By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[ElishaElijah]

This is what I find astounding when there are Christians who believe their interpretation is the ONLY way to read the Bible. The thing is they aren't doing the work themselves, they have adopted someone elses interpretation and meaning. No matter what the interpretation is there is plenty of room for questioning.

Probably because we actually read the Bible and know the Author. But all you’ve done so far is take someone else’s interpretation.
I asked YOU what those verses meant to you and you failed to answer.
Talking to you is like this: John baked a chocolate cake and 5 people had a piece of cake and it was delicious.
Do you think the 5’people liked the cake?
Your answer- John is mean and prove he exists and baked the cake, scholars say he changed the recipe.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah you haven’t answered the simple questions about your personal understanding about the Bible so leads me to believe you haven’t read it for yourself.

I answered your questions. You seem to have expected some other answer that didn;t agree with your beliefs. But you offered no rebuttal, so I take you concede.

Not superficial at all...

A child is born and it first needs milk. Responsibilities come after it grows up.

You asked about the moment, not about the lifestyle.

How on earth do these three sentences rebut my arguments that Christianity is superficial? You kind of proved my point.

Doesn’t change the message or the efficacy of the work of the Cross.

Again, you seem to unable to explain your claims. Is this the limit of your understanding of Christianity?

Probably because we actually read the Bible and know the Author.

This is not a factual claim. Reading is not an issue, it is about having the critical thinking skill to understand books like the Bible, and resisting indoctrination that influences poor assumptions.

But all you’ve done so far is take someone else’s interpretation.

I do defer to expert scholars and historians that allows me to understand what the Boble is in reality. You have adopted ideology that makes many false and unwarranted assumptions. You still fail to elaborate how your interpretation and beliefs are true and valid.

I asked YOU what those verses meant to you and you failed to answer.

They have no personal meaning. I explained what they can mean symbolically, as there is no literal meaning given the implausible and untrue elements.

 

[ElishaElijah]

They have no personal meaning. I explained what they can mean symbolically, as there is no literal meaning given the implausible and untrue elements.

No you didn’t explain anything. I will just accept you don’t understand the Bible and the message
Or what John 3 means.

 

[F1fan]

No you didn’t explain anything. I will just accept you don’t understand the Bible and the message
Or what John 3 means.

My posts are there for all to see. How many will believe you just didn't see them? It's easier for you to make excuses than admit you have no retort, yes? I have facts on my side, and you have God. As we can see facts beat God.

 

[ElishaElijah]

As a Christian I believe this is true and will happen as written:
”For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.“
‭‭I Thessalonians‬ ‭4‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[blü 2]

No you didn’t explain anything. I will just accept you don’t understand the Bible and the message
Or what John 3 means.

I see you don't dispute my post #1627 above.

As for John 3, I'd say the problem there is its failure to explain why belief in the Jewish God was insufficient, and why belief in Jesus was necessary at all, given that omnipotence is attributed to God. Yes, the Jesus of John is gnostic-flavored, and John's Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God (like Paul's but unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke), and in gnosticism God is far too pure a spirit to go near the material world, which is why it fell to Jesus as demiurge to create it, and thereafter to act as intermediary between that remote gnostic God and humans (who are material beings). John 17:20+ makes the point clearly. However it has no equivalent in Paul or the synoptics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

While I realize this is classified as a debate forum, and -- I haven't read all of the responses, I have not seen much from those who say they are Christian to delineate which parts of the Bible they DO believe...as real and true -- and not myth.

Really. I've seen tons. Perhaps you should look around more.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I see you don't dispute my post #1627 above.

As for John 3, I'd say the problem there is its failure to explain why belief in the Jewish God was insufficient, and why belief in Jesus was necessary at all, given that omnipotence is attributed to God. Yes, the Jesus of John is gnostic-flavored, and John's Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God (like Paul's but unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke), and in gnosticism God is far too pure a spirit to go near the material world, which is why it fell to Jesus as demiurge to create it, and thereafter to act as intermediary between that remote gnostic God and humans (who are material beings). John 17:20+ makes the point clearly. However it has no equivalent in Paul or the synoptics.

Nothing you say makes any sense when you try to explain what the Bible means. I wasn’t asking any of this but when you read it what does it say?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No… that isn’t “testing”. I thought we changed subjects.

I'm not sure why you would think that given it was the crux of our little bit of discussion.

I just go on faith about some things and recognize that other stories are probably more about the moral and theological aspects of our belief and don't require that they be established as fact. Often, given the case, they cannot be.

Yes… different subject.



I have no fear. I’m just not convinced it didn’t happen. - Different subject

I understand. I still maintain it makes no difference in the long run. It isn't a requirement of salvation.

 

[Kenny]

In your opinion, of course.

Of course, according to my signature, I understand it to be truth and not opinion

 

[Kenny]

How on earth do these three sentences rebut my arguments that Christianity is superficial? You kind of proved my point.

That can only be in your mind’s interpretation. You really haven’t given any substantive points of “superficiality”.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not sure why you would think that given it was the crux of our little bit of discussion.

Only because establishing whether the flood happened or not doesn’t fit my thought of “testing”. It may just be my interpretation.

I just go on faith about some things and recognize that other stories are probably more about the moral and theological aspects of our belief and don't require that they be established as fact. Often, given the case, they cannot be.

ok..

I understand. I still maintain it makes no difference in the long run. It isn't a requirement of salvation.

That may be true. I don’t see where scripture says “You must believe the history in the TaNaKh to be saved”.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course, according to my signature, I understand it to be truth and not opinion

Hi, Kenny. Here's how I see certain things. As I have often stated, I did not always believe there is a God. I did not know Him, of course. A radio preacher was preaching and took phone calls. I needed God but didn't know how to reach Him. Or who He was or how to live. So I asked him how can I believe in God? He replied that I need faith. And I said but I don't believe in God. So he said, and I will never forget his words... "Faith is a gift of the spirit. Only God can give you this gift." So I thought, I'm not getting anywhere with this preacher.
But!! After that call I remember praying for the first time in years..."oh God, if you're there give me this gift of faith." And...He did.

 

[F1fan]

That can only be in your mind’s interpretation. You really haven’t given any substantive points of “superficiality”.

I gave my explanation in post 1610. I didn't see you post any rebuttal.

 

[Kenny]

Hi, Kenny. Here's how I see certain things. As I have often stated, I did not always believe there is a God. I did not know Him, of course. A radio preacher was preaching and took phone calls. I needed God but didn't know how to reach Him. Or who He was or how to live. So I asked him how can I believe in God? He replied that I need faith. And I said but I don't believe in God. So he said, and I will never forget his words... "Faith is a gift of the spirit. Only God can give you this gift." So I thought, I'm not getting anywhere with this preacher.
But!! After that call I remember praying for the first time in years..."oh God, if you're there give me this gift of faith." And...He did.

WOW! That is amazing!

 

[Kenny]

I gave my explanation in post 1610. I didn't see you post any rebuttal.

Ok.. I just reread it and realized that I answered the only point that needed answering. Addressing the rest which was a rant was an effort in futility… nothing there to address. There was opinions but nothing that had facts.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Of course, according to my signature, I understand it to be truth and not opinion

I chose not to view the signatures, so I am unable to see yours. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks your religious beliefs are nothing more than an opinion. And because this is a Christian-oriented thread, I'd like to say that, as a non-Christian RFer, I appreciate the prohibition on preaching and proselytizing religious beliefs as well as prohibiting members from stating their beliefs as definitive facts.

 

[Kenny]

I chose not to view the signatures, so I am unable to see yours. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks your religious beliefs are nothing more than an opinion. And because this is a Christian-oriented thread, I'd like to say that, as a non-Christian RFer, I appreciate the prohibition on preaching and proselytizing religious beliefs as well as prohibiting members from stating their beliefs as definitive facts.

Then maybe I can restate my signature:

Of course, I speak through the eyes of one who holds a worldview of the Christian faith; I'm sure that other religions have different viewpoints.

 

[YoursTrue]

WOW! That is amazing!

Part of the "evidence" is that my entire life changed. I believe for the better. I am not perfect, however, and still ask for forgiveness of my sins. But I do my best to avoid actions that would be considered sins. Just to let you know. Yes, my entire life changed. I appreciate your posts. Certainly not comparing myself with Paul, but his life changed also once Christ met him. I appreciate him also.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is what I find astounding when there are Christians who believe their interpretation is the ONLY way to read the Bible. The thing is they aren't doing the work themselves, they have adopted someone elses interpretation and meaning. No matter what the interpretation is there is plenty of room for questioning.

Yes, it is ironic, isn't it? I find it even more ironic that they all claim to have "spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit," despite having completely diverse biblical interpretations that contradict one another and adhering to church doctrines that contradict each other. I don't see any reason to believe them.