. Apparently that wasn't honest either. I've shown a preponderous of evidence and shown the context you cut out of yours.

Come on, don't tell me all you've got is personal attacks. Certainly, you've got a serious argument against the things I've ACTUALLY said and not just the things you've made up.

An outright lie. Quote me, liar. Where did I say there is no such thing as Divine Inspiration? There's a quote function. I've exposed your dishonesty with it twice now. You keep claiming I'm lying. Quote me. Quote me saying it. You're caught, liar.


You Sir, have clearly lost control of yourself.

Would you like a stone to throw?

You Sir, have clearly lost control of yourself.

Would you like a stone to throw?

Thanks, but no. I don't advocate violence or lying. I do however call people on lies when they do it. Just calling them like I see them. I've caught you repeatedly claiming I said something different than I did. Prove me wrong. Go ahead. The forum has a quote function. Feel free.

See, I know other people who are reading this thread. I'm getting lots of feedback on what you've said. It's not just me who notices that you seem to have a basic problem with fairly common English words, like can't, believe. They've noticed your context difficulties and that you edit every post you reply to in an effort to make it seem to say something else.

My favorite part is when you posted an insult towards Smunkee and she suggested perhaps you have it backwards and you started playing the victim. I hope you never leave the forum. Since Whittier left, we haven't had anyone who was so absurd.

...
Come on, don't tell me all you've got is personal attacks. Certainly, you've got a serious argument against the things I've ACTUALLY said and not just the things you've made up.

And so saith the little desperate man that would attack the credibility of his own mother in a public forum of complete strangers who have no relevance to his existence whatsoever, rather than concede a single point in a meaningless debate that would have cost him nothing to forfeit the point but he couldn't bring himself to do it ...

...
My favorite part is when you posted an insult towards Smunkee and she suggested perhaps you have it backwards and you started playing the victim. I hope you never leave the forum...

Aw, you poor thing, and it means so much to you as well :(

As to Smunke's post, it seems to me she so much as admitted that it was intended as an insult, only she said it was ‘I’ who inspired her to it. You were the one that said she was basically incapable of doing such a thing in the first place.

As to the rest of it, You have no shame Sir, You twist and squirm and you think you have wiggled out of your own position and into a more defendable one. But really, we both know, your position changes as the wind blows, only you never concede, you can’t concede, you are perhaps incapable of it? I wonder.

And so saith the little desperate man that would attack the credibility of his own mother in a public forum of complete strangers who have no relevance to his existence whatsoever, rather than concede a single point in a meaningless debate that would have cost him nothing to forfeit the point but he couldn't bring himself to do it ...

I'll concede a point when you prove one. I'll wait. I've given you an easy one if you're telling the truth. You claim "he insists additionally that there is no such thing as divine Inspiration." Since I 'insist' you should be able to quote me. What I insist is that you cannot quote me, since it's a lie. I never said it.

You want me to concede the point, simply quote me 'insisting' that 'there is no such things as diving Inspiration." Should be easy. The forum has a quote function and a search function. I'm patient. Here's your chance.

You attack my relationship with my mother and in the very next post suggest I have no shame. At least you're consistent in your ability to expect one thing of other people while doing the opposite.

Aw, you poor thing, and it means so much to you as well :(

As to Smunke's post, it seems to me she so much as admitted that it was intended as an insult, only she said it was ‘I’ who inspired her to it. You were the one that said she was basically incapable of doing such a thing in the first place.

Again, I didn't say she was incapable. I said it was an amusing reaction from you. But hey, why start being honest now. Keep making up what I said.

As to the rest of it, You have no shame Sir, You twist and squirm and you think you have wiggled out of your own position and into a more defendable one. But really, we both know, your position changes as the wind blows, only you never concede, you can’t concede, you are perhaps incapable of it? I wonder.

I have no shame, huh? Prove me wrong. The squirming is you. You edited my post AGAIN, because you can't face up to the preponderance of evidence. You even felt it necessary to bring up my relationship with my mother, but I have no shame.

Now, you claimed you didn't have time to respond to my points earlier. It seems you've had a plethora of time to avoid them. How about you reply to the actual points and leave my mother out of this? What's the matter your argument fell apart so rather than respond to my points you try to claim I said things I didn't and insult my relationship with my mother?

I have no shame, huh? Prove me wrong. The squirming is you. You edited my post AGAIN, because you can't face up to the preponderance of evidence.

I suggest that you report me in the moderator forum if I edited your post and claimed you said it. I suggest that this is a false accusation on your part. You lied.

You even felt it necessary to bring up my relationship with my mother, but I have no shame.

I only reminded you of what you have actually done in in the past, on this very forum.

Now, you claimed you didn't have time to respond to my points earlier. It seems you've had a plethora of time to avoid them. How about you reply to the actual points and leave my mother out of this? What's the matter your argument fell apart so rather than respond to my points you try to claim I said things I didn't and insult my relationship with my mother?

I claim instead that when I cam back and found your post after the fact, but your post where you attempted to search for mud to sling at me (or whatever) and your attempt failed miserably, but it seriously outweighed any motivation I had for continuing the previous debate with at all, now that I have seen that you have become completely irrational, what could the point be?

-snip-
Maybe I should have quoted the whole thing instead of snipping it though, so you can't delete it, maybe someday I will like to print it for posterity's sake.

From what i can tell, he hasn't altered his posts at all. If he did it would show "Post last edited by:"...

I suggest that you report me in the moderator forum if I edited your post and claimed you said it. I sugges this is a false accusation on your part. You lied.

I'm not suggesting the words aren't mine. I'm suggesting you removed the context. The post said this -
Thanks, but no. I don't advocate violence or lying. I do however call people on lies when they do it. Just calling them like I see them. I've caught you repeatedly claiming I said something different than I did. Prove me wrong. Go ahead. The forum has a quote function. Feel free.

See, I know other people who are reading this thread. I'm getting lots of feedback on what you've said. It's not just me who notices that you seem to have a basic problem with fairly common English words, like can't, believe. They've noticed your context difficulties and that you edit every post you reply to in an effort to make it seem to say something else.

My favorite part is when you posted an insult towards Smunkee and she suggested perhaps you have it backwards and you started playing the victim. I hope you never leave the forum. Since Whittier left, we haven't had anyone who was so absurd.

Your quote of me said this in it's entirety -
...
My favorite part is when you posted an insult towards Smunkee and she suggested perhaps you have it backwards and you started playing the victim. I hope you never leave the forum...

Something you do with every post and have been caught doing repeatedly with Bible passages. The reason is clear.

You are replying to the entire post so quote the entire post. It's not against the rules, but it is bad form.

I only reminded you of what you have actually done in in the past, on this very forum.

I attacked my mother rather than concede a point? I suspect you're taking yet another thing out of context, but feel free to quote me and prove me wrong. See, quote is a button that appear just below a post. Use it. It's fun. I've been using it to prove you wrong all night. Here's your turn.

I claim instead that when I cam back and found your post after the fact, but your post where you attempted to search for mud to sling at me (or whatever) and your attempt failed miserably, but it seriously outweighed any motivation I had for continuing the previous debate with at all, now that I have seen that you have become completely irrational, what could the point be?

A minute ago you said I wasn't trying to sling mud and I wasn't (EDIT: Change I wasn't to I agreed with you then and still do). I was pointing out that your arguments, every one of them is not consistent and I proved it by quoting you.

Your reply was to begin this little tirade. Now you admit you'd rather do this than continue the argument. I wonder why. Perhaps because I nailed you to the wall. However, if debunking me is so easy start doing it. All I've seen so far are unsupported claims and complaints.

EDIT: I found that post. Ha. Apparently, talking about my own personal experience where my mother is involved and I disagree with her is 'attacking my mother'. Amusing. My mother actually agrees that she does that. She thinks that it's better to mistreat family and openly admits, even infants. I disagree with her on the infants part on the part where she does not ask for reasonable help from servicepeople who are there to help you, but she and I are both quite content in our positions. I told her I posted that and she was proud. It wasn't an attack. It was an actual description of events in my life. They happen to include my mother and her behavior is actually exactly as I described.

I remember you were on the losing side of that argument as well. What was one of your arguments, comparing a breastfeeding woman to walking livestock into the room and feeding a human being from the nipple. Again, apparently, it is I who have no shame. I don't attack people's private relationships with their families or compare women to cows. I forgot that you attacked my relationship with my mother in that thread as well. Thanks for reminding. It's good to know who I'm dealing with.

Quoted for truth-
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11470366&postcount=265
Are you saying having a woman at the table is the same thing as bringing in a heiffer? I think I'd disagree.
Heifers don't have to be dirty you know, they can be washed.

From what i can tell, he hasn't altered his posts at all. If he did it would show "Post last edited by:"...

I occasionally edit if I mess up spelling or HTML. However, he's got to pretend I edited it, because he's losing the argument. It's just another of his unsupported accusations. Am I the only who notices that I've given him a plethora of opportunities to actually prove me wrong when I've called him out but instead of offering quotes, he moves on to the next attack. The reason should be obvious.

EDIT: Otherwise I add an edit note like this one.

I attacked my mother rather than concede a point? I suspect you're taking yet another thing out of context, but feel free to quote me and prove me wrong. See, quote is a button that appear just below a post. Use it. It's fun. I've been using it to prove you wrong all night. Here's your turn.


Actually...i like THIS button


http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/multiquote_off.gif

Okay, so we've established that I did NOT 'attack the credibility' of my mother. Last I checked, in order to attack someone's crediblity one has to actually, you know, mention something related to credibility or believing someone. But hey, why be a stickler for a little thing like facts.

Meanwhile, my young friend, I've offered you several other perfect opportunities to prove I said what you claim. Thus far, you've not managed to actually quote me saying what you claim. So far, we seen you claim one thing and IF you quote me, quoting me saying something substantively different. But, again, hey, why be a stickler for facts.

When I challenged you to actually post proof I said the things you claim, you instead chose to bring up my mother and then asked me if I had any shame. So my big question is have you conceded the point or do you consider attacking someone's familial relationships to be good and honest debate?

So far we DID establish that you attacked her credibility as a witness against you. You attacked her ability to be considered a good witness by trying to show her as irrational in her very ability to be rationally objectionable.

I'm done with this debate. You attempt to discredit me by quoting me in half a dozen threads, going back quite some time, I mention one post and position of yours directed at me, and not others, and you run off to the moderation forum with it trying to pretend it was unjustified or flamebaiting....

I think we can see who is being irrational and has double standards here.

So far we DID establish that you attacked her credibility as a witness against you.

Pardon me? And you accuse me of wriggling. Please, at what point did I say that she doesn't believe what she is saying? At what point did I suggest she doesn't have reasons for having her beliefs. NEVER. She believes what she believes. Since you chose to suggest I was poorly raised (apparently your pocket argument is baiting people, like I've quoted you doing to me, GnI and Smunkee), I pointed out that she and I completely disagree on the subject. That has nothing to do with her crediblity.


You attacked her ability to be considered a good witness by trying to show her as irrational in her very ability to be rationally objectionable.

I did. Why? Because we don't agree? My mother and I don't agree. Apparently, the fact that we don't agree makes her irrational in your eyes. I pointed out that in an event with my sister-in-law and breastfeeding, my mother and I disagreed. You suggested that my mother should have taught me better. I pointed out that I'm well aware of what my mother considers impolite and that I disagree and gave context to it. Again, you really need to stop wriggling her. I never mentioned her credibility or whether she is capable of being rational.

Now, I'm asking you politely to discontinue attacking my mother. I did not say those things.


I'm done with this debate. You attempt to discredit me by quoting me in half a dozen threads, going back quite some time, I mention one post and position of yours directed at me, and not others, and you run off to the moderation forum with it trying to pretend it was unjustified or flamebaiting....

I think we can see who is being irrational and has double standards here.

I quoted you. I didn't make a false claim about what you said. I recognize that you don't see the difference there. However, most people recognize the difference between showing your arguments that are absolutely and completely on topic and bringing up a completely different topic and summarizing a post inaccurately in order to attack me. You even admitted you considered it "self-defense".

You're trying to tell fellow Christians, equally covered in the salvation of Christ, that you reprimand them, using scriptures you found in Exodus? Interesting.

Perhaps you should think more about what Christ himself said about disagreeing with other Christians, and how you should react to them...

You determine which writings you like and which ones you don't like, just like I said you do.

Hmmm... apparently picking and choosing is acceptable as long as you agree with Pootwaddle. And apparently it's important to heed what Christ himself said when it's Poot's argument. Sucks to shoot yourself in the foot, huh?

Let's keep going -
tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it

Example given: To become a Christian do I first have to become a Jew? If we end the NT at the Gospel John that would be the case. Thankfully the Holy Spirit was sent down to us after the ascension to give us comfort AND instruction. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit and Christ do not contradict each other.

Hmmmm... oh, look who is claiming that Paul reversed the teachings of Jesus. And yes, claiming that Jesus said you have to be Jew and Paul told us we didn't is Paul overriding Jesus. Good thing picking and choosing isn't allowed, huh, Pooty? I guess it's not allowed so long as one it disagrees with your interpretation.

My response -
Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."

Yep, I'm sure Dad wouldn't feel contradicted there. Not only contradicted, but essentially ignored is how he would feel.
I pointed out that his wrong interpretation places them in direct contradiction.

Boy: "Dad, can I have dessert?"
Dad: "Only if you finish your peas first."
Three weeks later, at a different meal...
Boy: "Mom, do I have to finish my peas before I have dessert."
Mom: "Of course not, son. Here's your dessert."
Apparently, Jesus dying mean that Paul was able to override his directions for us, according to Poot. If you just wait a little while, the teachings of Jesus no long apply.,

Now, let's analyze Poot's intentional mishandling of the scripture -
Quote the direction from Jesus that one must become a Jew first to become Christian.

Matthew 15:24
"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Apparently this is a direction to "become a Jew" according to PootWaddle. That's just making up contradictions.

The actual passages shows us Jesus saving a woman who is not a Jew because he is impressed by her faith. The clear and obvious point is that we may be saved by great faith even if we are not Jewish.
22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Apparently not only does Poot expect Paul to edit the words of God incarnate, but he is allowed to do so as well.

Of course, according to Paul, Jesus is not God and thus can't be God incarnate.
Where did you get the idea that Christ had anything against the existence of Hierarchy? He, subservient to God

Okay now let's look at his admonition of people's 'behavior'.
It's called studying the Bible. Maybe you don't do that....
I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... That's too bad.

Now let's see who she learned it from. Here's you making the EXACT same comment to me -
You’re not in the habit of actually reading the words of Christ yourself, or so it would seem.

Hmmmm... is anyone else giggling yet?

Keep in mind that he came into the thread to insult me and to complain about how evil people are who feel attacked and complain about it -
Oh no, now you've done it. You've mentioned his "Christianity" in a negative light, he's going to counter that with his signature feigning of victimhood.

Remember this -
It's called studying the Bible. Maybe you don't do that....
I see you've been taking "how to insult through implication" lessons from Jocabia... That's too bad.
Oh, that's just too precious. Got caught feigning victimhood, didn't you?

And just to finish up let's pull out some juicy ones that make it clear how full of it PW is -
Your clairvoyance is quite impressive, almost as big as your ego apparently.

The linked to article already did that for me. If you would have read it you would know. Perhaps your entire post is really just a display from you to show support for your friend and tells the rest of us that you've chosen sides based on "faith" in your comrade over positions on the table? Yes, I think that's it but to be sure we should ask GnI, he could use his "insight" and tell us what we "meant" to say.

He will begin by implying that only bigots and closed minded fundies never accept Christians of other denominations from themselves etc., and appeal for public sympathy based on the fact that you have attacked whether or not his theology is in fact Christianity at all . Of course though, he will totally ignore the fact that he's been the one advancing the most strictest and narrowly focused theology of Christianity that I’ve seen practically anywhere, and demanding through insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that every other version or ideology of Christianity that he does not agree with, or does not agree with his version verbatim, is a revisionist teaching and/or anti-Christ teaching completely, and is only believed by the ignorant and/or uneducated and that it needs to be abolished and so on and so forth... But hey, whatever.

Ah well, I guess he had it coming, mainly for picking and choosing which NT books he likes and which ones he doesn’t like and tries to claim they don't agree with each other as his justification for it. The irony is that he is the one dismissing the oldest Christian writings to ever to put the good news down as written word and he then goes around calling everyone else the revisionist?!?! He's funny that way.

This is telling. Obviously you don't 'really' believe in the resurrection of Christ in the physical form. Thus, also, probably, why you don't believe in inspiration through the Holy Spirit.
Wasn't Pooty just complaining that GnI was trying to tell people what's inside their heads.

I could go on, but this is a bloodbath.

I could show you the number of posts where Pooty claims that GnI has a giant ego for telling people what they meant to say, and then the number of posts where he tells me what I'm 'really' saying or I 'really' believe.

I could show you the number of posts where he claims people must be more polite while he is insulting people out the other side of his mouth, instead of the brief examples I showed.

I can show where amends the scripture a dozen or so times while claiming it's all infallible. I can show where he blatantly lies about what people have said, what they believe, who they are. But then, everyone can read. What more needs to be said?

NOTE: You'll notice that every quote of him is recent and is on topic. Nothing so scandelous as attacking a man's mother.

As to Smunke's post, it seems to me she so much as admitted that it was intended as an insult, only she said it was ‘I’ who inspired her to it. You were the one that said she was basically incapable of doing such a thing in the first place.
actually, no. I was just parroting back your own comment, if it's an insult then you have been insulting Jacobia, if you are going to backtrack and say "no" then it's obviously not an insult and therefore I would ask you to be a gentleman and take back the posts where you say I am insulting you.

Since the whole of Scripture is God's Word, you are incorrect.


Inspired.

The Bible is taken to be the 'inspired' word of God.

If we accept that God literally WROTE the whole book, we have to ask ourselves why he makes mistakes... and changes his mind so often. Eternal, from-everlasting-to-everlasting, just doesn't work with that kind of volatility.

What were the Ten Commandments? Why are there two very different versions given? Why, in the flesh, does God incarnate give a different set of Commandments? Why does God tell the Jews that Messiah will not change the teachings of Judaism? Why does Jesus change the teachings of Judaism, if he is God?

If you read the book as 100% literally the word of God, you make a liar of God, and you ignore the clear evidence that the book is very much the work of men. A scholar can even sit and identify individual authors through the WAY they write... the 'flavour' of the text.

So - either God didn't LITERALLY write the book verbatim, or he is schizophrenic and incapable of keeping his story straight.

If I was going to belive in a god... I'd want one that was, at least, consistent.

No, it would mean that the revisionist modernist "Christians" are taking things out of context of the whole of Scripture preferring to use their own sense to mold what God says to suit their desires. This is idolatry and conceit of the highest degree, to say that one can disregard portions of God's Word at one's whim. So then, Scripture is no longer God's Word, because we can't be conceited idolators, can we? And then you have nothing to base anything on, which suits everyone just fine, becaus they can do what is right in their own eyes. Which God condemns in Scripture.

Utter balderdash.

There is nothing 'revisionist' about listening to the words that Jesus actually preached. That is, at heart, why the religion is called 'Christianity'.

What would be 'revisionist', would be to accept the message of Jesus, as He preached it... and then allow a non-divine commentator to 'ameliorate' that message. It doesn't matter that Paul preached his 'revisionist' text 2000 years ago, it was still a revision of the word of Jesus, and should be considered as such.

To say that someone is less of a Christian because they choose Christ over someone else, it a tad hypocritical isn't it?

Indeed.

Ironically... doesn't Paul himself warn against just that?

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ. Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Unless I'm reading this totally wrong, Paul specifically addresses the issue of who to 'follow', and he sets the message of Jesus FAR above anything he, himself, might say.

Paul is a commentator, by his OWN admission.

*Corrected to show actual time lapse between events...

So - God changes his mind?

If you don't believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit, you might not trust the reliability of the NT. But I'm sure you already know that.

Was Jesus done at the cross? Jesus still had work to do. In fact, Jesus is STILL doing work on earth, provided you believe in the Holy Spirit.

It’s not hard to follow, you’re making it too difficult on yourself. Jesus taught many people many things, each of them to record what they best understood. It's not Jesus vs. Paul. It's Jesus through Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James etc., and so on and so forth… ALL of the NT books are Jesus’ teachings.

Curious.

You seem to be arguing in favour of the power of the Holy Spirit... and yet you ALSO seem to be arguing that there is an 'official' way to interpret the scripture... and that that way is a way constucted by men, as opposed to an individual 'discernment' through the agency OF the Holy Spirit.

This is telling. Obviously you don't 'really' believe in the resurrection of Christ in the physical form. Thus, also, probably, why you don't believe in inspiration through the Holy Spirit.

Personally - I don't believe in the resurrection of Christ in the physical form... but that is irrelevent.

The form of Christ that the book describes in contact with Paul, doesn't claim to be 'physical'... indeed, the properties which are claimed for that meeting STRONGLY suggest that Paul only ever met a 'spirit' form of Jesus... if he didn't just make up the whole thing.

Which author of Jesus quotes do you prefer?

I prefer the three non-Johnannine Gospels. I accept the Gospel of John as 'official', but think he spent too much time interpreting what he was recording, rathr than just 'committing the facts to paper'.

Your self-deception seems to know no bounds, you are entirely delusional at this point. I've heard that they have rooms for this sort of thing, when people completely break down and loose their rational understanding of reality.

This is called 'ad hominem'... in essence, it means that you are attempting to discredit the argument, by attacking who said it.

Self-deception? Delusional? Completely break down?

As far as I can see... this makes no comment at all, on the material or the debate... it is purely an attack.

I'm done with this debate.

At least you got that bit right...

Aw, you poor thing, and it means so much to you as well :(

As to Smunke's post, it seems to me she so much as admitted that it was intended as an insult, only she said it was ‘I’ who inspired her to it. You were the one that said she was basically incapable of doing such a thing in the first place.

Hi! :fluffle: Sorry to interrupt, just need to clear a few things up.

You don't know me, I don't think, but I am Captain of the Guard, so named by Her Royal Highness.

You seem a little confused. So let me clear things up for you. You were insulting, to both Jocabia AND Smunkee. You were out of line.

This is NSG, and often debates get heated. Sometimes insults are posted in the heat of the moment. Everyone wants to do it, most of us try to avoid it, but sometimes, being human, we fail. It is understandable. That does not mean it is acceptable, or that it will be condoned. It is not, nor will it be.

You, sir, owe an apology to Jocabia and Smunkee. I am not to worried, because, from looking at this thread, it appears you are a Christian. Therefore I have faith you will realize that this is the case.

Don't disappoint me.

Have a good day! :fluffle:

PS
Impressive, Jocabia!