Rolf,
There is an unjustified amount of disagreement between Christian people concerning some doctrines. I believe that the reason for it is largely a failure of people to devote themselves to the Word as they should
But how people devote themselves to the word is their own business. That and I’m sure there are thousands of Christians out there who would disagree with how you evaluate their devotion to the word.
Why are Christians always so fast to pass judgment, even on their own brothers in the faith?
the fact that on the issues which are the essentials of the Christian faith, we are in agreement.
If these necessary points of the faith that all Christians agree on are so darned important, if that’s what really matters, why doesn’t the Christian church act like it? Why are folks like LH getting fed up with church and leaving it? Why would two churches refuse to eat communion with each other? Why have these small issues become a source of fragmentation to the church? Why can they not be over looked? What’s holding Christianity back from true unity?
you greatly flatter yourself when you think you have posed unanswerable questions
I never claimed to the have posed unanswerable questions. The only reason why I claim my questions are unanswered is because you have failed to answer them. You asked me to specify my questions, and I did. You haven’t answered them since.
Was your failure to understand the KJV's use of the word "compass" one of your unanswerable objections?
Oh I understand it. And thanks for the answer. But there’s still a host of questions I have posted clearly for your attention, and you have avoided addressing them. All you have to do is go back and read them.
Lighthouse,
Incompetence means it's outside His ability. It is not outside His ability
Perhaps contrary to his nature?
Or would you rather beleive what you were taught in your Calvinistic upbringing, that God has predestined some for hell?
I don’t believe any of it, that’s the point. You point me to scripture, yet I deny the validity of the bible from the get go, so what good would the words of a book that I think is lying do me?
you would do well to give me some verses in Romans 9 that you think support Calvinism.
It’s really not that important, the details of your ancient superstition are yours, not mine, but if you insist, maybe you should just read the whole chapter. And Matthew 24:24 is a good one too.
Revelation 20:14 and 21:8
The lake of fire is the second death. It is my belief that anything that goes into the lake of fire is destroyed.
Revelation 20:15
Those whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life are thrown into the lake of fire.
Thanks for the scripture passages. Do you take everything Revelation says literally?
I work at a Dairy Queen. And I'm looking into going to college, but I have no idea what to major in.
DQ, eh? That’s cool…
Maybe you should go to seminary? I’m sure there are a lot of teachers at any number of them who would love to have you tell them what scripture means. As for myself, there’s a VP position opening up in my company within the next couple of years, part of our business development, I might go to college to accommodate that and build my credentials in the specific area.
And yes, I really do think Wantsdirection is the best example of a Christian that I have had the pleasure of discovering here at TOL. Not sure if it’s a he or a she, but WD has exhibited patience, compassion, understanding, sensitivity, etc. He/She is great and I wouldn’t mind reading more of what he/she has to say in the future, his/her words are quite inciteful.
quote:I need some clarification, LH. Does this mean that until I submit to the will of god, I’m outside of his will? I am outside of his plan?
Yes.
quote:And if that is the case, than you would more than likely say that my life is purposeless apart from submission to his will, right?
Nope.
If I am outside of your god’s plan until I submit to his will, but my existence is not purposeless, than what purpose does my existence serve if it doesn’t add to god’s plan? Than that means that god has a plan, and I’m sure that you would agree he will be victorious, but if he knows everything, than he knows the fulfillment of his plan. But if I’m outside of his plan, if my existence doesn’t add to it, than it can serve no purpose. Than it’s outside of god’s plan, and is a waste of time if it doesn’t add to the success of what your god has been preparing. Right?
Yet, the gospels record the event. Why would Paul need to talk about the physical life of Jesus, when the disciples had already preached that message, in the gospels?
Oh, I dunno, because the life, death and resurrection of your messiah is one of the most fundamental elements of your faith? Why wouldn’t he have talked about it? And I’m not sure what you were getting at with Acts 15:22
It makes no sense for Paul to repeat that which has already been heard by those he was writing to.
Why wouldn’t it make sense for him to teach specifically about the life, death and physical resurrection of their messiah? Why would he only refer to the physical resurrection as a matter of faith, not a matter fact? Especially when he was alive during the time it happened.
Isn’t it true that the gospels were not written until AFTER Paul’s teaching? If that’s the case, than Paul didn’t have the gospels as a witness to his work, just an oral tradition, that, according to 1 Cor. 15, was passed onto him from someone else, despite his Gal. 1:11-12 claim that he never received the teaching from men but from god?
And if the epistles don’t make a specific, literal, reference to the physical resurrection of jesus, what leads you to believe that they were actually teaching the literal, physical resurrection at all? According to Paul his resurrection was a matter of faith, but it is also presented in an almost mythological light, much like the myriad of cults and religions of their day. References by Paul as to the appearance of jesus to himself in 1 Cor. 15 is also within the list of disciples and such whom jesus appeared to after the resurrection, but Paul’s vision of jesus was just that, a vision. He includes his “vision” in among the rest of jesus’ appearances. So what makes you believe that jesus, according to the only epistle account of the resurrection that I have been able to find, was not just making some sort of non-literal resurrection, and wasn’t just dead?
Paul uses nothing but symbolic language here, the account of jesus’ appearances are also side by side with his non-physical “vision” of jesus, leading me to believe that jesus made no physical post-resurrection appearances.
Try reading the epistles the way Paul wrote them: without the benefit of the gospels.
They sound a lot different then.
Luke didn't just take from Mark. And I don't see why Matthew would have either.
Mark is dated around 70 AD, right? Luke and Matthew didn’t come until some time after Mark’s rather sparse account. Luke and Matthew both used Mark’s general outline, which is pretty much all Mark is, but then they added their own details, details that are in conflict with one another, not to mention John. Different perspectives on the same events does not explain the vast differences of the gospel accounts. No specific examples are necessary, the conflicts are visible to the naked eye. And then to have no one outside of the gospels verify the validity of the gospels, especially by someone who lived so long before the writing of the first gospel, especially someone (Paul) who knew Luke. Why didn’t Paul testify to the events of the gospels? Why didn’t Paul make a specific reference to the literal and physical resurrection of their lord and savior?
My thrust is this:
Paul knew of no physical resurrection because there had been none. He borrowed from multiple myths, and traditions that taught of a mythical and spiritual resurrection and then used those common beliefs (in order to better integrate their new religion into the hostile culture) to represent the fledgling Christian story using Christ as the central character. They are lessons meant to teach a moral, not stories meant to be taken literally.
Now, what’s more believable? That Jesus really did live, that he could walk on water, turn water into wine, feed five thousand with a coupla loaves and fishes, that he was killed and then came back to life three days later and then ascended to heaven? Or that Jesus was a man, one of many claiming to be the messiah (and you can check throughout history there is a precedent of men placing divine claims about themselves) who was eventually killed for whatever crime he was accused of, and stayed dead, all the while his followers were passing on the oral tradition of his life and death and teachings? Then comes Paul who takes the story, places on the end of it a mythical resurrection (an ages old idea) to teach a story about spiritual ascension and over the years it began to become interpreted literally.
