How to tell a Christian is for real

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are looking at translations of the Word of God are we not, you
don't think it is possible mistakes were made? I do know that some
believe some versions are without error, but I don't believe that can
be backed up looking at all the text. Which is why I like to study
several versions looking into as many transslations I can get along
with study aids too.
Kelly

Amazing how much effort humans have to go through in order to know what it is we are supposed to do and believe according to God. You'd think he'd be able to communicate more clearly.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Amazing how much effort humans have to go through in order to know what it is we are supposed to do and believe according to God. You'd think he'd be able to communicate more clearly.

Which is why as Jesus points out on judgment to the dismay of some,
"...depart from me I never knew you..." It is a relationship, which is
also why I asked a couple of posters here who said they use to be
Christians what is was they walked away from.
Kelly

Originally posted by orfeo
I have never understood the passage we are discussing as being some kind of 'checklist', the way that ATY is suggesting. It's completely contrary to the New Testament as a whole to say that there are signs that you MUST have in order to be a true Christian. We are not saved by what we do.

I agree with you, they also temps God in some cases which is
forbidden to do. They can happen but not as a test to see if you are
right with God or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't think you're correct. It doesn't say "these signs might follow" or "these signs will sometimes follow" but that "these signs shall follow". Those that believe will do the following things. That is what it says.

[b]"...if [they that believe] drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

If these signs shall accompany those who believe; and you for instance believe; then these signs shall accompany you. Right?[/b]

No sir, I'm afraid your strict interpretation is incorrect.

There are five characteristic signs listed in the passage:


17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will [b[1[/b] drive out demons; they will 2 speak in new tongues; 18]they will 3 pick up snakes with their hands; and when they 4 drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will 5 place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

It simply doesn't make sense to consider these five signs as absolute indicators of a conversion. That would mean that every time in the history of the world since the time of Christ that each new believer would at some time have to find a snake and hold it, to say the least. What of the poor eskimos? One of the great things my wife appreciated about the nine years we lived in Alaska was that there are no snakes there!

No. These signs, I'm sure, are given as a way to distinguish believers from other groups. It only makes sense this way. I think that in order to rightly critisize the text you should try to read it as it was meant first; then, if you find a question or a problem, critisize that. But to ignore the most sensible reading is unfair to yourself and others.
I would add that even as indicative signs, they must be taken in the right spirit. That is to say that those strange churches that bring snakes into the building and dance around holding them are merely trying to imitate a 'form of religion'. As far as judging who is and is not a true believer, God is the judge, and He 'looks at the heart'.

Originally posted by chinking58
No sir, I'm afraid your strict interpretation is incorrect.

There are five characteristic signs listed in the passage:


17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will [b[1 drive out demons; they will 2 speak in new tongues; 18]they will 3 pick up snakes with their hands; and when they 4 drink dead ...[text shortened]... judging who is and is not a true believer, God is the judge, and He 'looks at the heart'.

[/b]

Well, I suppose it depends on what the Bible is to you as a self proclaimed Christian.

First of all, some people do not accept that Mark 16:9+ is "scripture" because of reasons such as those Langtree talked about. But you seem to accept that they are.

Some people can accept that not all of the Bible is literally true. I am not speaking to those people and I don't think you are one of them.

Also, when I read the entirety of Mark 16, I saw that it was worded very unclearly. Jesus commands the Eleven to go out into the world and preach. Then he says "those who believe..." Now it's possible he meant only those who believe at that time due to the direct preaching of the Eleven will do these things. I won't argue for or against that point except that to say Jesus does not say "those whom you meet and who believe". If I were listening to Jesus myself, I would understand his meaning, though I would also know he used poor English in order to save time and what he said was not exactly what he meant.

Your argument is

It simply doesn't make sense to consider these five signs as absolute indicators of a conversion. That would mean that every time in the history of the world since the time of Christ that each new believer would at some time have to find a snake and hold it, to say the least. What of the poor eskimos?

You're allowing that one might not believe what it written in the Bible because it doesn't make sense to you. This is basically the same reason I am an atheist. I have no problem with that perspective; you seem to be one of those who can read the Bible and accept that not all the things it says are necessarily factually true.
However, if we assume that these signs are intended the way they seem to be actually written in English, they actually say that those who believe will do certain things. That's what it says. Do you disagree that this is what the words actually say?

You also talk about how the Bible was "meant". I'd like to ask how you know what Jesus "meant"? How do you know Jesus even said those things? It could have been a fake, meant for deceit. All you have is the Bible itself, and possibly other ancient texts if you are into such research.

As far as judging who is and is not a true believer, God is the judge, and He 'looks at the heart'.

Umm...the Bible gave very clear indications about who is a believer and who is not. I guess you disagree with the Bible.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, I suppose it depends on what the Bible is to you as a self proclaimed Christian.

First of all, some people do not accept that Mark 16:9+ is "scripture" because of reasons such as those Langtree talked about. But you seem to accept that they are.

Some people can accept that not all of the Bible is literally true. I am not speaking to th ...[text shortened]... clear indications about who is a believer and who is not. I guess you disagree with the Bible.

Yes, I do have the answer to your question, but first I'd like to ask a few of my own. What is your purpose here? Meaning are you looking for understanding and objectivity? Would you consider becoming a Christian? Are you looking for someone who can defend the faith? To me it seems like you can't find reason to believe in God. So is that what you are looking for, since we know that there is no way to eliminate believing in God as a logical possiblity by proving something wrong. So I'm saying that it seems your purpose is to get some certainty as to which is the right choice rather than to be without grounds to make a thoughtfull decision considering the important factors. This can be considered a healthy perspective. Many here do not consider certain possiblities; for example, some are so opposed to the idea of God that they assume God cannot exist and since they can't prove it they feel it is because of a deficit of understanding on their part and if someone proves He does they will assume that somehow their logic was flawed.

As for the answer, it is rather obvious. Satan can easily distort things in (anyone's) mind to blind them from the truth. I suggest you take a carefull look and if you can't figure it out (nothing wrong with that, but it is good to take a look at it) I'd be happy to give the solution.

Love,

u would risk someone's life in order to see if yur plan really works? just because u read somethin from da bible?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, I suppose it depends on what the Bible is to you as a self proclaimed Christian.

First of all, some people do not accept that Mark 16:9+ is "scripture" because of reasons such as those Langtree talked about. But you seem to accept that they are.

Some people can accept that not all of the Bible is literally true. I am not speaking to th ...[text shortened]... clear indications about who is a believer and who is not. I guess you disagree with the Bible.

I believe that the Bible represents what God wanted to tell us about. There are direct revelations of who He is (God is Love 1John 4); many stories of how various people lived, both good and bad; and other information that God thought we should know, or know about.

I can't speak to the worthiness of Mark 16:9+ . I was simply entering into the debate about what it seems to mean, whether it is inspired or not.

'Literally true', amazingly, means different things to different people. When Jesus said one is better of to pluck out his eye than to let it lead you into sin, I think He was using hyperbole, a perfectly acceptable use of speech. But He certainly did mean what He meant (if you know what I mean)! For those who don't, I think He was indicating the extremely serious nature of sin we engage in sometimes rather casually.

But in our passage, we haven't gotten to the point of agreeing on what was meant by what was said. That is all. And we can surely disagree agreeably I hope. If we can't agree really, on what was said, then we shouldn't go on to draw conclusions about whether the Bible is or isn't real etcetera!

I would love to be able to go back and hear Jesus first hand! But only if I first learned Aramaic of course! And it would help to live in the culture for a while to become familiar with His various agricultural allusions and contemporary frame of mind. I don't believe, however, that Jesus ever let time factors constrain clear communication. And I don't think He ever said anything He didn't mean to say! In school we debated what Robert Frost 'meant' because sometimes there was room to wonder, but even he (probably) meant what he said. The big difference is that the conclusions we draw about what Jesus meant, really matter. There must be only one true solution to what He meant, so we must be diligent to gain the closest approximation we can.


As far as your second point:

You're allowing that one might not believe what it written in the Bible because it doesn't make sense to you. This is basically the same reason I am an atheist.

No, I am not 'allowing' myself not to believe what is written in the Bible. But I am allowing myself to search through confusing sections to gain the best understanding possible. And I am rationally supposing that, since God is the author of intelligence, logic and sensibility (by definition), all of what He has to say would be consistent. All of the pieces would fit into the same puzzle; each part holding its place to make a coherent whole.

And I allow myself to not understand something, for as long as it takes, until I do find a solution that shows consistency and fits into the TRUTH puzzle appropriately.


Furthermore, you said:
However, if we assume that these signs are intended the way they seem to be actually written in English, they actually say that those who believe will do certain things.

See how you had to rephrase the sentence to indicate your interpretion? Perfectly natural. We do that every day to our own sentences when one phraseology doesn't quite get our message accross (how do you spell across?). You and I are simply trying to rephrase for Mark, 'cause he's not here to speak for himself. I think I'm using contextual consistency as a guide to my rephrasing, and you (or your skeptic annotator friends) are using a shoehorn. They want to produce evidence for doubting, and so are abusing the text. You don't have to fall for that.


Finally, we both said:
As far as judging who is and is not a true believer, God is the judge, and He 'looks at the heart'.

Umm...the Bible gave very clear indications about who is a believer and who is not. I guess you disagree with the Bible.[/b]

No, I don't disagree with the Bible. Yes, the Bible does say that we can judge by the fruit one produces. Sometimes, it's rather obvious: Billy Graham is a faithful believer, Jimmy Baker was not (but now seems to be!) Tammy Fae? probably not. I am allowed to make certain judgements so I can be a good steward of my money and my support. But in the end, only God will judge with the finality and authority necessary to separate the 'sheep from the goats'. He is not hampered with any 'seems to be's or 'probably's.

Originally posted by bobbob1056th
Yes, I do have the answer to your question, but first I'd like to ask a few of my own. What is your purpose here? Meaning are you looking for understanding and objectivity? Would you consider becoming a Christian? Are you looking for someone who can defend the faith? To me it seems like you can't find reason to believe in God. So is that what you are ...[text shortened]... ong with that, but it is good to take a look at it) I'd be happy to give the solution.

Love,

I have several purposes here.

One of them is understanding and objectivity, yes. I am open to being convinced that my criticism is not valid. Would I consider becoming a Christian? Not at this time, though I understand that I may change my mind. I am willing to listen to Christians' perspectives openly.

However, my primary purpose is to make Bible-literalist Christians aware of why their faith is unreasonable and why they should not believe it. The reason I do this is that I do not like the excessive political influence Christians have and the way they use it.

If Satan can distort things in peoples' minds so they are blind to the truth, then it's not people exercising free will and refusing to believe, is it? It's Satan controlling their choices, right?

'Literally true', amazingly, means different things to different people. When Jesus said one is better of to pluck out his eye than to let it lead you into sin, I think He was using hyperbole, a perfectly acceptable use of speech. But He certainly did mean what He meant (if you know what I mean)! For those who don't, I think He was indicating the extremely serious nature of sin we engage in ...[text shortened]... te the 'sheep from the goats'. He is not hampered with any 'seems to be's or 'probably's.[/b]

since God is the author of intelligence, logic and sensibility (by definition)

Really? What is the definition of 'God'?

See how you had to rephrase the sentence to indicate your interpretion?

No. Can you clarify?

You and I are simply trying to rephrase for Mark

No, I am not. Mark said that Jesus said certain things. What Jesus supposedly said is not consistent with the idea that believers exist in the world today.

Sometimes, it's rather obvious: Billy Graham is a faithful believer

That's not obvious to me. Does he cast out devils, speak with new tongues, cure by laying on hands, etc? Is he immune to poison?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]since God is the author of intelligence, logic and sensibility (by definition)

Really? What is the definition of 'God'?

See how you had to rephrase the sentence to indicate your interpretion?

No. Can you clarify?

You and I are simply trying to rephrase for Mark

No, I am not. Mark said that Jesus said certain thi ...[text shortened]... st out devils, speak with new tongues, cure by laying on hands, etc? Is he immune to poison?

[/b]

I think it's reasonable to define God, in the simplest form, as good.
Therefore, all things considered good, in an absolute sense, are from God. Food is good in an absolute sense, pizza with anchovies and pineapple is good (so I hear), but only in a subjective sense. Intelligence is good, using it to devise an effective torture chamber is not.

About your rephrasing:
The text in Mark 16 says this;

17And these signs will accompany those who believe

and you quite innocently rephrased it to read like this;

they actually say that those who believe will do certain things.

I understand that this reflects your understanding of the verse, but that does not make it so. To prove your interpretation, you must demonstrate how the original text could mean nothing else, whereas all I have to do is demonstrate what else it could (and probably does) mean. I tried to do that with my white coat example. let me try another: 'Glasses will accompany those who see clearly.' It is something you might say to a third world tribesmen who has never been to town before, and is wondering why so many people have metal thingys hanging on their faces. True enough? If you are wearing glasses, it follows that unless they are scratched up like mine, or out of date, you probably do see clearly.

However, other people who are not wearing glasses might also be seeing clearly; they are either wearing contacts or have naturally good vision.

Yes, I still contend that we have different understandings of what Jesus said. If you would deny that there are any believers in existence today, rather than allow that your understanding of Mark 16 might be off a little bit....then I don't know what to say. I wouldn't want to paint myself into such a tight corner.

I don't know if Billy G would be immune to the poison test that you would apply, but he does pass the good fruit test that is more prudently given to us to use on each other. (By the way, I don't think Jesus ever even handled a snake or drank poison. Was He a believer?)

Have you ever heard of 'Mere Christianity', by CS Lewis? It's a great book that helped me clarify my understanding of the faith. CS, you might know, is the former atheist who came to believe later in life and then wrote many books, including the Narnia series.

Originally posted by chinking58
I think it's reasonable to define God, in the simplest form, as good.
Therefore, all things considered good, in an absolute sense, are from God. Food is good in an absolute sense, pizza with anchovies and pineapple is good (so I hear), but only in a subjective sense. Intelligence is good, using it to devise an effective torture chamber is not.

Abou ...[text shortened]... st who came to believe later in life and then wrote many books, including the Narnia series.

I think it's reasonable to define God, in the simplest form, as good.

You can define words any way you want. However defining God as good means that either the commonly understood meaning of God or the commonly understood meaning of good are being ignored. God is typically defined as a conscious being with intelligence and personality and certain capabilities, etc. Good is typically defined in terms of how people feel about certain things like murder, torture, etc. Non Christians use the term good all the time, and many polytheists might argue that some gods are not good.

Are you arguing that Mark does not say that they that believe will not be hurt if they drink any deadly thing? Aren't some poisons deadly things when drunk? Doesn't this mean that believers should be able to drink poison and not be hurt?

Your glasses example:

I would not say 'glasses will accompany those who see clearly' to a third world tribesman. That is very unclear and deceiving. I'd explain that glasses allow some people who cannot see well to see better. God theoretically should be even better at communicating than I am.

If you would deny that there are any believers in existence today, rather than allow that your understanding of Mark 16 might be off a little bit....then I don't know what to say.

Neither. I deny that everything the Bible says Jesus said, as well as everything the Bible itself says, is literally true.

(By the way, I don't think Jesus ever even handled a snake or drank poison. Was He a believer?)

You seem to think only one of two things can be true; either all believers shall take up serpents etc; or I am misinterpreting the verse. You are not absorbing what I believe - that the passage is simply wrong if read literally.

No, I have never heard of Mere Christianity, though I was aware that Lewis did write influential books on Christianity. I loved the Narnia books when I was a kid.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I think it's reasonable to define God, in the simplest form, as good.

You can define words any way you want. However defining God as good means that either the commonly understood meaning of God or the commonly understood meaning of good are being ignored. God is typically defined as a conscious being with intelligence and personality and ...[text shortened]... t Lewis did write influential books on Christianity. I loved the Narnia books when I was a kid.[/b]

Yes, I believe God is conscious, intelligent and that He does have a personality (He is a person in fact; not a man understand, but a person). I tried to boil the term down to the relevant point in my last post.

Good, as I tried to point out with my pizza allusion, is often used in comparative terms. But beyond using it to characterize our conventions or tastes, I think there is also an intrinsic 'good' that can be codified amongst all people. This truism reflects, in my thinking, our being created in the image of God ('good'😉.

Of course non-christians use the term good all the time. In both ways. If I were selfish to you after you shared some pizza with me, anybody on the planet would probably say that I was bad (not good).
There is a universal, built in law, that we all struggle with. The ones who resist this law usually have a hard life and end up in trouble with society.

Polytheism must either have all good gods, which could for all intents and purposes be seen as one, or they have a mixed bag of good and bad gods, which still defines god as good; because there is no such thing as evil for its own sake--it can only exist as a distortion or perversion of good. A bad god then can only exist if it was created good by a good God, and went bad afterwards.

I am borrowing heavily from CS Lewis. I really recommend that book!

Yes, ATY, I am arguing that Mark says if you see these signs, then believers are about, and that's all.

The fact that 'you would say' something a certain way does not rule out the freedom or the possibility for someone else to say things differently.

I also believe that what the Bible says is literally true. Yet we are still constrained to translate and recognize linguistic expressions in a reasonable and responsible manner.

So, if your conclusion is that the passage is wrong if read literally, then you are putting its literal reading over its value as an authoritative revelation. Then you are saying you are convinced that it can only be heard, not listened to. It is exact, but not right.

Whereas I would say that if the passage seems to be wrong (not all so-called believers DO handle snakes etc.), then there must be something wrong in the translation, or in my unraveling of the grammar.

Yes, ATY, I am arguing that Mark says if you see these signs, then believers are about, and that's all.

The fact that 'you would say' something a certain way does not rule out the freedom or the possibility for someone else to say things differently.

I also believe that what the Bible says is literally true. Yet we are still constrained to translate and recognize linguistic expressions ...[text shortened]... tc.), then there must be something wrong in the translation, or in my unraveling of the grammar.[/b]

There is a universal, built in law, that we all struggle with.

I don't think this is true.

Polytheism must either have all good gods, which could for all intents and purposes be seen as one, or they have a mixed bag of good and bad gods, which still defines god as good; because there is no such thing as evil for its own sake--it can only exist as a distortion or perversion of good.

I disagree. Torture is evil. People get hurt. This is not a distortion or perversion of good.

Yes, ATY, I am arguing that Mark says if you see these signs, then believers are about, and that's all.

The statement in Mark does not say that if you see these signs, then believers are about; it says if believers are about, then you shall see these signs. "These signs shall follow them that believe" not "these signs are proof that believers are about". If believer, then sign shall follow. That's how the sentence is constructed. It's not "these signs shall sometimes follow".

The fact that 'you would say'...

You said earlier

It is something you might say to a third world tribesmen...

This is why I talked about what I would say. You seem to be implying it's irrelevant what I would say, but you brought up "what I might say".

This isn't going anywhere. I am not convinced by your argument. I feel you are interpreting, which as far as I am concerned is fine; I don't care what you do with the Bible. You acknowledge that maybe there's something wrong in the translation, which fits perfectly with my claim that the translation is wrong. Possibly I am mistaken in how I read the grammar, but you have not given me any kind of linguistic analysis which convinces me of this.

I won't keep going back and forth about this with you unless there's something new to be said.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]There is a universal, built in law, that we all struggle with.

I don't think this is true.

Polytheism must either have all good gods, which could for all intents and purposes be seen as one, or they have a mixed bag of good and bad gods, which still defines god as good; because there is no such thing as evil for its own sake--it can o ...[text shortened]... I won't keep going back and forth about this with you unless there's something new to be said.

Good enough buddy. I am gratified that we have disagreed agreeably!

I really think you'd like Mere Christianity, and I'd sure like to hear your comments.