Pick a believer's brain 2?

[VFarris01]

Seeing Amazing Rando's thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60437) has prompted me to start one of my own.

I have been labeled a "fundamentalist" and have generated considerable ilk that I am somehow without love (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60281) when sharing my knowledge and thoughts about Christianity and the Bible; neither of these do I consider to be true.

I have also been compared to Jude3b in my attitude toward the RCC; while I am not as "vocal" as J3b, I consider the RCC to propogate "incorrect" teaching and doctrine.

I would like to share with anyone interested what I believe and why I believe it is true. As with Rando's thread, this is not a debate, simply a question and answer session.

[Amazing Rando]

May I ask why you bill yourself as "an atheist's worst nightmare" when you've only ever posted twice in Apologetics? :wink:

[VFarris01]

May I ask why you bill yourself as "an atheist's worst nightmare" when you've only ever posted twice in Apologetics? :wink:You might know of www.cygnus-study.com (http://www.cygnus-study.com) The guy running the site could not stand my bashing of him and his non-belief in God (belief in atheism?) so he banned me. Why have I not posted in Apologetics?... Well, I scan it from time-to-time but have found nothing worth my time; the... same... tired... rhetoric...

[mentored1]

Seeing Amazing Rando's thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60437) has prompted me to start one of my own.

I have been labeled a "fundamentalist" and have generated considerable ilk that I am somehow without love (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60281) when sharing my knowledge and thoughts about Christianity and the Bible; neither of these do I consider to be true.

I have also been compared to Jude3b in my attitude toward the RCC; while I am not as "vocal" as J3b, I consider the RCC to propogate "incorrect" teaching and doctrine.

I would like to share with anyone interested what I believe and why I believe it is true. As with Rando's thread, this is not a debate, simply a question and answer session.

Hello! I look forward to the answers... I'll use slight modifications of questions I posed to Rando... I shifted from a "fundamentalist" faith to one of "agnosticism" (though I loathe labels and terms)... so feel free to throw whatever you need out - I should be able to grasp it...

1. How do you KNOW of Christ working in your life or speaking to you or any such thing without your BELIEF that He is doing so? Is it your faith or your Savior and how do you discern the difference?

2. Do you subscribe to the literal 6/7 day creation in Genesis as opposed to the Evolutionary story? If so do you dismiss / deny any evidence presented by Evolution in favor of Creation? If you do not take it literally then why do you take the offer of Salvation by Faith literally?

3. If you do not believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God then disregard this question: assuming you do believe so is it inspired in the translation or only in the original? If in the original only then aside from your belief it remains perfect how do you know it is? Also how do you reconcile similiar myths and stories that occur in other cultures that predate the writing of the Old Testament?

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Peter Kirby]

A quick scan of your posts show that you have focused on your opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. You write,

"Hey, as long as you are ok with, indulgences, Mary worship, cannibalism, praying to the dead, etc. It is your little trip to Hell, not mine."

Do you believe that Roman Catholics generally speaking are going to Hell?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[VFarris01]

Hello! I look forward to the answers... I'll use slight modifications of questions I posed to Rando... I shifted from a "fundamentalist" faith to one of "agnosticism" (though I loathe labels and terms)... so feel free to throw whatever you need out - I should be able to grasp it...Hi mentored1, thank you for your interest and participation.

I abhor titles and "terms" as well. One fellow said, after I remarked how he used "big words" to strengthen his argument (using special vocabulary terms to make it appear he is authority on the subject when, in fact, he is not), "God forbid we use correct terminology."

As far as agnosticism goes, I feel, the more one questions his faith the more faith he will find he has in his "posession."


1. How do you KNOW of Christ working in your life or speaking to you or any such thing without your BELIEF that He is doing so? Is it your faith or your Savior and how do you discern the difference?For me, it is not so much "knowing" as "feeling."

As with the entire population of the Earth, I have had/have/will have "ups" and "downs" in my life. I have come to realize no matter how "bad" the "downs" are it could always be worse.

One might ask, how much worse could it be to have lived through the devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina in Louisiana or the tsunami in the Indian Ocean? Would a "just" God allow such destruction and hardship? When God "causes" these situations I feel He is not doing so as punisment, rather He is "causing" these situations as a test of faith (consider Job).

(12) I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound. In everything and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. (13) I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

2. Do you subscribe to the literal 6/7 day creation in Genesis as opposed to the Evolutionary story? If so do you dismiss / deny any evidence presented by Evolution in favor of Creation? If you do not take it literally then why do you take the offer of Salvation by Faith literally?Do I believe God created Heaven and Earth in 6/7 literal days? Yes.

Do I believe "species" arise from other "species" (did man develop from apes)?" No.

Do I believe evolution is occurring? Yes, within a "species;" there is no doubt animals adapt to survive in a particular environment or that "species" dies within that environment.


3. If you do not believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God then disregard this question: assuming you do believe so is it inspired in the translation or only in the original? If in the original only then aside from your belief it remains perfect how do you know it is? Also how do you reconcile similiar myths and stories that occur in other cultures that predate the writing of the Old Testament?Instead of answering these questions directly, I will suggest a short "reading list" (these are probably going to gain me yet another "label").

1) Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

2) Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141822/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

3) The Complete Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655879/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Robert Miller (editor).

4) The Jesus Mysteries: Was The "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609807986/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

5) Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400045940/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

Feel free, after reading any of these, to share your thoughts with me.


Thanks for your thoughts!Thank you for taking the time to read and consider them.

[VFarris01]

A quick scan of your posts show that you have focused on your opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. You write,

"Hey, as long as you are ok with, indulgences, Mary worship, cannibalism, praying to the dead, etc. It is your little trip to Hell, not mine."

Do you believe that Roman Catholics generally speaking are going to Hell?

kind thoughts,
Peter KirbyHi Pete, thank you for your interest and participation.

It depends on if you want the short answer or the long answer.

The "short answer" is, "No."

The "long answer" is, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

[Peter Kirby]

Hi Pete, thank you for your interest and participation.

It depends on if you want the short answer or the long answer.

The "short answer" is, "No."

The "long answer" is, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

I have that book. How would it answer my question?

You do have interesting book recommendations!

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Gilgaron]

You might know of www.cygnus-study.com (http://www.cygnus-study.com/) The guy running the site could not stand my bashing of him and his non-belief in God (belief in atheism?) so he banned me. Why have I not posted in Apologetics?... Well, I scan it from time-to-time but have found nothing worth my time; the... same... tired... rhetoric...

I've been banned from a Christian fundamentalist webpage, although I was polite instead of bashing. Do I get to be a theist's worst nightmare?

[technomage]

I've been banned from a Christian fundamentalist webpage, although I was polite instead of bashing. Do I get to be a theist's worst nightmare?

Eh ... your more like what heppens to the theist after eating a pepperoni pizza and getting heartburn. Not nightmare ... just weird dreams. :hrm:

[VFarris01]

I have that book. How would it answer my question?

You do have interesting book recommendations!

kind thoughts,
Peter KirbyWell, Pete, since you read the book, you should be aware "indulgences, Mary worship, cannibalism, praying to the dead, etc" were not practiced by "true" Christians of the 1st century. Since I believe God to be a "just" god and would/will not punish people for mere stupidity, I would suggest you should refer yourself to the "short answer."

[VFarris01]

I've been banned from a Christian fundamentalist webpage, although I was polite instead of bashing. Do I get to be a theist's worst nightmare?You probably were not as "polite" as you believe yourself to have been considering "Christian charity" was not a priority for you. BTAIM, "No," I doubt you rose to my level of "nightmarishness."


Eh ... your more like what happens to the theist after eating a pepperoni pizza and getting heartburn. Not nightmare ... just weird dreams. :hrm:Interesting comment and probably true in Gil's case. However, no people bashing regardless of their theistic/non-theistic affiliation.

[gharfish]

What's up with the (so) strong an interest in the infant baptism issue ?

Q. no. 2: Is that a young Billy Graham as your avatar ?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
a/letter/to/the/editor:

The term/concept "avatar" is something TWeb should abandon, I think; it being a Christian owned & operated website. It's ...simply...a ...Hindu...'ism.'

[VFarris01]

Hi Vance, thank you for your interest and participation.


What's up with the (so) strong an interest in the infant baptism issue ?I believe there is no need to baptize infant. Baptism of infants does one thing; it gets them wet.

Ask me about the "correct" manner (application) of baptism... I know you are curious.


Q. no. 2: Is that a young Billy Graham as your avatar ?Nope; it is Elmer Gantry, aka Burt Lancaster, from the move by the same name.
a/letter/to/the/editor:

The term/concept "avatar" is something TWeb should abandon, I think; it being a Christian owned & operated website. It's ...simply...a ...Hindu...'ism.'
See here (http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=avatar&i=38293,00.asp).

[Gilgaron]

You probably were not as "polite" as you believe yourself to have been considering "Christian charity" was not a priority for you. BTAIM, "No," I doubt you rose to my level of "nightmarishness."

I'm not sure that Christian charity was a priority for that fellow, either. I'm sure he'd have banned half the Christians here for disagreeing with him.


Interesting comment and probably true in Gil's case. However, no people bashing regardless of their theistic/non-theistic affiliation.

What is the true metric of nightmarishness if getting banned doesn't count, after all? How do we know that you're not merely a case of indigestion, too? :wink:

[VFarris01]

You probably were not as "polite" as you believe yourself to have been considering "Christian charity" was not a priority for you. BTAIM, "No," I doubt you rose to my level of "nightmarishness."
I'm not sure that Christian charity was a priority for that fellow, either. I'm sure he'd have banned half the Christians here for disagreeing with him.This may quite possibly be true... DizzyBlonde and her thread on baptism comes to mind... but the owner of the site/thread has the right to associate with whomever he/she wishes; right?


Interesting comment and probably true in Gil's case. However, no people bashing regardless of their theistic/non-theistic affiliation.
What is the true metric of nightmarishness if getting banned doesn't count, after all? How do we know that you're not merely a case of indigestion, too? :wink: This too is quite possibly true... but for a simple "case of indigestion," a lot of locker room type threads started with my name in the subject line.

Remember, no people bashing regardless of their theistic/non-theistic affiliation.

[gharfish]

Hi Vance, thank you for your interest and participation.

I believe there is no need to baptize infant. Baptism of infants does one thing; it gets them wet.

Ask me about the "correct" manner (application) of baptism... I know you are curious.

Nope; it is Elmer Gantry, aka Burt Lancaster, from the move by the same name.
See here (http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=avatar&i=38293,00.asp).Well, I agree that infant baptism does not save them in 'any way shape or form.' Of course neither does immersion, as was (as best we know) the model that John 'the ...' used, to the obvious approval of Jesus, Himself. Now it is His command that all believers undergo this sacred act, along with the remembrance of Him in the "Lord's Supper." Neither have 'anything to do' with the actual SAVING of any individual, however (do you agree ?)

I also believe that God does not hold the infant-into-child responsible -culpable- for their sins ...until they are/have become truly sins, AND, they have *gone on knowingly, habitually refusing the plan -offer- of salvation ...that, again, they have come to fully understood...enough to soundly reject.

*(for however long God, in His perfect justice and mercy, allows them to remain in unbelief).

I have always considered the baptism of infants as meaning that those parents involved are dedicating themselves to the Christian upbringing they are (promising) in the participation -initiation- of that symbolic act.

I imagine that you would agree that baptism's significance in salvation for the "adult" believer is also a symbol of that person's repentence of sins in general, and especially -even essentially- their previous sinful disbelief of Jesus...as THE Lord God incarnate; (and now) a public displaying of their sole trust in Him for salvation -as their personal Saviour...the washing water representing the moral cleanliness before the Father that they have received by grace, through faith.

I worry that you may have taken your case too far with DizzyBlond, and that she can only be tormented in a way by further discussion on the matter. Do you two both not now know clearly the other's position -every argument possible on both sides explored ? I'm just suggesting that it may be time to move on, if for no other reason than to spare her the felt obligation (?) of daily (exertion of passionate) postings...and more...of.

Rats; in a way I was hoping that it was Rev. Graham pictured as your avatar. It bears a resemblance, I think. It's a powerful image, regardless. It will be a terrible, terrible day when he passes-on. I fear for his health.

I was not aware that "avatars" had become a 3-D gaming & chat room sort of thing. I was only aware of their prominent place as part of the Hindu religion. Hinduism is choking the life out of India, and always will. My wife is Indian, but against the odds is a Christian.

[Gilgaron]

This may quite possibly be true... DizzyBlonde and her thread on baptism comes to mind... but the owner of the site/thread has the right to associate with whomever he/she wishes; right?

Sure, but it is tangential to whether or not being banned from a forum is a necessary or sufficient condition to being a nightmare.


This too is quite possibly true... but for a simple "case of indigestion," a lot of locker room type threads started with my name in the subject line.

Remember, no people bashing regardless of their theistic/non-theistic affiliation.

Honestly, I'm just bantering lightheartedly. I've no interest in bashing anyone.

[VFarris01]

Hi Vance, thank you for your interest and participation.

I believe there is no need to baptize infant. Baptism of infants does one thing; it gets them wet.

Ask me about the "correct" manner (application) of baptism... I know you are curious.

Nope; it is Elmer Gantry, aka Burt Lancaster, from the move by the same name.
See here (http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=avatar&i=38293,00.asp).
Well, I agree that infant baptism does not save them in 'any way shape or form.' Of course neither does immersion, as was (as best we know) the model that John 'the ...' used, to the obvious approval of Jesus, Himself. Now it is His command that all believers undergo this sacred act, along with the remembrance of Him in the "Lord's Supper." Neither have 'anything to do' with the actual SAVING of any individual, however (do you agree ?)Yes. If the ritual is going to be observed, it should be done correctly, by immersion,


I also believe that God does not hold the infant-into-child responsible -culpable- for their sins ...until they are/have become truly sins, AND, they have *gone on knowingly, habitually refusing the plan -offer- of salvation ...that, again, they have come to fully understood...enough to soundly reject.

*(for however long God, in His perfect justice and mercy, allows them to remain in unbelief).This sounds Calvanistic; are you a predestinationalist?


I have always considered the baptism of infants as meaning that those parents involved are dedicating themselves to the Christian upbringing they are (promising) in the participation -initiation- of that symbolic act.There are indeed many things we do for our children because they are unable to make the "correct" decision but is belief in a god one of them? We can try to bring up our children in the Lloyd, er, Lord (you had to see the movie "The Stupids" to get the joke, and remember to always throw your gum in the trash when you are through chewing), but it is their decision to "get wet."


I imagine that you would agree that baptism's significance in salvation for the "adult" believer is also a symbol of that person's repentence of sins in general, and especially -even essentially- their previous sinful disbelief of Jesus...as THE Lord God incarnate; (and now) a public displaying of their sole trust in Him for salvation -as their personal Saviour...the washing water representing the moral cleanliness before the Father that they have received by grace, through faith.Yes.


I worry that you may have taken your case too far with DizzyBlond, and that she can only be tormented in a way by further discussion on the matter. Do you two both not now know clearly the other's position -every argument possible on both sides explored ? I'm just suggesting that it may be time to move on, if for no other reason than to spare her the felt obligation (?) of daily (exertion of passionate) postings...and more...of.She is already "tormented" enough by being bipolar (I have no reason to doubt it; the way she writes is evidence in my opinion for I have first hand knowledge of the condition; my sister-in-law is afflicted). I started to respond to a post of hers one day and could not figure out where to start because her writing was so scrambled; it read like random thoughts one after the other; I did not respond.


Rats; in a way I was hoping that it was Rev. Graham pictured as your avatar. It bears a resemblance, I think. It's a powerful image, regardless. It will be a terrible, terrible day when he passes-on. I fear for his health.I never noticed, but, yes, it does look somewhat like BG, and, yes, it will be a great loss for everyone when he passes, but, we should remember, he is just a man.

[Bagger_Vance]

Is the Bible the sole guide for your life? By that I mean do you make all decision based on what you perceive to be the truth of the Bible?

[VFarris01]

Is the Bible the sole guide for your life? By that I mean do you make all decision based on what you perceive to be the truth of the Bible?This is a loaded question...

Does the Bible contain all the information I need to hook up my computer to the internet? No.

Does the Bible contain all the information I need for faith and morals in my life? Yes.

[Bagger_Vance]

This is a loaded question...

Does the Bible contain all the information I need to hook up my computer to the internet? No.

Does the Bible contain all the information I need for faith and morals in my life? Yes.

How do you deal with birth control, slavery, stem cell research, etc?

I only ask because as knowledge expands further and further from what the biblical writers could understand it is almost like studying for a college level math course with your 6th grade textbook.

[VFarris01]

This is a loaded question...

Does the Bible contain all the information I need to hook up my computer to the internet? No.

Does the Bible contain all the information I need for faith and morals in my life? Yes.
How do you deal with birth control, slavery, stem cell research, etc?More loaded questions? People practiced "birth control" in ancient times... it was called abstinence; they were also aware of "mechanical" methods of birth control like IUDs (They put small stones in a camel's uterus to prevent conception on caravan.) Slavery in the USofA has been out of vogue for only 150 years and slavery is still going on in other countries in other forms... what is your point? etc...


I only ask because as knowledge expands further and further from what the biblical writers could understand it is almost like studying for a college level math course with your 6th grade textbook.I disagree with you analogy. For a group of writings over 2000 years old they have stood up pretty well, huh?

[mentored1]

I appreciate your answers Farris... thanks... I've got some questions about your reply...

Based on your reading suggestions and some of your posts do you consider yourself more in "tune" with Gnostic Christianity?


For me, it is not so much "knowing" as "feeling."


Then - and I might be assuming too much - it is not knowledge at all (i.e. you do not KNOW as far as knowledge can be thrown) of Christ's presence but the feeling of the presence that is your assurance?


Do I believe "species" arise from other "species" (did man develop from apes)?" No.

Do I believe evolution is occurring? Yes, within a "species;" there is no doubt animals adapt to survive in a particular environment or that "species" dies within that environment.

Even if this be so if evolution occurs "within" a species then aren't we faced with the possibility that mankind, as he is in his own species, was radically different long ago? Could not a "primitive" version of man existed and evolved "mentally" over the millenia?



Instead of answering these questions directly, I will suggest a short "reading list" (these are probably going to gain me yet another "label").

1) Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

2) Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141822/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

3) The Complete Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655879/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Robert Miller (editor).

4) The Jesus Mysteries: Was The "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609807986/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

5) Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400045940/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

Feel free, after reading any of these, to share your thoughts with me.



I have indeed read two of the above mentioned: I will take the time to read the others, so thank you for the list... No more labels, rest assured... However those that are read also have counterparts that dispute or claim to nullify and vice versa... For every book I read to support the authenticity of Scripture there are always some to deny it...

I do not say this out of arrogance or pride for my doubts and doubts and not denials... but I've been in this battle for a while (mayhaps not long enough) and literature and texts always seem to have both sides covered (pro and con) with no geniune winner in either light...

Unless you believe that one position or the other is the "truth" what resolution can a book bring?

Thank you again

[VFarris01]

I appreciate your answers Farris... thanks... I've got some questions about your reply...

Based on your reading suggestions and some of your posts do you consider yourself more in "tune" with Gnostic Christianity?Let us just say I consider myself more in tune with 1st century Christianity than say Roman Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodox sects of Christianity.


For me, it is not so much "knowing" as "feeling."
Then - and I might be assuming too much - it is not knowledge at all (i.e. you do not KNOW as far as knowledge can be thrown) of Christ's presence but the feeling of the presence that is your assurance?Many people "go to church" in order to "feel good." "Knowing" God makes me "feel good." What is "knowing God?" I have no idea... but I am getting there.


Do I believe "species" arise from other "species" (did man develop from apes)?" No.

Do I believe evolution is occurring? Yes, within a "species;" there is no doubt animals adapt to survive in a particular environment or that "species" dies within that environment.
Even if this be so if evolution occurs "within" a species then aren't we faced with the possibility that mankind, as he is in his own species, was radically different long ago? Could not a "primitive" version of man existed and evolved "mentally" over the millenia?I find it interesting how we "find" primitive "humans" but we never seem to "find" primitive primates... why is that?


Instead of answering these questions directly, I will suggest a short "reading list" (these are probably going to gain me yet another "label").

1) Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

2) Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141822/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Bart Ehrman.

3) The Complete Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655879/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Robert Miller (editor).

4) The Jesus Mysteries: Was The "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609807986/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

5) Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400045940/102-4106781-0196939?v=glance), Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

Feel free, after reading any of these, to share your thoughts with me.
I have indeed read two of the above mentioned: I will take the time to read the others, so thank you for the list... No more labels, rest assured... However those that are read also have counterparts that dispute or claim to nullify and vice versa... For every book I read to support the authenticity of Scripture there are always some to deny it... It sure seems that way does it not?


I do not say this out of arrogance or pride for my doubts and doubts and not denials... but I've been in this battle for a while (mayhaps not long enough) and literature and texts always seem to have both sides covered (pro and con) with no geniune winner in either light...The only judge in this conundrum is yourself, yes? Though I expect my own "beliefs" will change over time, I must put myself on the side the "theology" bearing the preponderance of the "evidence."


Unless you believe that one position or the other is the "truth" what resolution can a book bring?To use the Greek, Gnosis and Sophia (Knowledge and Wisdom).

[mentored1]

Many people "go to church" in order to "feel good." "Knowing" God makes me "feel good." What is "knowing God?" I have no idea... but I am getting there.

That's a healthy attitude... Understanding the eternal and infinite is a task that collective humanity has hitherto not achieved...


I find it interesting how we "find" primitive "humans" but we never seem to "find" primitive primates... why is that?

The concept is that not every "design" progresses past a certain point... There are limitations in the machinery and the environment... Thus many species "pause" at a certain level or a basic structure... Because of our flexible brain and capacity for it to "rewire" we had a longer half-life than our other cousins... And from what I understand we have large gaps in the fossil record but not as large as is generally assumed...

Of course I may be talking jibberish with that... Nor do I confirm or deny the possibility of all of it being nonsense...


The only judge in this conundrum is yourself, yes? Though I expect my own "beliefs" will change over time, I must put myself on the side the "theology" bearing the preponderance of the "evidence."


Is it the preponderance of the evidence or that your faith keeps your eyes fixed in one direction of evidence? If your heart is full of faith the cross stays in sight doesn't it? How then do you know that your mind is not unconsciously "cleansing" out evidence that could otherwise upset that peaceful vision?

Take care

[VFarris01]

Many people "go to church" in order to "feel good." "Knowing" God makes me "feel good." What is "knowing God?" I have no idea... but I am getting there.
That's a healthy attitude... Understanding the eternal and infinite is a task that collective humanity has hitherto not achieved...Infinity... it keeps going and going and...


I find it interesting how we "find" primitive "humans" but we never seem to "find" primitive primates... why is that?
The concept is that not every "design" progresses past a certain point... There are limitations in the machinery and the environment... Thus many species "pause" at a certain level or a basic structure... Because of our flexible brain and capacity for it to "rewire" we had a longer half-life than our other cousins... And from what I understand we have large gaps in the fossil record but not as large as is generally assumed...

Of course I may be talking jibberish with that... Nor do I confirm or deny the possibility of all of it being nonsense... John, I am not an animal... I... am... a... human... being, Merrick aka the "elephant man" would have been labeled a new species had he not lived in recorded history.

How would a "flexible brain" control our genetics?


The only judge in this conundrum is yourself, yes? Though I expect my own "beliefs" will change over time, I must put myself on the side the "theology" bearing the preponderance of the "evidence."
Is it the preponderance of the evidence or that your faith keeps your eyes fixed in one direction of evidence? If your heart is full of faith the cross stays in sight doesn't it? How then do you know that your mind is not unconsciously "cleansing" out evidence that could otherwise upset that peaceful vision?The "preponderance of the evidence" keeps me from being Roman Catholic. Believers in many of the doctrines it teaches believe them dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Is this "faith" or blindness?

The "preponderance of the evidence" keeps me from being an evolutionist (in that man "evolved" from "simpler" creatures).

The "preponderance of the evidence" leads me to God. I have not reached Him yet but I am getting there.

[mentored1]

Infinity... it keeps going and going and...

Indeed... Let me ask you then your motivation and drive for pursuing something you cannot explain while alive and will only know in full when dead... What is the catalyst? Is it faith alone?


How would a "flexible brain" control our genetics?

Again I don't have the faculties to get technical... I'm... :duh:

The idea, I think, is that our brain can change its relationships, its connections, and thus new abilities can emerge... Language, walking upright, tools, and so forth are all possibilities for bridging new areas of the brain together... If these are preserved genetically then changes in our behavior and faculties of thought are related and perhaps symbiotic with our mental states... :shrug:


The "preponderance of the evidence" keeps me from being Roman Catholic. Believers in many of the doctrines it teaches believe them dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Is this "faith" or blindness?


Agreed... But I will admit in honesty that I don't know if a Bible believer of your order is in a different boat (though i do not deny that you believe you are - that's not up to me is it?)....

In regards to evidence - there is evidence that points in many directions and against Biblical proofs as well... I understand you see those as derelict of truth - so be it - but to assume that evidence supports Biblical faith seems to defy the "faith is the evidence of thigns not seen" idea... If faith and belief are the proofs then why bring in evidence that has to be tested in the realm of senses and what not? The underlying faith and belief seems to preclude acceptance of proof as evidence and rejection of disproof as falsity... What are your standards in this and why is evidence of any sort beyond the belief manifested in your actions relevant?


The "preponderance of the evidence" keeps me from being an evolutionist (in that man "evolved" from "simpler" creatures).

Once more there seems to a balance in this that swings back and forth time and again... You may disagree and that's great but why is something of faith subject to evidence for a believer? Or is that the evidence is not subject because the faith provides a hedge against it?

Good chatting with you...

[VFarris01]

Infinity... it keeps going and going and...
Indeed... Let me ask you then your motivation and drive for pursuing something you cannot explain while alive and will only know in full when dead... What is the catalyst? Is it faith alone?Gnosis and Sophia. I believe "God" can be "experienced" before we die... this is my pursuit.


How would a "flexible brain" control our genetics?
Again I don't have the faculties to get technical... I'm... :duh:

The idea, I think, is that our brain can change its relationships, its connections, and thus new abilities can emerge... Language, walking upright, tools, and so forth are all possibilities for bridging new areas of the brain together... If these are preserved genetically then changes in our behavior and faculties of thought are related and perhaps symbiotic with our mental states... :shrug:Certainly most of this is true, but how can our ability to reason affect our genetic makeup? What amount of reasoning could our "ancestors" have done that would have "eventually" caused our hips to be displaced forward so we could walk upright?


The "preponderance of the evidence" keeps me from being Roman Catholic. Believers in many of the doctrines it teaches believe them dispite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Is this "faith" or blindness?
Agreed... But I will admit in honesty that I don't know if a Bible believer of your order is in a different boat (though i do not deny that you believe you are - that's not up to me is it?).... Perhaps it is up to you, at least your opinion as to who belongs in which "boat" is up to you.

Many/Some of the so-called Bible believers I have encountered here are anything but "Bible believers." They try to flount their "superior knowledge" by using "big words," elaborate theologies, and "name application" (see an example by Jezz, an Eastern Orthodox, in Post #176 here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1189687#post1189687)). His brand of "theology" allows what is not written to be accepted as true not the other way around (if it is not specifically forbidden the it is ok), then, when cornered on an issue falls on his crutch, I mean, "church" and its so-called "traditions." But, you better not do the same thing... an example is the "perpetual virginity" of Mary (see his remark at the bottom of the post).

I am a firm believer the simplest explanation is usually the truth. Have you ever read the Catechism? It is without doubt the most confusing jumble of words to ever deface a written language.


In regards to evidence - there is evidence that points in many directions and against Biblical proofs as well... I understand you see those as derelict of truth - so be it - but to assume that evidence supports Biblical faith seems to defy the "faith is the evidence of thigns not seen" idea... If faith and belief are the proofs then why bring in evidence that has to be tested in the realm of senses and what not?I agree. The problem with RCs and EOs is "faith" has nothing to do with the "plain language" of the Bible. When it (the Bible) says, "Thou shalt not..." I take this to mean exactly what it says. A case-in-point is the propensity of the RCC (and the EOC) to include statues in their worship when the "evidence" of, "Thou shalt not..." is clearly a contradiction of this allowance. The issue is not, "We do not worship the statue or the person represented;" the issue is, why do you include statues in your worship in clear violation of, "Thou shalt not..."

Faith, "the evidence of things not seen," is believing the Coliseum is really in Rome; I have never seen the Coliseum, why should I believe it is in Rome and not Paris.

Faith, "the substance of things hoped for," is believing I am going to go to Heaven when I die; do I deserve Heaven, not a chance, but I hope God allows me to enter the "pearly gates" anyway.


The underlying faith and belief seems to preclude acceptance of proof as evidence and rejection of disproof as falsity... What are your standards in this and why is evidence of any sort beyond the belief manifested in your actions relevant?If you notice, I put "preponderance of the evidence" in quotations to separate it from "true evidence" (evidence that is tangible as apposed to evidence we cannot examine). A belief in God lacks "true evidence" except for the fact the universe exists. I simply believe (have faith) the "evidence" is in favor of God.


The "preponderance of the evidence" keeps me from being an evolutionist (in that man "evolved" from "simpler" creatures).
Once more there seems to a balance in this that swings back and forth time and again... You may disagree and that's great but why is something of faith subject to evidence for a believer? Or is that the evidence is not subject because the faith provides a hedge against it?Today, as of this minute, I believe in God; the weight of "evidence," for me, lies on His side and not on that of the agnostic or atheist... tomorrow?


Good chatting with you...Ditto.

[mentored1]

You make your points well and are articulate... For that my hat's off to you... I understand your vantage clearly and even agree with your assessment on many issues - as much as I am able to at this juncture of time...


Certainly most of this is true, but how can our ability to reason affect our genetic makeup? What amount of reasoning could our "ancestors" have done that would have "eventually" caused our hips to be displaced forward so we could walk upright?

Not wholly reasoning but the relationship of our malleable brain to the changing environment... Steps of adaption that our form (phenotype?) took to improve our genetic survival... The organism and environment working upon each other: in mankind we had more options of adaption available due to the flexibility of our mental "ganglions"... Walking upright was a tool for survival and the brain responded by modifying its wiring... It's not that our reasoning 'caused' the displacement of joints but that the whole process was one act - the whole form moved together...

Even if this is so (and that I know not) any reasonable human beast must needs question the amazing miracle of adaption available to life on earth: not an easy thing to dismiss as chance...


Many/Some of the so-called Bible believers I have encountered here are anything but "Bible believers." They try to flount their "superior knowledge" by using "big words," elaborate theologies, and "name application"

My Christian experiences are still quite strong and I found it more reliable to interpret the Scriptures as plainly as possible... The facade of 'big words' and other such things you mention above often reveals the weak nature of somone's faith instantly... You seem to be "inspired" by yours rather than "motivated" which is commendable...


I am a firm believer the simplest explanation is usually the truth. Have you ever read the Catechism? It is without doubt the most confusing jumble of words to ever deface a written language.

As a once Bible believer I unfortunately decided to face the music and read the catechism (along with the writings of many church "fathers") and I am convinced that I lost IQ points as a result... :duh:


I agree. The problem with RCs and EOs is "faith" has nothing to do with the "plain language" of the Bible. When it (the Bible) says, "Thou shalt not..." I take this to mean exactly what it says. A case-in-point is the propensity of the RCC (and the EOC) to include statues in their worship when the "evidence" of, "Thou shalt not..." is clearly a contradiction of this allowance. The issue is not, "We do not worship the statue or the person represented;" the issue is, why do you include statues in your worship in clear violation of, "Thou shalt not..."

Regarding the "Thou shalt not..." admonitions it's been addressed that those seem to demonstrate the 'paternal' and 'negative' side of the human experience: like putting taboos on things... It's obvious those admonitions served a moral and practical purpose but how do you address the issue that it seems to be very primitive psychological control?


Faith, "the substance of things hoped for," is believing I am going to go to Heaven when I die; do I deserve Heaven, not a chance, but I hope God allows me to enter the "pearly gates" anyway.

Is that hope as in "I'll find out when I get there" or hope as in "I know I'm getting in"?


If you notice, I put "preponderance of the evidence" in quotations to separate it from "true evidence" (evidence that is tangible as apposed to evidence we cannot examine). A belief in God lacks "true evidence" except for the fact the universe exists. I simply believe (have faith) the "evidence" is in favor of God.

Indeed it would seem that a belief that the evidence favors a Creator is an important "linch-pin" in the whole construction. This is something I've been rolling in for some time and is indeed a weight... The seeming fact that faith / belief creates the acceptance of the evidence in favor of God and that doubt or denial seems to make that evidence point in different directions... How does that then factor in: is faith the real power?

Take care

[VFarris01]

You make your points well and are articulate... For that my hat's off to you... I understand your vantage clearly and even agree with your assessment on many issues - as much as I am able to at this juncture of time...TY, as are yours.


Certainly most of this is true, but how can our ability to reason affect our genetic makeup? What amount of reasoning could our "ancestors" have done that would have "eventually" caused our hips to be displaced forward so we could walk upright?
Not wholly reasoning but the relationship of our malleable brain to the changing environment... Steps of adaption that our form (phenotype?) took to improve our genetic survival... The organism and environment working upon each other: in mankind we had more options of adaption available due to the flexibility of our mental "ganglions"... Walking upright was a tool for survival and the brain responded by modifying its wiring... It's not that our reasoning 'caused' the displacement of joints but that the whole process was one act - the whole form moved together...

Even if this is so (and that I know not) any reasonable human beast must needs question the amazing miracle of adaption available to life on earth: not an easy thing to dismiss as chance...Thus the simplest explanation is God (intelligent design?), huh.


Many/Some of the so-called Bible believers I have encountered here are anything but "Bible believers." They try to flount their "superior knowledge" by using "big words," elaborate theologies, and "name application"
My Christian experiences are still quite strong and I found it more reliable to interpret the Scriptures as plainly as possible... The facade of 'big words' and other such things you mention above often reveals the weak nature of somone's faith instantly... You seem to be "inspired" by yours rather than "motivated" which is commendable...This is most definitely true, especially, when the flaws in their theology are exposed, they must rely on even more elaborate explanations to correct those errors, and on, and on, and...


I am a firm believer the simplest explanation is usually the truth. Have you ever read the Catechism? It is without doubt the most confusing jumble of words to ever deface a written language.
As a once Bible believer I unfortunately decided to face the music and read the catechism (along with the writings of many church "fathers") and I am convinced that I lost IQ points as a result... :duh:That is all, just a few points? I was catatonic for 3 days :b_rotten:.


I agree. The problem with RCs and EOs is "faith" has nothing to do with the "plain language" of the Bible. When it (the Bible) says, "Thou shalt not..." I take this to mean exactly what it says. A case-in-point is the propensity of the RCC (and the EOC) to include statues in their worship when the "evidence" of, "Thou shalt not..." is clearly a contradiction of this allowance. The issue is not, "We do not worship the statue or the person represented;" the issue is, why do you include statues in your worship in clear violation of, "Thou shalt not..."
Regarding the "Thou shalt not..." admonitions it's been addressed that those seem to demonstrate the 'paternal' and 'negative' side of the human experience: like putting taboos on things... It's obvious those admonitions served a moral and practical purpose but how do you address the issue that it seems to be very primitive psychological control?Do you mean the same way the RCC uses (used to) use excommunication (from the "one true church") as a means of keeping dissidents in line? Somewhat. However, the difference IMO is God made those rules, not man.


Faith, "the substance of things hoped for," is believing I am going to go to Heaven when I die; do I deserve Heaven, not a chance, but I hope God allows me to enter the "pearly gates" anyway.
Is that hope as in "I'll find out when I get there" or hope as in "I know I'm getting in"?It is hope as in, "I will find out IF I get there."


If you notice, I put "preponderance of the evidence" in quotations to separate it from "true evidence" (evidence that is tangible as apposed to evidence we cannot examine). A belief in God lacks "true evidence" except for the fact the universe exists. I simply believe (have faith) the "evidence" is in favor of God.
Indeed it would seem that a belief that the evidence favors a Creator is an important "linch-pin" in the whole construction. This is something I've been rolling in for some time and is indeed a weight... The seeming fact that faith / belief creates the acceptance of the evidence in favor of God and that doubt or denial seems to make that evidence point in different directions... How does that then factor in: is faith the real power?Given two "equally" plausable alternatives, I would say, "Yes, faith is the deciding factor," however, chance is not a deciding factor.

Take the game we play with our children; is the ball in the left hand or the right hand. Initially, (and throughout the game as well), it is "equally plausable" for the ball is in either hand, it is only possible for the ball to be in one of the hands; the first choice and only the first choise is not made on probability, it is made on chance. As the game "progresses" we tend to make choices based on probability... the last 5 times the ball was in dad's left hand so I think it is "probable" the ball is now in dad's right hand; or the last 5 times the ball has been in alternate hands, last time the ball was in dad's right hand therefore the higher "probability" is the ball is now in dad's left hand.

Take note here... this game, except for the first choice, has nothing to do with chance... absolutely nothing... can you tell me why?

[Sparko]

OK you keep saying that you are clear in your answers and I just "misread" you. I say you are afraid to commit to a solid theological point of view and set of doctrines (at least publically) and will not answer my questions directly or fully.

We shall see.

Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully man?


Do you believe the Son is the Logos and is eternal and uncreated?

Do you believe that the Father is fully God, that Jesus is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God, three eternal persons in one divine essence (YHWH)?



Do you believe Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion?


Do you believe Jesus resurrected in the SAME body he died in?

Are you Gnostic or Neo-Gnostic?


Looking forward to your full and complete answers in clear language without answering with more questions or lists of "reading material"

[VFarris01]

OK you keep saying that you are clear in your answers and I just "misread" you. I say you are afraid to commit to a solid theological point of view and set of doctrines (at least publically) and will not answer my questions directly or fully.I am always clear, my theology is relative to what I believe today, and you are a pimple on a warthog's butt.


We shall see.Do you have a mouse in your pocket?


Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully man?I have not made a decision on this... the Bible is unclear as to the "nature" of Jesus.


Do you believe the Son is the Logos and is eternal and uncreated?The Bible is unclear on the "Logos;" the other is not too certain either.


Do you believe that the Father is fully God, that Jesus is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God, three eternal persons in one divine essence (YHWH)?God, by definition, is fully "God." The Bible is unclear on the other two.


Do you believe Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion?The Bible says so but only if you cannot count (Friday evening to Sunday morning is two days).


Do you believe Jesus resurrected in the SAME body he died in?No.


Are you Gnostic or Neo-Gnostic?No.


Looking forward to your full and complete answers in clear language without answering with more questions or lists of "reading material"I am looking forward to you never posting on one of my threads again... moderators take note.

[John from Ebla]

l agree with you, l also cannot count three days from Friday evening to Sunday morning- but

1) Do you believe Jesus died and rose on the third day as per the sciptures- Roman 15-4 ? "that he was burried and arose on the third day" not as per the Catholic Church

2)Do you believe God is Spirit? if so, can this spirit/God be in the body Of Jesus?

3) Is there something your God/spirit cannot do? e.g tabernacle in the Flesh(human body)?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

l agree with you, l also cannot count three days from Friday evening to Sunday morning- but

1) Do you believe Jesus died and rose on the third day as per the sciptures- Roman 15-4 ? "that he was burried and arose on the third day" not as per the Catholic Church It does not look good for this doctrine imo... how about yours (opinion)?


2)Do you believe God is Spirit?Yes.


... if so, can this spirit/God be in the body Of Jesus?(12) No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us...
If the spirit of God can "dwell in us" certainly it can "dwell in" Jesus.

If, "No one has seen God at any time" is true, how can Jesus be God?


3) Is there something your God/spirit cannot do? e.g tabernacle in the Flesh(human body)?No.

... (13) By this we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

[John from Ebla]

It does not look good for this doctrine imo... how about yours (opinion)?

Yes.

(12) No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us...
If the spirit of God can "dwell in us" certainly it can "dwell in" Jesus.

If, "No one has seen God at any time" is true, how can Jesus be God?

No.

... (13) By this we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.



Thank you for your reply, but just one point

Did Jesus rise on the thrid day after he was burried.? ( it not about which day) just on the thrid day as per 1 Cor 15:4 Sorry l wrote Romans in my first post by mistake

Kind regards
John from Ebla

[VFarris01]

Thank you for your reply, but just one point

Did Jesus rise on the thrid day after he was burried.? ( it not about which day) just on the thrid day as per 1 Cor 15:4 Sorry l wrote Romans in my first post by mistake.This can only be true if we consider the few hours remaining on the Friday after Jesus was buried as a "day." The Jewish "day" was from sunset to sunset (not sunrise to sunrise as we discern a "day" today).

You do the "math:"

Let us assume "sunset" on April 1 (an "average" day for the Friday before "Easter" {a Pagan holiday}) was about 7:00 PM (local time in Jerusalem). Let us also assume "sunrise" to be about 6:30 AM (local time in Jerusalem). Astronomy programs are great for doing these "calculations" (they {the times} are approximations in this instance and are not exact so the "math" is easier).

Here we have the latest time for Jesus' burial and the earliest time for his resurection; yes?

7:00 PM Friday to 6:30 AM Sunday is 35.5 hours. How many "hours" in three days? 72? Jesus was "buried" for less-than-half of the time necessary for him to have been three days in the grave!

Let us look at the use of Friday as "day one" to see if this works. Friday = 1, plus Saturday = 2, plus Sunday = 3. It does work!

Uh, oh... I see a problem here... cyclic occurrences must start at zero for the first instance... Friday = 0, plus Saturday = 1, plus Sunday = 2... Sorry, the longest Jesus could have been "buried" was 2 days.

I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures."

[sambo]

Some more Questions:

How is it that we came from the inbreeding of Adam and Eve's children? The Genesis story makes for a real narrow gene-pool.

Numbers 31:17-18 and 1 Samuel 15:3 have God commanding his people to kill women and children and rape virgins. Why would God command these atrocities?

We'll stop there for now...

[VFarris01]

Some more Questions:Shoot...


How is it that we came from the inbreeding of Adam and Eve's children? The Genesis story makes for a real narrow gene-pool.The daughters of men were bred by the sons of God (Genesis 6:2) :lol:. Seriously, I have no idea... but it would explain Tweb moderators... next question...


Numbers 31:17-18 and 1 Samuel 15:3 have God commanding his people to kill women and children and rape virgins. Why would God command these atrocities?I do not know... remind me to ask Him (God) when we all get to Heaven... next question...


We'll stop there for now...Good... those two were pretty tough...

[John from Ebla]

This can only be true if we consider the few hours remaining on the Friday after Jesus was buried as a "day." The Jewish "day" was from sunset to sunset (not sunrise to sunrise as we discern a "day" today).

You do the "math:"

Let us assume "sunset" on April 1 (an "average" day for the Friday before "Easter" {a Pagan holiday}) was about 7:00 PM (local time in Jerusalem). Let us also assume "sunrise" to be about 6:30 AM (local time in Jerusalem). Astronomy programs are great for doing these "calculations" (they {the times} are approximations in this instance and are not exact so the "math" is easier).

Here we have the latest time for Jesus' burial and the earliest time for his resurection; yes?

7:00 PM Friday to 6:30 AM Sunday is 35.5 hours. How many "hours" in three days? 72? Jesus was "buried" for less-than-half of the time necessary for him to have been three days in the grave!

Let us look at the use of Friday as "day one" to see if this works. Friday = 1, plus Saturday = 2, plus Sunday = 3. It does work!

Uh, oh... I see a problem here... cyclic occurrences must start at zero for the first instance... Friday = 0, plus Saturday = 1, plus Sunday = 2... Sorry, the longest Jesus could have been "buried" was 2 days.

I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures."


What does Friday to sunday have to do with "raised on the third day" That is what the Catholic say, "friday to Sunday"

I asked you about about Cor 15:4' that he was buried and that he rose on the third day" Your reply was

I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures."

Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen. The Gospel is about the death and ressurection of Jesus- read 1 Cor 15:1-6 You don't believe, you can't be saved.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

This can only be true if we consider the few hours remaining on the Friday after Jesus was buried as a "day." The Jewish "day" was from sunset to sunset (not sunrise to sunrise as we discern a "day" today).

You do the "math:"

Let us assume "sunset" on April 1 (an "average" day for the Friday before "Easter" {a Pagan holiday}) was about 7:00 PM (local time in Jerusalem). Let us also assume "sunrise" to be about 6:30 AM (local time in Jerusalem). Astronomy programs are great for doing these "calculations" (they {the times} are approximations in this instance and are not exact so the "math" is easier).

Here we have the latest time for Jesus' burial and the earliest time for his resurection; yes?

7:00 PM Friday to 6:30 AM Sunday is 35.5 hours. How many "hours" in three days? 72? Jesus was "buried" for less-than-half of the time necessary for him to have been three days in the grave!

Let us look at the use of Friday as "day one" to see if this works. Friday = 1, plus Saturday = 2, plus Sunday = 3. It does work!

Uh, oh... I see a problem here... cyclic occurrences must start at zero for the first instance... Friday = 0, plus Saturday = 1, plus Sunday = 2... Sorry, the longest Jesus could have been "buried" was 2 days.

I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures."
What does Friday to sunday have to do with "raised on the third day" That is what the Catholic say, "friday to Sunday"Everything! Either Jesus was buried for three days or he was not. What the Catholic's say is unimportant.


I asked you about about Cor 15:4' that he was buried and that he rose on the third day" Your reply was


I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures."
Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen.Did I say that? Read it again.


The Gospel is about the death and ressurection of Jesus- read 1 Cor 15:1-6 You don't believe, you can't be saved.

(1) And, brothers, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and in which you stand; (2) by which you also are being kept safe, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. (3) For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, (4) and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; (5) and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. (6) Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep.

Where does it say that? Not even the rest of the chapter says this. Perhaps you mean John 8:24?

Did God "send" Jesus to die (to be a sacrifice) for the sins of humanity... I believe so.

Is Jesus "God" because of this act... I am not so sure... anymore. This is something I am still studying.

[John from Ebla]

Everything! Either Jesus was buried for three days or he was not. What the Catholic's say is unimportant.

Did I say that? Read it again.

Yes you did
I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures.".

So was he risen on the third day as per 1 Cor 15:4'

Or are you trying to say he did not rise at all.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Everything! Either Jesus was buried for three days or he was not. What the Catholic's say is unimportant.

Did I say that? Read it again.
Yes you did
I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah." Jesus does not appear to have "risen again the third day according to the Scriptures.".Context is a concept of written communication with which you are still wrestling.

I said, "I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah," the phrase "does not appear" seems to be giving you fits.

Had I answered, "Yes" or "No" in post 41 to the question/statement, "Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen," you would have taken either answer to be, "I do not believe Jesus is risen." Try it for yourself:

You: Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen.

Me: Yes.

You: Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen.

Me: No.


So was he risen on the third day as per 1 Cor 15:4'

Or are you trying to say he did not rise at all.The resurrection is something we believe based on faith not facts... Since we do not know for sure, I can, with all sincerety and conviction, say, "I do not know."

[John from Ebla]

Context is a concept of written communication with which you are still wrestling.

I said, "I believe the Jews have a good argument for continuing to await the "Messiah," the phrase "does not appear" seems to be giving you fits.

Had I answered, "Yes" or "No" in post 41 to the question/statement, "Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen," you would have taken either answer to be, "I do not believe Jesus is risen." Try it for yourself:

You: Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen.

Me: Yes.

You: Meaning you don't beleive Jesus is risen.

Me: No.

The resurrection is something we believe based on faith not facts... Since we do not know for sure, I can, with all sincerety and conviction, say, "I do not know."


Thank-you, l now understand.

Kind regards
John From Ebla