At the time that I was asking these questions as a Christian, I was looking for just what Jesus' teachings were. You have already pointed out the many false teachings, so I hope you can see that as a legitimate goal for a Christian. I could not simply walk into the nearest building with a cross on it and accept whatever the guy in front said. I was not looking for a reason to reject Jesus, I was looking for Jesus. What I found is that he can not be found, except through a personal revelation, that is, he is what one feels he is in your heart. There is no scholarship that can override that. It is true only for the one who has the feeling.Let me tell you something I've learned over time. Although we all live in different times and places and have different lives, God has revealed Christ to the world. Christ is already revealed and can be found by everyone. Jesus teaches us what the Gospel message is. Teaching his disciples he said: "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.' Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'" Luke 24:44-47 Before anyone can learn anything from Jesus, they must accept him as the Messiah who suffered and rose again on the third day for the forgiveness of sins. If anyone rejects Jesus as the Christ/the Messiah he will not receive any more from Him; he will not take a second step. Anyone can find Jesus, but they must come on his terms--acceptance of the Gospel message.
I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and Christ's Ventriloquist by Eric Zuesse.Sadly, Dr. Bart Ehrman put all his faith in having a New Testament without any copying errors, and when he couldn't find it his faith was destroyed. My faith isn't in a perfect New Testament, it's in Jesus Christ. Dr. Ehrman's book is very one sided with many unsubstantiated claims. He uses the Pagan critic Celsus as a source! He ignores excellent work done by other textual critics and over emphasizes spelling and other minor errors by scribes. Textual critics agree that aside from the obvious copying errors, the New Testament text is 99% accurate. The message is there. Men like Bart Erhman who choose to reject the message of Christ will find reasons why, and those who reject Christ will gather around them "scholars" who tell them what they want to hear. The reality is this is not scholarship, but choosing to read men who tell you what you've already decided to believe. That is a very ironic comment from someone who ignores reality in favor of what she has already decided to believe. I note you have never addressed your mistaken statement that natural disasters started after the fall from the Garden of Eden.
He ignores excellent work done by other textual critics and over emphasizes spelling and other minor errors by scribes. Textual critics agree that aside from the obvious copying errors, the New Testament text is 99% accurate. The message is there.99% accurate my ass, they can't even get the story of Jesus' birth straight. I challenge you to take the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and formulate a coherent and cohesive story of his birth. You can't. Put together a coherent story of Jesus' death. You can't do that either from the biblical text... Which is why our family also calls it the 'Choose your own adventure book'.
He ignores excellent work done by other textual critics and over emphasizes spelling and other minor errors by scribes. Textual critics agree that aside from the obvious copying errors, the New Testament text is 99% accurate. The message is there.99% accurate my ass, they can't even get the story of Jesus' birth straight. I challenge you to take the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and formulate a coherent and cohesive story of his birth. You can't. Put together a coherent story of Jesus' death. You can't do that either from the biblical text... Which is why our family also calls it the 'Choose your own adventure book'. I think you're confusing what the text says with the accurate transmission of the original text over time. Textual criticism: "Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand. Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible." Bart Erhman tries to say we can't know the original text because of all the variants. Daniel Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies, agrees with Ehrman that there are about 400,000 variants, however says that's misleading "Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable." That means 99% of the text can be trusted as accurate, despite your families view on the Bible.
LilySmith; I’d appreciate some explanation of the differences between these two statements by you
Men like Bart Erhman who choose to reject the message of Christ will find reasons why, and those who reject Christ will gather around them “scholars" who tell them what they want to hear. The reality is this is not scholarship, but choosing to read men who tell you what you’ve already decided to believe.
If anyone rejects Jesus as the Christ/the Messiah he will not receive any more from Him; he will not take a second step.
This is merely for the sake of clarification, so if I mistate anything, it’s because I’m not understanding, not that I’m trying to put words in your mouth:
What I see above is that Christ has an ability to let you know about him on the condition that you allow it. The condition is that you accept him as the Messiah. This then validates your knowledge.
This apparently does not work in reverse, or for any other claimed messiah(s) or for any other discipline. I say that because Erhman’s or my desire to find truth is characterized as selective listening by you above.
Is there any other case where opening yourself to some knowledge is the key to obtaining that knowledge? What shape should scholarship take? How would you evaluate proper scholarship for something like American history? Do you see any problems with claiming we can know about Christ simply by accepting he is the messiah, but most of the criteria for good history presented by myself and other members here has been rejected? Maybe I’ve missed what your criteria are. I’m not trying to overload you with questions, rather give you multiple choices for how to help me understand what you’re saying.
LilySmith; I'd appreciate some explanation of the differences between these two statements by you Men like Bart Erhman who choose to reject the message of Christ will find reasons why, and those who reject Christ will gather around them “scholars" who tell them what they want to hear. The reality is this is not scholarship, but choosing to read men who tell you what you’ve already decided to believe. If anyone rejects Jesus as the Christ/the Messiah he will not receive any more from Him; he will not take a second step. This is merely for the sake of clarification, so if I mistate anything, it’s because I’m not understanding, not that I’m trying to put words in your mouth: What I see above is that Christ has an ability to let you know about him on the condition that you allow it. The condition is that you accept him as the Messiah. This then validates your knowledge. This apparently does not work in reverse, or for any other claimed messiah(s) or for any other discipline. I say that because Erhman’s or my desire to find truth is characterized as selective listening by you above. Is there any other case where opening yourself to some knowledge is the key to obtaining that knowledge? What shape should scholarship take? How would you evaluate proper scholarship for something like American history? Do you see any problems with claiming we can know about Christ simply by accepting he is the messiah, but most of the criteria for good history presented by myself and other members here has been rejected? Maybe I’ve missed what your criteria are. I’m not trying to overload you with questions, rather give you multiple choices for how to help me understand what you’re saying.You can overload me with questions if you have them. :) I will do my best. Knowing Christ is about getting to know a person rather than something like American history. In American history we can gather facts and evidence and piece together a narrative of what most likely happened. To get to know a person, however, they must reveal themselves to you in some way. They must communicate their thoughts through word or action. Jesus is often referred to as the Logos--the Word, or innermost thought expressed outwardly. He is revealing to you the thoughts of God. You can't study that. You can only believe or not believe what God reveals to you. That's why I say that when a man doesn't believe God's word to him, he finds reasons to justify his position. I could say the same that when a man does believe God's word to him, he also finds reasons to justify his position. This is not scholarship, but merely our positions on God's word in the Christian context. Doing a study concerning the Bible manuscripts is scholarship, but our conclusions are often colored by our position concerning Jesus as the Christ and the justification of the position we have already taken. I think Dr. Erhman presented all the evidence he found leading a person to conclude the Bible is unreliable. He left out much of the evidence to the contrary, however. A person who rejects Jesus as Christ will read his book and be satisfied. A person with faith in Jesus as the Christ will dig further where there is much evidence to contradict Dr. Erhman's conclusions. God presenting Jesus as the Christ is his opening message to mankind. It is the Gospel. When we believe him, he will teach us more. If we don't believe, there is no reason for him to tell us more. We haven't believed Him. The Apostle John puts it a bit more forcefully. He writes, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well... "We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:1, 9-12
In Christian teaching natural disasters and death are a result of sin. We will all die. The works of the devil stem from disobedience to God's commands.Natural disasters and death predate mankind by billions of years. Were the early single-cell life forms sinful? When do you think natural disasters and death began?
In Christian teaching natural disasters and death are a result of sin. We will all die. The works of the devil stem from disobedience to God's commands.Natural disasters and death predate mankind by billions of years. Were the early single-cell life forms sinful? When do you think natural disasters and death began? Keep plugging away Darron. We're all rooting for you!
If anyone rejects Jesus as the Christ/the Messiah he will not receive any more from Him; he will not take a second step.How many of those posting here, or reading here, are parents? The worst problem with Smith's dreadful theology is not its lack of factual support but its abysmal ethics, morals and anti-spirituality. Every good parent knows that you don't stop trying to reach your child after one failed attempt. Not to mention the fact that we've all rejected her theology, yet she persists in promoting it, time after time, ad nauseam. Engage this character if you must but you're missing the most gaping holes in her argument.
That means 99% of the text can be trusted as accurate, despite your families view on the Bible.Your definition of accurate is clearly different from any scholar of the English language. It has been pointed out to you that there are several birth stories, several death stories, and two completely different Genesis stories. You have not yet explained anything. Your claim of 99% accuracy is clearly untrue, by any stretch of the imagination. You are very dishonest in your obfuscative arguments. Your claims of redemption by a imaginary being holds as little sway here as my telling you "My little invisible flying pink unicorn blesses you".
He ignores excellent work done by other textual critics and over emphasizes spelling and other minor errors by scribes. Textual critics agree that aside from the obvious copying errors, the New Testament text is 99% accurate. The message is there.99% accurate my ass, they can't even get the story of Jesus' birth straight. I challenge you to take the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and formulate a coherent and cohesive story of his birth. You can't. Put together a coherent story of Jesus' death. You can't do that either from the biblical text... Which is why our family also calls it the 'Choose your own adventure book'. :lol: Love the new signature Asanta!
I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and Christ's Ventriloquist by Eric Zuesse.Sadly, Dr. Bart Ehrman put all his faith in having a New Testament without any copying errors, and when he couldn't find it his faith was destroyed. My faith isn't in a perfect New Testament, it's in Jesus Christ. Dr. Ehrman's book is very one sided with many unsubstantiated claims. He uses the Pagan critic Celsus as a source! He ignores excellent work done by other textual critics and over emphasizes spelling and other minor errors by scribes. Textual critics agree that aside from the obvious copying errors, the New Testament text is 99% accurate. The message is there. Men like Bart Erhman who choose to reject the message of Christ will find reasons why, and those who reject Christ will gather around them "scholars" who tell them what they want to hear. The reality is this is not scholarship, but choosing to read men who tell you what you've already decided to believe. Which is exactly what religious people of all stripes do, including, perhaps especially, Christians. Lois
That means 99% of the text can be trusted as accurate, despite your families view on the Bible.Your definition of accurate is clearly different from any scholar of the English language. It has been pointed out to you that there are several birth stories, several death stories, and two completely different Genesis stories. You have not yet explained anything. Your claim of 99% accuracy is clearly untrue, by any stretch of the imagination. You are very dishonest in your obfuscative arguments. Your claims of redemption by a imaginary being holds as little sway here as my telling you "My little invisible flying pink unicorn blesses you". You're absolutely right, Asanta. They differences in the birth stories, death stories and Genesis stories are obviously not spelling or minor transpcription errors, as LilySmith claims. They are what should, in modern parlance, be called whoppers and loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. But true believers will continue to play them down and pretend they don't exist or are so minor they don't need to be considered. It goes with the territory. Lois
God presenting Jesus as the Christ is his opening message to mankind. It is the Gospel. When we believe him, he will teach us more. If we don't believe, there is no reason for him to tell us more.One more clarification. Is this ability to be in relation with Christ applied equally? You say all one needs to do is accept Jesus, but that doesn't appear to come easily to everyone. I know many stories of people not getting confirmed, or not feeling like they did it right. I know people who "tried" to believe and self-report that they failed. Conversely, people say they weren't looking for Christ when they had a vision and suddenly believed and came into the relationship. It seems terribly unfair and uneven. Early in my journey, I read something from a Pope that said you can come to Christ via reason. So that was the main path I took, computer engineer that I am. Maybe I heard that wrong, but it came from the Pope! You'd think he'd be good at explaining the path to Christ. Is it fair and equal and if not, why not?
God presenting Jesus as the Christ is his opening message to mankind. It is the Gospel. When we believe him, he will teach us more. If we don't believe, there is no reason for him to tell us more.One more clarification. Is this ability to be in relation with Christ applied equally? You say all one needs to do is accept Jesus, but that doesn't appear to come easily to everyone. I know many stories of people not getting confirmed, or not feeling like they did it right. I know people who "tried" to believe and self-report that they failed. Conversely, people say they weren't looking for Christ when they had a vision and suddenly believed and came into the relationship. It seems terribly unfair and uneven. Early in my journey, I read something from a Pope that said you can come to Christ via reason. So that was the main path I took, computer engineer that I am. Maybe I heard that wrong, but it came from the Pope! You'd think he'd be good at explaining the path to Christ. Is it fair and equal and if not, why not? Because religions are personally negotiable covenants. This is why we have Fundamentalists, Reborn Christians, Protestants, Muslims, etc. Every religion has its own covenants and because they are "exclusive covenenants, "never the tween shall meet". This is why I am confounded by God's statement, "behold , they (humans) have become like us (in his image) and therefore I shall confound their language." If the intent of religion is to become and behave in the "likeness of god", god turns around and says "kiss my ass" (Lewis C Black)
If anyone rejects Jesus as the Christ/the Messiah he will not receive any more from Him; he will not take a second step.How many of those posting here, or reading here, are parents? The worst problem with Smith's dreadful theology is not its lack of factual support but its abysmal ethics, morals and anti-spirituality. Every good parent knows that you don't stop trying to reach your child after one failed attempt. Not to mention the fact that we've all rejected her theology, yet she persists in promoting it, time after time, ad nauseam. Engage this character if you must but you're missing the most gaping holes in her argument. Ad nauseum? ....a gross understatement (not that I'd expect her to know what 'a gross' is....)
“Ad nauseam” is the correct spelling, and because it is in a foreign language, italics are proper. It’s commonly misspelled.
"Ad nauseam" is the correct spelling, and because it is in a foreign language, italics are proper. It's commonly misspelled.Oops, I thought it didn't look right! Lol!
In Christian teaching natural disasters and death are a result of sin. We will all die. The works of the devil stem from disobedience to God's commands.Natural disasters and death predate mankind by billions of years. Were the early single-cell life forms sinful? When do you think natural disasters and death began? This is a good question which deserves an answer. The idea that death and natural disasters are the result of sin is preposterous.
Darron’s question is excellent. An honest answer would be an admission that Christian theology is wrong. When men wrote the Genesis stories laying out the supposed order of creation, they did not know that the universe was billions of years old. They thought there was a god who created it, creating humans roughly at the time of creation - within the week. When it became obvious that the universe was much older than the ancient writers had thought, the apologists didn’t change their minds in light of the new evidence; some of them just adjusted the story, claiming that the six days of creation could have referred to any length of time, while others denied the scientific proof of an older universe. The one constant among those who still claim to adhere to the biblical account of creation, either literally or semi-literally (the parts no one can disprove are true, while the parts that have been disproved are metaphors) is that they begin with their conclusions and adjust the facts so that they fit those conclusions. Lily Smith will never respond to that because she won’t admit that her way of thinking about things might be wrong.
So while she claims to believe in God, her mental processes merely project herself as God, as though there was a light shining through her onto the night sky, filling it with her mighty shadow. She doesn’t realize it but she conceives of herself as God.