"Go and sin no more"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

The Bible is filled with inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. Though most refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner

If you stand before God on the day of judgment, what discrepancy or inconsistency will you trot out as your reason for not believing Jesus is Lord ?

"Because of this inconsistency in the Bible, I appear before You with all my sins still unforgiven and not trusting in Christ's redemption --- "

Will you talk about the ambiguous number of horses in king Solomon's stales? Or will it be something more weighty ?

Will you complain about who Cain could have possibly married ?
Will you complain that you could not figure out who came to the tomb first when Jesus rose?
What is the top most alledged inconsistency or contradiction which you are depending on to excuse you from owning Christ as Lord and Savior ?

Originally posted by sonship

The Bible is filled with inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. Though most refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner

If you stand before God on the day of judgment, what discrepancy or inconsis ...[text shortened]... r contradiction which you are depending on to excuse you from owning Christ as Lord and Savior ?

C'mon jaywill.

Over the years, we've been over any number of verses and passages containing the words that Jesus spoke while He walked the Earth that are in opposition to your beliefs.

Your basic tack when faced with them has been to cobble together a verse or two from disparate places in the Bible as your "proof" that Jesus didn't say what He said. It's an irrational way to approach it.

Originally posted by chaney3
Do Christians interpret the Bible to 'fit' their own opinions?

Only as much as non-Christians or 'can't-make-up-their-minders', such as yourself, do.

Originally posted by divegeester
Only as much as non-Christians or 'can't-make-up-their-minders', such as yourself, do.

Personal attack noted.
Dive, when Jesus said "go and sin no more", how do you deflect?
Where is your excuse to sin?

Originally posted by chaney3
Personal attack noted.

Are you now suddenly against personal attacks? You get pissed and attack people here week in and week out, making a silly fool of yourself in the process, then bleating some hollow apology and then doing the self same thing again the next day. You're a joke.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you now suddenly against personal attacks? You get pissed and attack people here week in and week out, making a silly fool of yourself in the process, then bleating some hollow apology and then doing the self same thing again the next day. You're a joke.

"Go and sin no more"

I will wait for your excuses. And your human interpretation.

Originally posted by chaney3
"Go and sin no more"

I will wait for your excuses. And your human interpretation.

What is the point, all you will do is say "who says you are right dive?"

Originally posted by chaney3
"Go and sin no more"

I will wait for your excuses. And your human interpretation.

Tell me unequivocally if you are Christian or not and I'll consider discussing this with you.

Originally posted by divegeester
Tell me unequivocally if you are Christian or not and I'll consider discussing this with you.

It is 5 words.
Either you believe He lied, or was deranged?
Stop arguing, and look at those 5 words.

Originally posted by chaney3
It is 5 words.
Either you believe He lied, or was deranged?
Stop arguing, and look at those 5 words.

Can you comment on my response to you on the bottom of page 1?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Over the years, we've been over any number of verses and passages containing the words that Jesus spoke while He walked the Earth that are in opposition to your beliefs.

No we haven't. Whatever gave you that idea ?

Your basic tack when faced with them has been to cobble together a verse or two from disparate places in the Bible as your "proof" that Jesus didn't say what He said. It's an irrational way to approach it.

That's not what has happened at all. What I have noticed though is the reluctance you display in not admitting exactly what you consider the New Testament canon. Yet you want the appeal to the words only as authoritative which reinforce your particular philosophy.

Jesus was "on the earth" when He spoke of His words after His resurrection.
Are those words authoritative to you as representing Christ's teaching ?

If not then, C'mon, you're just selectively screening out, like Thomas Jefferson, what rubs against your anti-miraculous bias.

No? Watch.

" And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?" (Luke 24:25,26)

"And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:46-48)

He's still on the earth here after His resurrection.
Does this represent to you an important part of the teaching of Jesus ?

Should be an easy enough Yes or No question.

Originally posted by sonship

Over the years, we've been over any number of verses and passages containing the words that Jesus spoke while He walked the Earth that are in opposition to your beliefs.

No we haven't. Whatever gave you that idea ?

[quote]
Your basic tack when faced with them has been to cobble together a verse or two from disparate places in the Bibl ...[text shortened]... ou an important part of the teaching of Jesus ?

Should be an easy enough Yes or No question.

C'mon jaywill. Most people seem to understand what I mean by "when Jesus walked the Earth". I think you do too. It's not like I've made some big secret of it.

Maybe this will help you better understand. c3 recently asked me "How do you know the Bible is true at all?"

The following was my response to him, but I've posted similar things in the past:

By and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves. What's more, I find much of what was attributed to Him to be remarkably deep and quite profound. As such, by and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be "true".

I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they can merely echo His words. At worst, they deviate from His words and at times substantially so.

I certainly don't share that view of many of the beliefs espoused by many Christians - many of which are antithetical to what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth.

No we haven't. Whatever gave you that idea ?

Our many past discussions.

That's not what has happened at all.

C'mon jaywill. It's how you approach scripture in general.

Originally posted by chaney3
5 words. Jesus said these words.

Most will say 'well, He really didn't mean it'. Yet, He said it.

When is it okay to take the words of Jesus literally? When we like it?

Then, when we don't like it, we struggle, at all means, to find an interpretation that suits us.

Jesus said these 5 words. He did not tell the woman to "go and commit no more adu ...[text shortened]... He said "go and sin no more".

Do Christians interpret the Bible to 'fit' their own opinions?

It's not that complicated chaney.

Everyone is a sinner. We were born that way. The command to "go and sin no more" implies a choice. It simply means that one should stop choosing to willfully do what one knows is wrong.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon jaywill. Most people seem to understand what I mean by "when Jesus walked the Earth". I think you do too. It's not like I've made some big secret of it.

Maybe this will help you better understand. c3 recently asked me "How do you know the Bible is true at all?"

The following was my response to him, but I've posted similar things in the past:
...[text shortened]... not what has happened at all.

C'mon jaywill. It's how you approach scripture in general.[/b]

C'mon jaywill. Most people seem to understand what I mean by "when Jesus walked the Earth". I think you do too. It's not like I've made some big secret of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus physically walked the earth after His resurrection for some 40 or so days.

Maybe this will help you better understand. c3 recently asked me "How do you know the Bible is true at all?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's nice what c3 recently asked you. But I am not really concerned about what c3 recently asked you. I care that the New Testament which you seem to claim to believe (though selectively) says Jesus physically walked the earth after His resurrection.

If your argument is that the default position should be that that is not true, I reject that.


The following was my response to him, but I've posted similar things in the past:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did say that concerning this OTHER discussion you had with some c3 is not really much more than perhaps a red herring.

Don't try to pull me into that other argument.


By and large,
---------------------

How much "By" and how much "and large" are ambiguous.

I believe that account of Christ physically remaining on the earth after His resurrection for some 40 days is believable and reliable. If you argue (with c3 or someone else) that the only normal and default position should be to doubt this, I reject that notion.


I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon, I think it would be difficult for me to demonstrate the you probably do NOT think "reasonably sound" ALL of the words before His death and resurrection.

The posturing is nice. But I doubt that you could stand too long beside that posturing.
You have not only words of Jesus to account for before His ascension but also DEEDS.

The reason you have to adopt a position of "reasonable" words is probably because of unbelief in miraculous deeds accompanied by powerful words of Jesus.


What's more, I find much of what was attributed to Him to be remarkably deep and quite profound.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon. You really mean "profound and deep but lies. "
C'mon.


As such, by and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be "true".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words you do not believe He rose from the dead and walked the earth some more.

Well, you cannot believe this. But I have come to believe that He spoke reality when He had previously said;

"I am the resurrection and the life..."

The power of His person, the power of His words and the sheer power of His deeds which not other human being could do, are to me reasonable.

I do not concur with you that the more astounding portions of the record of the Gospels are the lies concocted and inserted into the account afterwards, notwithstanding what profundity or deepness you claim to salvage from such alleged lies.


I don't share that view of the mythology
------------------------------------------------------

The mythology is coming from you who claim that lies were told by the Gospel writers and inserted after the fact. That, I am sure, is the modernist mythology.

Do you believe that He said - 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" ? while He "walked the earth" before His death ?


and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon. You have selected what accommodates your skepticism and "wrapped around" those portions a rationale for rejecting the rest of their testimony.

Maybe that is better than nothing .... for a start. I think .... maybe.
I have to stop here.

Typo:

I meant to write -

C'mon, I think it would [NOT] [edited] be difficult for me to demonstrate that you probably do NOT think as [edited] "reasonably sound" ALL of the words before His death and resurrection.