A REASONABLE approach to the Bible

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You're not making much sense here jaywill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I did cause some misunderstanding here:

[quote] The words of Jesus from say Matthew 5:1 through 7:29 the so called "Sermon on the Mount". Do you take these as words of Jesus while He walked on earth ? I agree that th ...[text shortened]... erminated by His crucifixion ?
Or do you believe that "when" was terminated by His ascension ?

If you believe that "when" is terminated by His crucifixion ?
Or do you believe that "when" was terminated by His ascension ?

Try rereading my previous post.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]If you believe that "when" is terminated by His crucifixion ?
Or do you believe that "when" was terminated by His ascension ?

Try rereading my previous post.[/b]

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

Bingo.
You don't believe in the resurrection.

So an argument by ad populum ("most people" ) dictates that there was no resurrection ?

Originally posted by sonship

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

Bingo.
You don't believe in the resurrection.

So an argument by ad populum ("most people" ) dictates that there was no resurrection ?

So an argument by ad populum ("most people" ) dictates that there was no resurrection ?

Does it bother you at all how you jump to illogical conclusions? Just because an idea pops into your head, doesn't necessarily make it a good one. You seem to have a similar lack of discernment when it comes to scripture. Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense on a number of levels.

When I wrote "most people understand it" I was referring back to the expression "while He walked the Earth" in the previous sentence, The sentence that follows also refers back to that expression. Try reading it again.

It seriously boggles the mind as to how you could jump to such an illogical conclusion.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Does it bother you at all how you jump to illogical conclusions?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a loaded question.

The words of Jesus "while Christ walked on the earth" the New Testament indicates came to an end at His ascension following His resurrection.

Its REASONABLE to join the New Testament writers in faith that He did rise as His words promised that He would. AND, mind you, as His power and authority demonstrated that it was within His ability to do so.

You can believe as you wish. But I can tell you why I believe the REASONABLENESS of Him fulfilling this word -

" From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised." (Matt. 16:21)

Now I know I am suppose to play the part of a defensive and grumpy Fundamentalist with a bastard child of science and religion here. But I'm convinced that what He said, He did.

You seem to have two choices:

1.) He never said it.
2.) Maybe He said it but totally failed to fulfill it.

In the latter case then He was deluded or lied.
But, you want to salvage some benefit from a man so deceived or deluded or lying as to recommend Jesus Christ as a great Teacher ?


Just because an idea pops into your head, doesn't necessarily make it a good one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree all fleeting ideas are not valid.
That Jesus is knowable today is valid.


You seem to have a similar lack of discernment when it comes to scripture. Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense on a number of levels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It makes sense that the oldest New Testament documents inform us of WHAT the Christians believed and taught. In First Corinthians 15 Paul says it was passed on to him that Christ died according to the Scriptures and was raised on the third day. He adds his own meeting of Christ. And the record is earlier than the writing of the Gospels which say He rose.

And Paul informs his audience that at the time of his writing this there still remained most of 500 witnesses who could vouch ya or nay that Christ did rise.

Now I have this (First Corinthian letter as early proof the Christians believed Jesus rose). But I also have the REASONABLENESS that I met Jesus (as He promised it was possible to do) and He is alive. Unusual, yes, but alive.

" If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

You don't know what it is like to read that after turning your heart over to Jesus and exclaming -

"I understand that now. I have experienced that. Formerly these were just cryptic words to me Jesus spoke while He walked on earth. Now, though I recognize what this means since Jesus came into my heart. I understand this saying of Jesus now."

That is my experience with the whole New Testament. Previously I stayed clear of that strange book. Now I can read it and say " THIS I understand now. I know what this is talking about. Jesus Christ is alive and real."

What did the last Adam become ?

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

Now that means Christ became a "God given to you" Holy Spirit.
That means Christ became a "Jesus given to you alive" Holy Spirit.
That means Christ became a "God's very life given to indwell you" Holy Spirit.
That means Christ in resurrection became a "YOU can know Jesus Christ" giving Holy Spirit.


When I wrote "most people understand it" I was referring back to the expression "while He walked the Earth" in the previous sentence, The sentence that follows also refers back to that expression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before His crucifixion He spoke of His coming to make an abode with His lovers and believers with His Father as the Divine "We".

Concerning His execution and rising again from the dead on the third day, He told His disciples that this was expedient for them that He go through this process. They would be sorrowful at first. But then they would have JOY which no one could take away.

"But now I am going to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, Where are You going?

But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.

But I tell you the truth, It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." (John 16:5-7)

His physical resurrection was more than just an outward objective proof that He is Son of God. It is also His way of becomming life giving Spirit to be JOINED to His lovers to make an abode with them.

While He walked on earth He taught this. If you take it as delusion, lies, mistakes how can you recommend Jesus Christ as a great spiritual teacher if He was SO wrong?


It seriously boggles the mind as to how you could jump to such an illogical conclusion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its mind boggling to me that you want to latch on to the coattails of Jesus as your teacher yet you deny His words and deeds "as He walked on the earth".

I can't figure out why you just don't forget Christ and instead be a Moslem or a Bahai.
What is it about Jesus you want to cash in on while you teach a dead Christ rather than a risen one ?

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Does it bother you at all how you jump to illogical conclusions?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a loaded question.

The words of Jesus "while Christ walked on the earth" the New Testament indicates came to an end at His ascension following His resurrection.

Its REASONABL ...[text shortened]... this there still remained most of 500 witnesses who could vouch ya or nay that Christ did rise.[/b]

Jaywill, Calm down.

This is what makes it so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you.

Read my previous post again.

Read the text in bold. You wrote it. The text that I wrote that follows it is referring to that sentence. The text in bold is the "illogical conclusion". Do you really not understand that?

Sometimes I feel like Chevy Chase here:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/emilys-editorial-reply/n8635?snl=1

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The author makes a few key points:

1) The Bible is a "metaphorical and esoteric work". As such it should not be taken literally. "It has some pretty major problems if you take it literally..."

2) "it describes a code of laws designed to hold a society together in absolutely barbaric conditions". As such much of it was intended for a very different a ...[text shortened]... large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be "true".
[/quote]

This reply of yours only confirms that the article basically states the Bible is nothing more than 'sufficient and useful', for the reasons in your reply and my previous post.

If stories of Noah, Job, Goliath, Jonah, Lot, etc are not to be taken literally, then why the words of Jesus? The article states that Bible is not the center of Christianity, but the teachings of Jesus are. What?? The teachings of Jesus come from the pages of the Bible!! Yet, don't take His words literally??

Not only is the entire article a contradiction of itself, but you contradicted yourself as well.

In your statment about Jesus' words, beginning with "by and large", you are saying that the words of Jesus are "true". But, not to be taken literally???

None of it makes sense.

Originally posted by sonship
So an argument by ad populum ("most people" ) dictates that there was no resurrection ?

But you yourself use argumentum ad populum all the time, sonship. Stuff along the lines of ... 'Hey FMF, are you saying that all the billions of Christians over the last 2,000 years were wrong or lying about Jesus' divinity?'

Originally posted by chaney3
This reply of yours only confirms that the article basically states the Bible is nothing more than 'sufficient and useful', for the reasons in your reply and my previous post.

If stories of Noah, Job, Goliath, Jonah, Lot, etc are not to be taken literally, then why the words of Jesus? The article states that Bible is not the center of Christianity, but t ...[text shortened]... hat the words of Jesus are "true". But, not to be taken literally???

None of it makes sense.

If you take the time and really think about what's being said, I'll bet that you can use your powers of discernment and make sense of what the author in the OP wrote and what I wrote. I you can't be bothered, then you won't.

Originally posted by FMF
But you yourself use argumentum ad populum all the time, sonship. Stuff along the lines of ... 'Hey FMF, are you saying that all the billions of Christians over the last 2,000 years were wrong or lying about Jesus' divinity?'

Even worse is the fact that I wasn't even using argumentum ad populum.

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

The document from which we learn everything about Jesus, The New Testament, tells us that Jesus walked on earth and continued teaching after His resurrection.

Taking this as historical fact is a reasonable approach to the Bible.
Retrofitting modernist anti-miraculous conspiracy theories requires way more imaginative work.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you take the time and really think about what's being said, I'll bet that you can use your powers of discernment and make sense of what the author in the OP wrote and what I wrote. I you can't be bothered, then you won't.

I have read the article, and clearly listed what the author said in my post on page 2.

My point is that he has decided to not believe the inconsistencies, the improper translations and the hypocrisy in 'most' of the Bible....but NOT the Jesus portion....he firmly believes every word of that, so much so, that a religion can be based on it.

This article is merely cherry picking which parts of the Bible 'should be believed', which fits his own religion.

The Jews have done exactly the same thing thing, only opposite.

Your non-answer is noted, likely due to the contradictions.

Originally posted by sonship

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. [b] Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

[quote]For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while ...[text shortened]...
Retrofitting modernist anti-miraculous conspiracy theories requires way more imaginative work.[/b]

I know what I wrote jaywill. What you seem to fail to understand is that you drew an illogical conclusion from it. It doesn't say what you think it says. You do this with scripture as well.

Originally posted by chaney3
I have read the article, and clearly listed what the author said in my post on page 2.

My point is that he has decided to not believe the inconsistencies, the improper translations and the hypocrisy in 'most' of the Bible....but NOT the Jesus portion....he firmly believes every word of that, so much so, that a religion can be based on it.

This article ...[text shortened]... same thing thing, only opposite.

Your non-answer is noted, likely due to the contradictions.

Perhaps I gave your powers of discernment more credit than they deserve. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps I gave your powers of discernment more credit than they deserve. I stand corrected.

My powers of discernment:

You have provided an article that contradicts itself, and doesn't make sense.

The author cherry picks and merely views the Bible as "useful". How quaint.