Ah, Prov, your post in reply to mine was pretty much as expected. Why yes, I am serious about being an atheist. Nice try in your attempt to claim I’m a “Christian in denial”, it’s so cute when theists try their best to lie about atheists. No, Prov, I was a Christian but no more. Just because I know a lot about Christianity, evidently much more than you, and I am willing to discuss the religion and its harmful tendencies doesn’t mean I “really” do believe in God. Many Christians would desperately hope that, so they get more external validation. Unfortunately, there is none to be found with me.
I suspect that the Christianity you know so much about, is simply someone else's doctrinal opinions which you have memorized. But hey; one man's Christianity is another man's paganism:-) I will certainly be happy to discuss Christianity with you. Since you know it so well, I might be able to learn something.
It’s so cute that you can declare that the Jews were and are “backslidden” when their religion is just as intact, and supported, as yours. No evidence for that claim at all.
I know it's cute, but again you are being presumptuous about what I believe. I don't have a religion, and I accept the Jewish religion as a complete religion. However, in the context of the story of scripture, the first century Judean Jews were clearly backslidden from the faith of Abraham, and I see no difference between the Jews of Jesus' day, and the majority of Jews today. Here is the evidence which you are sure does not exist: The Jewish faith has always nominally been the faith of Abraham. The faith of Abraham was complete, and justifying the faithful, long before any law, or any Jewish religious traditions existed. Judaism today is defined by the word "practicing", rather than "faithful". This means that Jews today see the practice of the law, and religious traditions, as definitive of Judaism. The Jewish faith, the faith of Abraham, is completely defined by belief in God's promise to Abraham. The practice
of Judaism has absolutely nothing to do with the faith
of Abraham, and when Jews are more zealous for being a practicing Jew than in being a faithful Jew, they are backslidden. The faith came first and the religious rituals were added after. Zeal for the faith defines a faithful Jew, and zeal for the practice of Jewish rituals defines a practicing Jew. A Jew can be both a faithful Jew and a practicing Jew, but when his zeal for the practice becomes greater than his zeal for the faith, he is backslidden. That is exactly what happened to the first century Judean Jews.
They were waiting for their messiah and Jesus managed to screw up fulfilling the prophecies, and the Jews were split on whether to believe him or not.
Sort of:-) Jesus' followers, and maybe Jesus himself, expected Jesus to "become" the messiah, but he was executed before it could happen. The reason Jesus did not become the messiah, because he failed to fulfill the one prophecy which defines messianic purpose; the angelic prophecy that; "he will be give the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men."
Early Christians *were* Jews who thought they got the right one but like all theists had to cherry pick their supposed divingly given books to make things fit.
Yes, early Christians were
indeed Jews, because early Christianity was simply a return to true Judaism. Remember that Jesus came specifically to heal the backsliding of the Jews, and bring them back into the fold from which they had strayed(the faith of Abraham). The early church was simply true Judaism.
So much for any “truth”.
The meaning of the word "Truth" is quite obvious, but within the context of a story, there is "story-truth". As an example: It is "story-truth" that James Bond likes his martinis shaken but not stirred:-) We know that James Bond is a fictional character, and whether of not Jesus is a fictional character is not for me to say. My contention is simply that there is a clear continuous logical story running through the bible, and the "story-truth" within the bible, is found in that one clear continuous logical story. The way you say "so much for truth", it sounds as though you are still religious, but have simply changed religions:-)
JC himself said that the laws were to be followed and yes, that the Pharisees were placing too much emphasis on the “word” and not the implicatiosn behind them. Again, the laws were still to be followed, all of them.
You sound like a preacher...LOL
Keeping of old redundant Israelite law was an important part of Jewish culture, and Jesus was a Jew. He did not want Jews to reject their Jewish culture. One of the problems which existed in the Judea of Jesus' day, was Jews rejecting Jewish culture to embrace Greek culture. "Hellenization" was a dirty word among practicing Jews. There was also a problem with Jews discovering that their cultural law keeping was not legally binding, and then becoming lawless. This had to be a concern for Jesus the Jew. Jesus did not want Jews to stop being Jewish, he simply wanted the Jews to see that "being Jewish" was not a substitute for "being faithful" to God's promise to Abraham. Paul explained to the Galatians, that being a Jew is not defined by being Jewish, but by having a circumcised heart. When you remember that "circumcision" was only ever the sign that one believed God's promise to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant, you will understand why Paul said; "God preached the gospel first to Abraham saying; "In thee shall all nations be blessed". Paul used a direct quote from the Abrahamic Covenant to define the gospel, making it clear that the gospel he preached was God's promise to Abraham. Paul's statements also clarify that the gospel Jesus preached; "the gospel of the coming kingdom", is the very same gospel; "the gospel of the coming great nation". The church did not miss such an obvious point, it is just not expedient for the church to point it out:-) Churchmen traditionally believe what they are told by others who have a vested interest. No wonder people are bitter when they discover that the "Christianity" they committed to memory, might not be true.
And then we get into your claims about the “end times”. Of course, no answers to be had about the details about those end times, just the usual ooga-booga by a Christian and then when asked about his claims of details on how one knows the end times will come, suddenly nothing. No detaisl on how “large” is large. Nice to cover your butt so you don’t look as ridiculous as every other Christain who has told a lie about the end times being “real soon now”.
In the context of the continuous story of scripture, there are no end times because the earth, the coming great nation/kingdom, and peace on earth, good will toward men, are going to exist forever. According to God's everlasting unconditional gospel promise to Abraham(the one and only faith of scripture), a great everlasting nation
is going to bless all the families of all nations, with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men. All the stuff about end times, and the end of the world, contradicts God's promise to Abraham. This means that those who believe the end of the world stuff, do not believe God's promise to Abraham, are not justified by faith, and are simply members of the universal religion of the Roman Empire, which declared it'self to be "Christian" a few hundred years ago. The Christianity that you claim to know so well, officially began after the first ecumenical council of Nicea, in 325AD, and has absolutely nothing to do with the one and only faith of the bible...The faith of Abraham.
First, I have said nothing about God returning.
No, didn’t need to read your mind at all.
Hence the good news of the coming kingdom. When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.....
(Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!) Even though you asked your question in such a presumptuous way that I cannot logically answer it, I will answer the question that I think you meant to, or should have, asked: "Large enough" means enough people to conquer and occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which is the land defined in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.
oooh, questions I “should have asked”. That’s good, Prov. Making baseless claims that you couldn’t “logically” answer what I asked by calling it “presumputous”and then making up a new question. Nice dodge there, though. Again, this means nothing. This would vary depending on time period and technology. The theist’s vagueness strikes again.
No dodge here! You got your answer, even though you did not ask it properly. You are dodging the fact that you asked the question improperly:-) Go back and look at the way you asked it, and see if you can figure out why I compared it to the "do you still beat your wife" question.
What a dreamer:-( Do you really think that everything I write is something that I think I know?
Oh my, what a lovely quote. Good to know that you write about nonsense and evidently you do know it!
Context girl, context! I have no knowledge of anything which happened thousands of years ago, and neither does anyone else. I only write personal opinion, nothing else. That is all anyone writes, but of course those who insist that they are right will not admit that it is just opinion...LOL
and this one too
Try to keep in mind that I have made no claims of having any knowledge of biblical truth, but my claim is that I know that there is a continuous, logical, story running through scripture, which has been covered up and ignored by those who would have you believe that they "know" the truth.
You know, that quote above, where you say “The good news of the coming kingdom”. Oh yes, that where you claim to be telling what will happen.
Absolutely. That is what the bible story says, and I argue for the bible story. It is not for me to tell anyone whether the bible story is actually true or not.
How could you know that? What is your definition of a Christian? You think you know way too much, for one who doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about.
Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are? If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it. It's a story, and a story is only defined by the story. I don't have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position. If that is what you expect, then I am becoming more convinced that you are a Christian in denial.
So, you’ve not bothered actually showing where the bible supports the things you’ve claimed as I asked. My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian. There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.
Yes, Christians define Christianity in different ways. Since you are so knowledgeable about Christianity, what is your
definition of Christian?
Now, you’ve claimed this, Prov:
“However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.”
I want to know where in the bible it says this.
You have claimed that the bible is a continuous story. You have claimed that that you know that this god knows various things and has said various things. The only way you would know is by the bible, right? I know the bible quite well and I’m calling you on your claims. I find your claims ridiculous since they seem to be only things made up by you. And why would my requests for you to support your claims make me a “Christian in denial”? It’s a nice thing for you to baselessly claim but again, without evidence, it makes you only seem that you can lie.
You are getting way ahead of the discussion:-) I can show you from scripture, everything I claim. However, it is Christians, and ex-Christians, who expect me to do it by offering conveniently worded verses. When reading a story, every principle cannot be technically explained, because it would make the story too long, and too boring. Meanings tend to be extrapolated from the flowing text of a story, in the context of the story. For example: In Genesis, God makes His good news statment that a great nation will bless all nations. In the NT God makes the same good news statement that the christ will be given the kingdom of his father David and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men. If one has followed the story of the bible, he knows that the nation of Israel was chosen by God to become the great nation of His good news promise in Genesis. The story goes on to record that the chosen nation became a kingdom. Then the story tells us that "David's kingdom" fell into non-existence without becoming everlasting, or blessing anyone. Jesus comes along trying to heal the backsliding of people who were once zealous for the fulfillment of God's good news. Jesus is preaching the gospel of the coming kingdom, which matches the original gospel of the coming great nation. Now in the NT, when God says that the christ is going to be given the kingdom of his father David, and bring peace on earth, good will toward men, it has to be extrapolated from the story, that this is refering to God's promise in Genesis, that a great everlasting nation will bless all nations. If you say prove it, I cannot show you a verse which states what you want to hear, but the continuous logical story of the bible makes it quite clear. Since Christians, and ex-Christians have never read the bible as a story, they will miss obvious things like that, and will believe whatever their leaders tell them that any given single verse means.
Can't you keep your mind on anything long enough to type a sentence? I just stated that God is not involved with man, and I gave you the reason why I say that, and immediately you ask me why God does not do the things that are in the myths about Him. There is little point in you asking me questions, if you are going to ignore my answers, and just rant about whatever you imagine...LOL I think you should settle down and become rational, before you respond to this post. Apply the common rules of English composition to what I write, and be completely sure that you understand what I said.
More things made up.
Not made up. I posted both sides of the converstation. Why would you say that I made it up? It is recorded in perpetuity for anyone to look up!
yes, I saw that you claimed that god is now not involved with man. You have declared that god has left the building and that suddenly the whole story is just a metaphor. Nice decoder ring there. You are now the arbiter about this god and what bits are myths and what bits are true.
The only thing I have declared is that there is a story running though scripture, and when logically read as a story, it is the proverbial "decoder ring" you mention:-)
That’s my point, Prov, you are just one more theist with your own religion. You have decided on your own what the “true” story of the bible is.
Yes, I have decided on my own what the "real" story of the bible is. However, any honest, thinking person, who is not biased by preconceived doctrines, which he claims not to believe:-) should easily be able to follow my logic.
If we were discussing Shakespeare, would you accuse me of stating that Romeo was an actual person? Get real!!!:-)
No dear, I wouldn’t. But I’m guessing that you would not have claimed that your interpretation of Shakespear was the only “right” one.
No, I would have claimed that the interpretation of what Shakespeare wrote, is found in the story
, which is exactly what I am claiming for the bible:-)
But as it seems from your antics so far, you very well might do so.
Since Shakespeare wrote stories, it is likely that anyone who reads them comes to the same conclusion. If people started interpreting Shakespeare according to selected single sentences, there would be no end of doctrinal possibilities.
Prov, you have declared that the “10 Commandments” were the only law given by this god. I’ve shown your claim wrong and I have your inabnlity to support your claim.
Virtually everything found in the 10 commandments, is also found in the 613 Mitzvot laws. Do you think that God is so doddering that He repeats Himself, or that He forgot that He had already given a law?
Every national assembly that ever existed had laws to maintain civil society, yet as far as God is concerned, no law existed from Adam to Moses. The 613 Mitzvot laws have the appropriate penalties written right in, which means that the breaking of one of the Mitzvot laws is completely atoned for by the penalty prescribed, and therefore does not come down to what God is going to do to the law breaker after his death. The 10 commandments were given to the national assembly as a national standard, so there is no individual personal penalties attached, as in the 613. The national assembly was chosen to become the great everlasting nation of God's good news promise. National unity is absolutely key for a nation to become great and everlasting. The 10 commandments cover all the national unity bases without specifying any individual penalties. When you put all this together with the context of the whole story, it becomes obvious that the 10 commandments had a special purpose for a special nation, and that purpose apart from the 613 laws which were simply the equivalent of the laws of any other nation which ever existed.
So, I find that I am indeed correct when I accuse you of making up your own version of what the bible “really” means. We have repeated verses that have this god declaring he is giving laws. You might wish to ignore those verses to support your own premise but that is exactly what I’m getting at.
Yes, you have indeed declared yourself correct...LOL
One of the very first points in my contention, is that "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down". To me that is a metaphore which says; God's plan was over when creation was finished and declared good. God sat down because creation was no longer a work in progess, but it was finished. God, who saw the end from the beginning, revealed the good news that He saw, to Abraham. A great nation(not God) is going to bless forever, all the families of all nations. That one statement defines the faith of Abraham, which is faith in the accuracy
of God's promise, not faith that God is going to personally fulfill the promise. After the initial statement of the faith, then scripture writers start writing as if God has taken control of everything. However, we can see that when God appears to say that He will win the war for Israel, Israelites still have to fight and die to win the war. It is clear to me, from the context of the bible story, and my own experiential knowledge, the the religious always give God the credit for everything. It is obviously a common, basic, form of worship, to give God the "glory" for everything, and it is even a bible priniciple. The continuous logical story of the bible requires that God is not involved with man, and that man is on his own in his attempts to fulfill the good news ending which God saw from the beginning.
Words, and verses, can be doctrinally altered over the centuries, but if there is a continuous logical story present in a book as large as the bible, it will still be there even if some verses conflict with it.
The whole point of appealing to context, is to clarify the meaning of specific text, however, when we know that the text has changed over the centuries, context can also show us which sentences have been changed.
As an example, the gospel of Mark found in our modern bibles, has 10,000 more words than the gospel of Mark found in the oldest bible known to exist: the Sinai bible from around 380AD. We cannot trust any individual word, or verse, to be accurate, but we can be sure that if a continuous logical story ever existed in the bible, it is still there to discover, by considering that scripture was written in narrative style, and reading it as narrative, and not as single verses to mix and match to make doctrines out of.
The bible is not continuous and chronological. We have no idea when some of the events occurred or if they did occur. The bible ignores that it kills some tribes off “entirely” when it brings them back again to be annihilated. The NT ignores the OT when it comes to prophecies when convenient. And for you accusing me of paranoia, I do love your claim that
I am perfectly happy to demonstrate how scripture is a chronologically continuous story, and explain why that has been covered up, but I think you should settle down and become rational before I do that:-)
Ooh conspiracies! Sigh, one more claim from a theist on how they “know” things.
I would have thought since you left the church, you would no longer be ruled by preconceived beliefs...LOL
As for your claims that I somehow feel “guilt”, again, nice but baseless claim. Just how are you taking any punishment for me? Tsk, such a martyr complex. Nope, dear, I have anything but guilt, but I do have no problem in showing your claims to be nonsense and calling you on them.
I hope you start soon...LOL
You have claimed to know about “Covenant Israel”, something that only a few sects of Christianity try to natter on about. You claim to know that “whole story of scripture is about Covenant Israel, because God chose Covenant Israel to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise. Anyone who has read the bible through twice, should know that.” and try to claim that “anyone” should know this somehow, when that is not the case at all, again making claims that your version is the only “right” one.”
If your point is that the details are silly, I agree. Interestingly, one of the important points that one finds in the story, is that concentrating on the silly religious details keeps one from seeing the point of the story. If anything, the story goes out of it's way to dismiss silly religious details.
Yep, the details are silly, but they do show your claim that you somehow know that God only gave the “ten commandments” as laws to be utter nonsense.The "somehow" is the one and only point I am trying to make. If you have read my stuff this far and you still say that "somehow" I know, you have missed the whole point of what I have written. I have been trying to explain to you how I arrived at the opinions I have. There is no somehow about it. That there is a continuous logical bible story is my only claim.
And here we go with the claims of you knowing what the “real” point of the story is. Yep, you and ever Christian all claims that they know this, and funny how they differ.Nothing to it:-) You just have to read the bible as a story, to realize that the whole point of the one and only faith of scripture, is for men to establish a great everlasting nation, and bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men
It is no big deal to claim to know the "real" gospel, because it is obvious from the beginning of the bible to the end of the bible, if one is not committed to a preconceived belief.
You wan to claim that you know the “real” gospel. Hmmm perhaps not a Mormon but a Gnostic Christian who again has made up his own version of the “truth”. You want to split your god from the religion you don’t like. Not suprising many theists do. You’ve all shat on your religions by your actions so that you run away from the concept so you don’t have to be responsible for anything. Again, nothing to show that this god is what you claim, that is means to bless anything or create an everlasting nation. Just more wannabee chosen people.
Those who think they understand Christianity because they have memorized a dozen or so verses suggested to them by a denomination, will never admit that there is a continuous story running through the bible, because they are committed to their doctrinal preconceptions. Whether they admit it or not:-(