The Inquisition Redux

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Have you ever studied with the Mormons? There are some who fully agree with what you are saying and have claimed as you do to be sinless. Are you Mormon?
I dont have a clue what Mormons beleive and really do not care.

God is my way and as stated He takes away the sins of this world.

If a Mormon wrote 1 John 3 where He takes away the sins of this world and when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him which does not include sin, and in Verse 9 if you are born of God it is impossible to be in sin, and they wrote for me to be perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect, and if they wrote John 17 where He in me and I inhim are one as jesus was one in Him, and they wrote to have the same mind who was in Christ Jesus. Then I suppose that you could say I have studied with them.

To be sinless is not a claim but the reality of God manifest to be His righteouss and walk as He walks in it.

If one is a sinner read 1 John 3:8, it is clear who you follow.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Eternal death?
Another oxymoron

Godless sinners? There sure are many. I used to be godless, and would have died in my sin.
Now I am redeemed. Not made perfect yet, that would happen at the resurrection.
If you are not perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as He deamnds of us if we are to have Him as our God, then you never have had a real God at all.

The real truth is in Luke 17:20-21, the kingdom of God doesnt come with observation, it is withn you, resurrected into His image.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
If you are not perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as He deamnds of us if we are to have Him as our God, then you never have had a real God at all.

The real truth is in Luke 17:20-21, the kingdom of God doesnt come with observation, it is withn you, resurrected into His image.
What do you suppose makes you perfect in the sight of God?

Your filthy deeds that you deem good have zero,zilch implication on your salvation.
As you have a false Christ, carry on thinking that you make yourself perfect and holy.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
I dont have a clue what Mormons beleive and really do not care.

God is my way and as stated He takes away the sins of this world.

If a Mormon wrote 1 John 3 where He takes away the sins of this world and when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him which does not include sin, and in Verse 9 if you are born of God it is impossible to be in sin, and they wrote for me to be perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect, and if they wrote John 17 where He in me and I inhim are one as jesus was one in Him, and they wrote to have the same mind who was in Christ Jesus. Then I suppose that you could say I have studied with them.

To be sinless is not a claim but the reality of God manifest to be His righteouss and walk as He walks in it.

If one is a sinner read 1 John 3:8, it is clear who you follow.
Ok have a good day 😊
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Eternal death?
Another oxymoron

Godless sinners? There sure are many. I used to be godless, and would have died in my sin.
Now I am redeemed. Not made perfect yet, that would happen at the resurrection.

Why so angry if you are the one choosing to reject it. Why blame Christians for your choices?

They fooled me.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
What do you suppose makes you perfect in the sight of God?

Your filthy deeds that you deem good have zero,zilch implication on your salvation.
As you have a false Christ, carry on thinking that you make yourself perfect and holy.

so much for sanctification? :rolleyes:
 
So you kept typing after ^^^ for what reason? :unsure:


Like I said, you no longer affiliate with the religious tradition so the category of heresy (not one I use) doesn't even apply... the correct category would be apostasy.


No, see above.


Could you please link to where a Christian apologist on this forum has said to you: "I hate you!!!" or something closely resembling that. In the absence of doing so, your blatant mischaracterization of exchanges here will be duly noted.


Go back and read what I said... my comment was contextually referring to your opening post (ie. "You started this thread with..."), which was limited to one claim and a question, rhetoric which was, as I said, inflammatory. Your evidence of "violent and cruel acts of many Christian sects" unfolded in subsequent posts... indeed, I even cited some of this so where did I omit anything in the overall context of my response and criticism of your position? Answer: Nowhere.


This a string of baseless accusations proceeding from the above, which I've already demonstrated to be a false claim.


Victimizer? I doubt any Christian here has been or feels victimized by these pathetic attacks of yours... I did refer to you, on the basis of your thread opener, as the aggressor (ie. the one who attacks first) and I stand by that. Please spare me the altruistic motivations for your attacks on Christianity... there are any number of people here, myself included, who have been victimized by individual Christians, yet none of us asked for nor need your vitriolic anti-religious 'championing' for those of us who find much redeemable about the tradition despite the pain some of its proponents have caused us and others.


This time you don't even bother to spell out what I allegedly held back... how more baseless can you possibly get in your rhetoric?


I've invited you above to link to any such claims... I'll be waiting.


No, what I find absurd is for people such as yourself to suggest that's all there is about Christianity.


Your posts tell a different story.


As I've already pointed out, Christianity has no agency... this isn't a difficult concept.


Of course you did... holding Carrier's book in the other hand doesn't make you any more qualified.


I never claimed you said it, I explicitly referred to it as an implication... and of course it was --- are you seriously suggesting you brought up the fact you have a brain and use it as an inconsequential point to your rhetoric?


If you did, you'd be acknowledging both the bad and good associated with Christianity. As it stands, you are interested only in a particular pejorative narrative about the tradition...


There is an obvious distinction but interrelatedness between the terms... one which you continue to muddle up in your posts, not me.


Oh, so you did notice I acknowledged some of the violent behaviors of Christians... so much for your claim above that I omitted this and was telling half truths. Do you know what projection is?


Has anyone suggested otherwise? :unsure:


'Christian' and 'Christianity' are not the same word... nor does your mock argument reflect what's transpired in this thread. Your evidence for the evils of Christianity were to detail evil things that Christians have done... I documented this with three of your own quotes, which cannot be denied. You then acknowledged that Christians have done many good things... again, that you wrote this is undeniable fact. Using your own argumentative strategy, however, this is thus evidence for the good of Christianity. You cannot label this a fallaciously-drawn conclusion without indicting your prior argument of the same. Consistent with the fanatical hatred of Christianity that undergirds your posts, however, you're trying to wiggle out of this any way you can... good luck with that. The more you try to do this, the more you expose just how irrational your position is...


Here you miss entirely what I mean by a "narrative about Christianity" --- understandable, I suppose, since you cannot be expected to dialogue as academics do. 'Narrative' in this context is a concise statement that encapsulates the essence of the subject under discussion... in this case, Christianity. Your narrative boils down to "Christianity is evil" --- this hardly captures the essence of Christianity since it ignores copious counter-evidence.


Well, you walked right into this one: "Seeing evil in individual Christians is not necessarily seeing evil in Christianity. Are you that desperate that you need to go to such lengths?" :p


Great... now that we've got that out of the way, perhaps you can finally answer my question. Here it is again: "What exactly is your objection to the idea of a deity with a sense of justice and righteous anger?"

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I think I'll move on from this debate. I'm tired of all the mopping up I need to do.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
LOL! Or is it just that Jonathan is right and you can't provide evidence of your beliefs so you are finding a way out that doesn't include admitting he is right?

lol .....

It's not like Jonathan is saying he is right.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
What do you suppose makes you perfect in the sight of God?
It isnt a supposition at all it is by identification with Him as Jesus was identified with Him. God manifest Himself in us. See Matt 3:16 this is how He does in man and always has.
Your filthy deeds that you deem good have zero,zilch implication on your salvation.\
I understand that the way of God in salvation which is Love, Holy Love, is rilthy deeds for you And the same as your mentality had Jesus crucified for his filty deeds as a blasphemer as well.
As you have a false Christ, carry on thinking that you make yourself perfect and holy.
And as with Jesus he was a false Christ and a blasphemer to the same as your belief system. But in reality Jesus didnt make himself perfect no more than I do. Our perfection is to have the same SPirit of Love that our Giod is. It isnt self imposed as you are trying to make it, it is by receieveg from God Himself His same SPirit, His same mind, and walk in it as He walks in it.

You sure have a hatred for the God who comes to man and makes us in His image of Love. Why would you reject so great a salvation is a mystery?

Can you expound why His way is filthy deeds for you? Im curious how you come to the conclusion His way is evil?
 

El Cid

Member
Props for at least attempting a rebuttal... unfortunately there's little here that you haven't already claimed and that was refuted in my earlier post. If you've actually read Bergen, you appear to have misread her if you think her study on the Deutsche Christen refers to or can be extrapolated to the nation's Protestant population at large. As I've already documented, the laity was predominantly conservative in their religious views... your claims about the German populace are out of step with those made by historians and your proposed reconstruction therefore faulty.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
What in your earlier post refuted me? I have read Bergen. According to Bergen the German Christian movement made up at least 600,000 people and many of their leaders took over leadership positions of the mainline Evangelical German Church. What is your evidence that the majority of Lutherans in Germany believed in the infallible authority of the Bible in the 1930s and 1940's? Most ministers and theologians in the seminaries had abandoned the infallible authority of the Bible and were strongly influencing the laity, especially the college educated laity. I may concede just by pure numbers maybe the majority of the laity still held to that view but the college educated laity did not and they were the ones that could have stopped the Nazis but didn't for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Besides the Christian belief that the ultimate author of the BIble is a singular Author thereby naturally producing a unified story, this little article explains some aspects of its unity: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2151
I'll post my responses to the four sections I outlined previously individually beginning tomorrow, then circle back to engage with any replies...
The second section of Butt's article I'll respond to concerns "The Lord's Supper" --- he claims these instructions "provide {a} clear instance of New Testament unity". He introduces the matter by asserting that, "{n}ear the end of all four gospel accounts, Jesus and the 12 apostles gathered in an upper room to eat the Passover". This claim is erroneous --- while Matthew, Mark and Luke identify the meal shared as being the Passover, John does not. Indeed, it is critical to John's chronology that this meal not be the Passover --- Jesus is the lamb who takes away the world's sin in John (1:29) and the author therefore has his death on the cross coincide with the slaughter of the Passover lambs, that is, it takes place on the day of preparation for the Passover (19:14) --- those who hand Jesus over to Pilate do not enter the Praetorium so they will be ritually clean for eating the Passover later that day (18:28). The Passover cannot both be the night before and later that day... the chronologies of John and the so-called Synoptic tradition here conflict and are mutually exclusive. Right out of the gate Butt glosses over this significant chronological problem... predictably John has no instructions for the institution of "The Lord's Supper".

Introducing the Pauline version of the instructions, Butt errs in claiming that the man, on the eve of Jesus' crucifixion, was still called Saul and thus infers his name was sometime later (at his conversion?) changed to Paul... there is no evidence of this in the New Testament --- he is called Saul in Luke's narrative of the early church in Acts up until chapter 13 where the author suddenly and casually notes in verse 9 he was also known as Paul and thereafter refers to him by this name exclusively. There is no name change narrated as is commonly but erroneously supposed... Butt has carelessly passed on this misinformation to his readers. Despite having referred to all four gospels, Butt cites only Luke's version to compare with that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11... yet surely any case to be made for "New Testament unity" would have to factor in the versions found in Matthew and Mark, as well --- Butt omits any specific reference. I won't claim to know his motivations, but it sure is convenient since their versions differ at a number of points from those in Luke and Paul, whose strongest similarities may well owe to scribal harmonization (more on that in a moment). Butt emphasizes Paul's absence from the upper room and the revelatory origin of his version, but Luke wasn't there either so where did his version come from? One obvious answer might be Paul -- either directly from him according to the tradition that the author of the gospel "according to Luke" was a travelling companion or by reading his letters at some remove (which is my position generally) -- but Butt glosses over this possible point of contact as an explanation for the similarities, uncritically assuming the Lukan version is independent and more or less reflects what Jesus must have said that night.

Butt further overlooks the significant text-critical problem in Luke's version of the instructions. There are six different forms of the text, only two of which are serious contenders for the earliest-recoverable form, the so-called shorter and longer readings:

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, but see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table." (Luke 22:19a, 21)

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table." (Luke 22:19-21)

Both readings have their champions among contemporary biblical scholars --- Bradly Billings argues for the longer reading and suggests the underlined text above was omitted during the second century amidst a particular conflict with pagans who accused Christians of cannibalistic practices during their ritual meal; Bart Ehrman argues for the shorter reading that was expanded based on the wordings of the institutional tradition elsewhere, primarily that of Paul and, to a lesser degree, those of Matthew and Mark (231-45). Which scenario one subscribes to (I favor the shorter reading) is less pertinent for present purposes than the fact there is a text-critical conundrum here that Butt evades entirely even though it bears directly on the matter of unity.

Casting the net farther, there is the problem of the order bread-cup in Matthew, Mark and Paul or the order cup-bread-cup in longer Luke or cup-bread in shorter Luke... Jesus' claim that he will not drink of the fruit of the vine until a certain time, absent entirely in the Pauline version, is connected to the (only) post-bread cup in Matthew and Mark, but to the only (shorter) or pre-bread (longer) cup in Luke --- it can't be both. Perhaps the difference isn't all that significant in the grand scheme of things, but the tension is there nonetheless, again bears directly on the question of unity and is conveniently not addressed by Butt. This pattern of glossing over significant obstacles to genuine unity of the biblical texts is evident both here on a number of points and in your source's treatment of the flood narrative explored yesterday...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Billings, Bradly S. "The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22:19b-20): A Sociological Answer to a Textual Problem." Journal of Biblical Literature 125.3 (2006) 507-26.
Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Updated and with a New Afterword. Oxford University Press, 2011.
 
Last edited:

El Cid

Member
As promised, I'll start with your source's section on "Noah's Flood". Like Butt, the veracity of the account is not the purpose of my engagement so I will simply say we (Butt and I) disagree on that matter and move on. The evidence he cites in support of his claim that the narrative "provides an excellent example of the Bible's unity" is underwhelming... is it really all that astonishing that the Chronicler can name Noah's three sons or that the author of 1 Peter correctly counts a man, his three sons and all their wives to be eight souls? Clearly not. The significant problem with the section is Butt's failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room... that is, the flood narrative itself is one of the crown jewels for source critics in building the case for the composite nature of the Pentateuch:

The arguments which have led most scholars to postulate a combination of sources are fairly straightforward and have never been refuted. There are inconsistencies with respect to what was brought into the ark, the chronology, and perhaps also the manner in which the deluge was brought about. (Blenkinsopp 77)
It sounds like you still believe in the old seriously flawed Documentary Hypothesis theory. There are no inconsistencies in the flood story.

Butt repeatedly refers to Moses as the author of the flood story, but the splicing together of once independent accounts or the addition of supplements to a core story (the latter is my view, on which see Blenkinsopp 78) problematizes singular authorship of Genesis 6-9 specifically and the Pentateuch generally. With respect to Mosaic authorship, a trio of conservative evangelical scholars even admits on the basis of the evidence:

the presence of so-called postmosaica is clear evidence that the text either was updated at one or more points in the history of the transmission or, perhaps, that the essential authorship of the Pentateuch reflects a later time. (Provan et al 112)

Indeed, the linguistic evidence for either a revision or composition much later than the purported Mosaic era is indisputable. Aside from some of its poetry (Gen 49; Exod 15; Deut 33), the Hebrew of the Pentateuch reflects the form of the language datable through epigraphic evidence to the kingdom period (Hackett 140-42). The presence of the archaic poetry argues against the revision hypothesis (which would beg the question of selective revision) and strongly in favor of kingdom-period composition. Returning to the flood narrative in the context of the primeval history, there are similarities between the overarching story and the Akkadian myth of Atrahasis (Blenkinsopp 57; Sparks 313-14), which fits composition in the late kingdom period (not before) when there were cultural contacts with the Mesopotamian powers exerting their dominance over the Levant.

So when Butt champions a Moses-authored flood narrative as the basis for an example of how unified the biblical text is, I cannot help but cringe because it glosses over so many other significant obstacles to the idea of a unified Bible in order to make an otherwise weak and superficial point. There are far more serious problems conservative apologists need to be tackling if they are to have any hope of convincing their liberal critics that their position is tenable...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I am not denying that there has been some minor editing since Moses wrote the Pentateuch but none of it significantly changes any Biblical teaching or doctrine nor does it eliminate the internal evidence that Moses probably wrote the Pentateuch. Many things it references could not have been known by someone in the kingdom period. The myth of Atrahasis is totally different from the story of Noah and the flood other than they both involve a flood. The myth deals with being punished for overpopulation, for Noah and his family it was the opposite problem, the earth needed to be repopulated among other things. This is just one absurdity that in no way resembles the Biblical flood story. Again it sounds like you endorse the weak Documentary Hypothesis. It has some rather serious problems that have never been resolved.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
so much for sanctification? :rolleyes:
You require the imputation of His righteousness before He will lead you on a journey of sanctification.

Some posters here think they make themselves perfect by ceasing to sin and being self made holy.
You were probably fooled by some such.
 
Top