Because you care, BDN...

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Simple, if it is only men writing on their own, why should you believe that the words attributed to Christ were Christ's words?

I addressed your comment on who wrote the gospels.

Once again, looking forward to you starting to address my points.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I addressed your comment on who wrote the gospels.

Once again, looking forward to you starting to address my points.

Where? I don't see where...

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Where? I don't see where...

I responded to the comment you asked me to address which you've followed up with a different question. I responded despite the fact that you've pretty much ignored all my questions and points thus far.

I suggest you reread our discussion from the beginning. How about addressing my questions and points as you said you would? Then if you still don't understand where I'm coming from, I'll respond to your latest question.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I responded to the comment you asked me to address which you've followed up with a different question. I responded despite the fact that you've pretty much ignored all my questions and points thus far.

I suggest you reread our discussion from the beginning. How about addressing my questions and points as you said you would? Then if you still don't understand where I'm coming from, I'll respond to your latest question.

You have not addressed my question...but I will answer yours anyway. Your comment was about Jesus not teaching all they had to know, because Jesus did not know everything. Even Jesus did not know the full revelation that was revealed to the apostle Paul. Your problem is that you elevate Jesus above God the Father.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You have not addressed my question...but I will answer yours anyway. Your comment was about Jesus not teaching all they had to know, because Jesus did not know everything. Even Jesus did not know the full revelation that was revealed to the apostle Paul. Your problem is that you elevate Jesus above God the Father.

You have not addressed my question...but I will answer yours anyway.
Please reread my previous post. I had explicitly explained why. It really takes a lot of chutzpah for you to call me out on not addressing your latest question considering that you'd "pretty much ignored all my questions and points" as I explained there.

Your comment was about Jesus not teaching all they had to know, because Jesus did not know everything. Even Jesus did not know the full revelation that was revealed to the apostle Paul. Your problem is that you elevate Jesus above God the Father.

That was part of it. I take it you didn't reread our discussion from the beginning as I suggested.

I don't know if I'd ever seen anyone take the position that God revealed more to Paul than Jesus. I have to give you props for acknowledging that your beliefs are rooted in the teachings of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. As has been said, "Christianity is a religion about Jesus rather than the religion of Jesus", which is largely true.

Evidently Jesus was mistaken when He said the following:
John 17:20-23
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

Do you also believe that Jesus mislead many people when He was explaining to people what was necessary to become one with God, how to have eternal life / heaven / salvation, etc. ?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You have not addressed my question...but I will answer yours anyway.
Please reread my previous post. I had explicitly explained why. It really takes a lot of chutzpah for you to call me out on not addressing your latest question considering that you'd "pretty much ignored all my questions and points" as I explained there.

Your comment was ...[text shortened]... ecessary to become one with God, how to have eternal life / heaven / salvation, etc. ?

Yes and no to the last question. Jesus taught what was necessary to be saved in that "administration". He did not know about the new administration which was hidden in God from all previous ages. If you look for salvation to be by grace in the old testament or in the gospels you will not find it. It was not revealed until the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. And even then it was not fully revealed. It is all over the place in the church epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, etc.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Yes and no to the last question. Jesus taught what was necessary to be saved in that "administration". He did not know about the new administration which was hidden in God from all previous ages. If you look for salvation to be by grace in the old testament or in the gospels you will not find it. It was not revealed until the day of Pentecost in the book ...[text shortened]... y revealed. It is all over the place in the church epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, etc.

Yes and no to the last question. Jesus taught what was necessary to be saved in that "administration". He did not know about the new administration which was hidden in God from all previous ages.

From what you said earlier, this means the teachings of Jesus would have only applied for a few short years which is a very minor blip in the previous "administration". Those who believed Jesus would have been doomed unless they abandoned His teachings for the teachings of Paul, et al. Those who truly believed Jesus as He asked would have been doomed.

If you look for salvation to be by grace in the old testament or in the gospels you will not find it. It was not revealed until the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. And even then it was not fully revealed. It is all over the place in the church epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, etc.

I agree that Jesus did not teach "salvation by grace". It's what I've been saying all along and has been a major source of the venom exhibited by many Christians that post in this forum. At least you recognize that it is the truth. Those who believe in "salvation by grace" have abandoned the teachings of Jesus for the teachings of Paul, et al. As such, they are their "Lord", not Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Yes and no to the last question. Jesus taught what was necessary to be saved in that "administration". He did not know about the new administration which was hidden in God from all previous ages.

From what you said earlier, this means the teachings of Jesus would have only applied for a few short years which is a very minor blip in the previous ...[text shortened]... f Jesus for the teachings of Paul, et al. As such, they are their "Lord", not Jesus.[/b]

Again I would have to remind you that the same people with the exception of Paul, who wrote the church epistles also wrote the gospels including "the words of Jesus". Furthermore, the Old Testament, the gospels included, point to this promise that was kept secret since the beginning. The Old and New Testaments compliment each other. They go hand in hand.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Again I would have to remind you that the same people with the exception of Paul, who wrote the church epistles also wrote the gospels including "the words of Jesus". Furthermore, the Old Testament, the gospels included, point to this promise that was kept secret since the beginning. The Old and New Testaments compliment each other. They go hand in hand.

Surely you recognize that this in no way addresses the points in my post. Any chance that you will?

Again I would have to remind you that the same people with the exception of Paul, who wrote the church epistles also wrote the gospels including "the words of Jesus". Furthermore, the Old Testament, the gospels included, point to this promise that was kept secret since the beginning. The Old and New Testaments compliment each other. They go hand in hand.

You seem to think that there is a reasonable point here, though I'm at a loss as to what that may be. If you were to read a booklet about the ideas of Albert Einstein that quoted him heavily and also tossed in ideas of the author's, would you have trouble with separating the "words of Einstein" from the rest of the text?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Surely you recognize that this in no way addresses the points in my post. Any chance that you will?

[b]Again I would have to remind you that the same people with the exception of Paul, who wrote the church epistles also wrote the gospels including "the words of Jesus". Furthermore, the Old Testament, the gospels included, point to this promise that was ...[text shortened]... would you have trouble with separating the "words of Einstein" from the rest of the text?

Alright, let me try another way. You keep referring to the words of Jesus. Where do you find the words of Jesus?..in the bible?, well then, who wrote the bible?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Alright, let me try another way. You keep referring to the words of Jesus. Where do you find the words of Jesus?..in the bible?, well then, who wrote the bible?

I think you know as well as I do that the Bible is a conglomeration of texts written by many different authors.

How about plainly stating your point instead of asking questions?

It'd also be nice if you addressed my earlier points instead of continuing to avoid them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think you know as well as I do that the Bible is a conglomeration of texts written by many different authors.

How about plainly stating your point instead of asking questions?

It'd also be nice if you addressed my earlier points instead of continuing to avoid them.

1. Yes the bible is written by men. Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Moses,Peter, John, etc. Written, but there is one author... God, The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

2. I have plainly answered your questions. Jesus did not teach all there was to know because he was a man. He is not God, He is God's Son. He did not know the secret kept hidden from all ages until He ascended and THEN learned the rest. What He taught in His time was for that time.

I also contend that it is illogical to agree with parts of the bible and not all of the bible.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

I also contend that it is illogical to agree with parts of the bible and not all of the bible.

I contend that if you find this to be the case, you should, if you wish to use logic at all, reject the bible in its entirety.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I contend that if you find this to be the case, you should, if you wish to use logic at all, reject the bible in its entirety.

That is a bold but careless comment.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
That is a bold but careless comment.

I disagree on both points. Your contention that logic suggests that the whole of the bible should be accepted should agreement be found regarding anything therein is absurd. There are clearly parts of the bible which are rational and reasonable, and other parts which are fanciful in the extreme. It is far more logical to consider the entire package suspect when one encounters the often ridiculous nuggets of nonsense which pepper the old testament. This is not a 'bold' position to take, nor a careless one.