|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Roger Pearse
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
 |
|
On 5 May, 23:39, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In message
6dd7b9f0-3b3e-4c6b-847f-a723c8229...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> writes
On 5 May, 22:04, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
[snip]
Any fool can vituperate. But this sort of low-rent atheist excuses
for drink and fornication went out with the ark.
Why would an atheist need an excuse (low rent or otherwise) for drinking
and fornication?
Bad conscience, I would guess. The excuses are real, tho. Why else
would anyone bother with atheism?
The obvious reason for anyone being an atheist is a lack of sufficient
reason to believe in any deity. Your ... (personal abuse snipped)
|
A very standard excuse, this! Unfortunately most atheists don't think
about it before parrotting it. We all know that 'lack of evidence' is
what *agnostics* claim (generally more or less sincerely). It could
hardly be a reason for atheism.
But the excuse is fraudulent anyway. Atheists don't produce evidence
for anything. We rarely see any atheists bother with evidence for
anything that they wish to believe. Hey, most can't even state the
religious position by which they live, never mind offer evidence for
it -- all they can do is repeat excuses.
So I'm afraid that all this reply has done here is demonstrate again
that atheism is intellectually bankrupt, or as found online. Note
that I'm not saying that YOU are an idiot; but that you've adopted a
position that is idiotic.
Whether Christianity is true or not (a whole separate question),
atheism of this sort must be wrong.
All the best,
Roger Pearse |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"RAM" <RAMathers38@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:273718a9-0bc7-4234-9d36-4878505be192@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 3, 5:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26511af-2fe2-4360-9dc6-044b6c63b062@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:00 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
81e6f84c-70aa-4803-afb9-358faf068...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Rhetorical point comparing the Bible with undisputed fiction (=
predictable Atheist belief, insult, rage and of course, bias).
If the Bible contains just one false claim I would agree. But I
have
never seen even one.
So you've changed your mind about the Epistle of James?
--
alias Ernest Major
Since James is in the Bible to show how the Gospel according to Paul
is corrupted, then no, I haven't.
Ray
Paul is not corrupted, Ray. He says that a glass is half full,
and James says a glass is half empty.
Meaningless rhetoric.
Their goal is the same,
Completely false. I will show you why.
and together they both reach many people. I'll show you.
Paul said in Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not
of works lest any man should boast." James said "Faith
without works is dead." But James also said "Him that
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (6:37).
Suzanne, my dear, it was not James who uttered the last quote in your
comments above, but Christ. More importantly, James and Paul were
adversaries. James pastored the Church at Jerusalem for 19 years and
got along with the Pharisees just fine because he denied that Christ
was the Messiah; and he dictated their message to his congregation:
the way God is embraced is through Torah Law, which is the Old
Covenant. The New Covenant or Testament is that God is embraced
exclusively through the Messiah by faith apart from the works of Torah
Law. Your theology makes no distinction between the Old and New
covenants - the latter being the Gospel or good news, which is: the
Law is abrogate IF you are walking by faith with Christ - that is the
good news, which is the meaning of the word "gospel" (or "evangelion"
in the Greek). That is where we get our words "evangelist" and
"evangelical." James gives us no good news, but a corrupted by Law
message.
The Book of James was written to contradict Paul. God included James
in the canon to contrast what is NOT the gospel as explained by Paul,
the chosen mouthpiece of Christ (Acts 9).
When Paul came to Jerusalem he caused riot and uproar, unlike James,
because his message was from Christ. James peacefully coexisted with
Christ's enemies. But when push came to shove, James came through. The
Pharisees asked him, after 19 years, point blank, if Jesus was the
Messiah and he said yes. They then shoved him off a cliff to
martyrdom.
So it may appear....
Yes it does, that is my point, the appearance is real.
....that James is saying that someone is saved
because they have earned their way with works,
That is exactly what James is saying. The central spiritual message of
the Bible, in context, is that works of Torah Law do not save, it was
only meant to declare what is right and wrong. Compliance with an
impersonal code of conduct is not the way to walk with God. Works is
not faith; and faith is not works.
but that
is not what he is saying we see by James 6:37, which
indicates that salvation is by faith. What James is saying
when he said "faith without works is dead," is that if
someone does not have the right kind of faith, which is
that which puts trust in Jesus Christ and him alone for
salvation, then what they result in is a dead kind of faith,
and not a living faith. Works are not a cause of faith,
but are a result of faith.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
False.
If works resut from faith (and they should, and do) THEN it is still
faith, not works.
Also, you have put words and intention in the message of James which
are not there. James did not understand the gospel, that is why the
word does not appear in his general epistle, not even once.
Ray
Is this a contradiction about the "plain literal Biblical truth"
between you and Suzanne?
Or is Suzanne not as skilled an interpreter of Biblical complexity?
Ray seems to be a Paul hater. Since Paul wrote about |
half of the New Testament, that causes a great problem
to that person that doesn't like Paul. It causes great
trouble to their theology in some places. I have no
private interpretation of the Bible, and it has the ability
to interpret itself. I do know some deeper meanings of
the scriptures. For example, there are, what is called,
"types of Christ" seen throughout the Old Testament.
For example, the Ark of Noah was slathered inside and
outside with pitch in order to keep God's wrath against
--
sin away from the people that were inside the Ark, the
wrath being represented by the flood, itself. So, the
Ark, itself, becomes a "type of Christ" in it's pattern,
with the Ark being symbolic of Jesus' death on the cross,
paying for the sins of the people that trust in him, and
thereby keeping out the wrath of God against any sins
we might have. The pattern becomes even more obvious
when one has the knowledge that the Hebrew word for
the pitch (tar) is "kopher," which is translated in other
--
places in the Hebrew as being "atonement." Thus, the
atonement of Christ which is extended to those that
will put their trust in him by simple faith, imputes
righteousness unto the ones trusting in him, and that
places the person into "Heaven entry" status. For the
purposes of doing God's will after that, rewards and
losses of rewards will be given at the Judgment Seat
of Christ (aka. "the Beama"). So works are important
for that purpose, but not at all for entry into Heaven.
Only trusting in what Jesus did for a person puts the
person on automatic "entry into Heaven" status. This
is confirmed in the New Testament.
| Quote: |
Another of type of Christ is Abraham's willingness to |
sacrifice his son, which he makes clear in the event
will not happen (he tells the others to wait and that he
and his son Isaac shall return from the mountain). When
he goes to sacrifice the son, which is only a test, he
becomes as God the Father in type, Isaac becomes the
Son of God, the Christ, in type. But when he has an out,
the Ram caught in the thicket, becomes the type of Christ,
representing Jesus' having to die for the sins of someone.
| Quote: |
Another, the first Passover: The pascal lamb and the blood |
of that lamb become what God's death angel recognizes
as he goes into Egypt. The application of the blood of that
lamb that each family has slain, is applied to the doorposts
of the house, and on the points that a cross would touch if
leaned up against the doorway, which makes a sort of
double "type of Christ." The death angel passes over those
who have applied the blood to their house. Then the orders
from the Lord are, that when they get ready to leave, they are
to eat the passover lamb, roasted, of course. They then go
--
out into the world nourished by the lamb that is now on the
inside of them. In Christianity, the believer receives the
Holy Spirit when he accepts Jesus' death for him personally,
and the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible then indwells
permanently inside the one who has put his trust in Christ.
There are a multitude of these types of Christ in pattern in
the Old Testament. This kind of thing is known by people
who study the Bible and pray for the wisdom to be given
by the Lord to understand it, and also learn any deeper
meaning. Anyone can discover these things, they are not
secrets, only deeper studies.
| Quote: |
Or are both of you, like the classic evangelists, hung up on their own
private interpretations of the Bible? (This of course could never
happen between you and Suzanne, since the contradiction is readily
resolved by some other as yet unnamed Biblical passage.)
In my opinion a "classic evangelist" is not hung up on his |
own private interpretation, if he is an evangelist called by
the Lord. Also, in Christianity, Christ commissioned all
believers to be evangelistic in their lives. His departing
words were to go and tell the gospel to all. This is known
as "The Great Commission."
2 Peter 1:20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
scripture is of any private interpretation."
| Quote: |
(BOLD LETTERING WOULD HELP) biblical verses (the proverbial proof
texts) of the this disagreement such that one concedes the other is
correct.
PS to Suzanne.
To give you a heads up about your opponent below is a post he made
when the cyber world was frustrating his posting.
Begin Quote
From:
Ray Martinez - view profile
Date:
Tues, Apr 18 2006 7:47 pm
Rating:
(3 users)
show options
Why is this mother fucking system, which was not fucking broke, all
of
a fucking sudden better by clicking on a topic expecting the fucking
click to take you to the fucking last post when it takes you to the
first fucking post ? Then a mother fucker has to fucking click
endlessfuckingly to get to the last fucking post ?
Why don't you fucking know-it-all fuck face Darwinian mother-fuckers
fix this piece of shit system the fucking way it used to fucking be
when a mother fucker clicked on the fucking topic and it took a
mother
fucker to the last fucking post ?
What the fuck !
Ray
This is like another language! It's like a language |
full of heavy boulders into which a handfull of
English words are thrown. Do you recognize this
language RAM? It's called Earlyeddiemurphyish.
| Quote: |
Someone that hates Paul may have missed his most |
beautiful chapter: 1 Corinthians, chapter 13.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Tue, 6 May 2008 00:42:01 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
This is like another language! It's like a language
full of heavy boulders into which a handfull of
English words are thrown. Do you recognize this
language RAM? It's called Earlyeddiemurphyish.
Someone that hates Paul may have missed his most
beautiful chapter: 1 Corinthians, chapter 13.
|
One of the reasons Ray hates the book of James so much is
that it would indicate that a change of behaviour is to be
expected from being a christian. Ray does not want to change
his behaviour, so James must be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"RAM" <RAMathers38@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30ee636a-b610-45cf-89f0-fcd7eeb965a7@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 4, 3:41 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa6771a6-5b09-4893-b211-a3865e1c5ea5@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26511af-2fe2-4360-9dc6-044b6c63b062@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:00 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
81e6f84c-70aa-4803-afb9-358faf068...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Rhetorical point comparing the Bible with undisputed fiction (=
predictable Atheist belief, insult, rage and of course, bias).
If the Bible contains just one false claim I would agree. But I
have
never seen even one.
So you've changed your mind about the Epistle of James?
--
alias Ernest Major
Since James is in the Bible to show how the Gospel according to Paul
is corrupted, then no, I haven't.
Ray
Paul is not corrupted, Ray. He says that a glass is half full,
and James says a glass is half empty.
Meaningless rhetoric.
Their goal is the same,
Completely false. I will show you why.
and together they both reach many people. I'll show you.
Paul said in Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not
of works lest any man should boast." James said "Faith
without works is dead." But James also said "Him that
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (6:37).
Suzanne, my dear, it was not James who uttered the last quote in your
comments above, but Christ. More importantly, James and Paul were
adversaries. James pastored the Church at Jerusalem for 19 years and
got along with the Pharisees just fine because he denied that Christ
was the Messiah; and he dictated their message to his congregation:
the way God is embraced is through Torah Law, which is the Old
Covenant. The New Covenant or Testament is that God is embraced
exclusively through the Messiah by faith apart from the works of Torah
Law. Your theology makes no distinction between the Old and New
covenants - the latter being the Gospel or good news, which is: the
Law is abrogate IF you are walking by faith with Christ - that is the
good news, which is the meaning of the word "gospel" (or "evangelion"
in the Greek). That is where we get our words "evangelist" and
"evangelical." James gives us no good news, but a corrupted by Law
message.
The Book of James was written to contradict Paul. God included James
in the canon to contrast what is NOT the gospel as explained by Paul,
the chosen mouthpiece of Christ (Acts 9).
When Paul came to Jerusalem he caused riot and uproar, unlike James,
because his message was from Christ. James peacefully coexisted with
Christ's enemies. But when push came to shove, James came through. The
Pharisees asked him, after 19 years, point blank, if Jesus was the
Messiah and he said yes. They then shoved him off a cliff to
martyrdom.
So it may appear....
Yes it does, that is my point, the appearance is real.
....that James is saying that someone is saved
because they have earned their way with works,
That is exactly what James is saying. The central spiritual message of
the Bible, in context, is that works of Torah Law do not save, it was
only meant to declare what is right and wrong. Compliance with an
impersonal code of conduct is not the way to walk with God. Works is
not faith; and faith is not works.
To Ray: |
I agree with you that the torah law is not the means
by which someone is saved, but the faith in God
is what saves someone even in Old Testament times.
When Abraham did the will of the Father, he therefore
demonstrated that he believed God, and that is what
established him: his faith. He didn't have it in mind to
earn his way into heaven by his obedience, but rather to
demonstrate that he believed God by his obedience.
However, I do not believe that James had this in mind
at all. He explains in the passage in James 2:20b where
he says "...faith without works is dead..." that he is
meaning (see all of context passage 14-26) that if a
person has a faith that has no works, then something is
wrong with that faith, for it is a dead faith, and if the
person has works automatically coming from his faith,
then the kind of faith that he has is a living faith.
| Quote: |
If someone thinks that James doesn't understand the |
gospel, they need to read the beginning of chapter
2, which is about Jesus. In this chapter, James is just
saying that while we are saved by faith, a person
should check his faith to make sure it is the right kind
of faith, and realize that if he has not been changed at
all by his claim of faith in Christ, then something is
wrong with the kind of faith that he says he has in
the Lord.
| Quote: |
but that
is not what he is saying we see by James 6:37, which
indicates that salvation is by faith. What James is saying
when he said "faith without works is dead," is that if
someone does not have the right kind of faith, which is
that which puts trust in Jesus Christ and him alone for
salvation, then what they result in is a dead kind of faith,
and not a living faith. Works are not a cause of faith,
but are a result of faith.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
False.
If works resut from faith (and they should, and do) THEN it is still
faith, not works.
That's what I said, Ray. Works don't cause someone to
have faith, but faith causes someone to have works.
Works are an automatic byproduct of faith.
Also, you have put words and intention in the message of James which
are not there. James did not understand the gospel, that is why the
word does not appear in his general epistle, not even once.
I don't agree with you, Ray.
Suzanne
Suzanne that disagreement implies a contradiction in the literal (and
when you decide complex) interpretation of the Bible. I think you are
being religiously correct in your response to Ray.
Thank you for being encouraging. I believe the Bible |
is inerrant, but in it's meaning, if one rightly divides
the word. I do think that James 2:20 is ambiguous to
people that have not reasoned out the rest of the passage
of 2:14-26, which explains in detail what people that
only read verse 20 miss. In my opinion, the passages
that "seem" to conflict with each other, are designed
by the Lord to be that way on purpose so that people
will actually think about what is being said, and reason
it out.
| Quote: |
What have you to fear from the "truth?"
True.
Suzanne |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12c7160f-6aeb-4b89-8b92-d0eee8743df2@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 4, 1:41 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa6771a6-5b09-4893-b211-a3865e1c5ea5@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26511af-2fe2-4360-9dc6-044b6c63b062@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:00 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
81e6f84c-70aa-4803-afb9-358faf068...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Rhetorical point comparing the Bible with undisputed fiction (=
predictable Atheist belief, insult, rage and of course, bias).
If the Bible contains just one false claim I would agree. But I
have
never seen even one.
So you've changed your mind about the Epistle of James?
--
alias Ernest Major
Since James is in the Bible to show how the Gospel according to Paul
is corrupted, then no, I haven't.
Ray
Paul is not corrupted, Ray. He says that a glass is half full,
and James says a glass is half empty.
Meaningless rhetoric.
Their goal is the same,
Completely false. I will show you why.
and together they both reach many people. I'll show you.
Paul said in Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not
of works lest any man should boast." James said "Faith
without works is dead." But James also said "Him that
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (6:37).
Suzanne, my dear, it was not James who uttered the last quote in your
comments above, but Christ. More importantly, James and Paul were
adversaries. James pastored the Church at Jerusalem for 19 years and
got along with the Pharisees just fine because he denied that Christ
was the Messiah; and he dictated their message to his congregation:
the way God is embraced is through Torah Law, which is the Old
Covenant. The New Covenant or Testament is that God is embraced
exclusively through the Messiah by faith apart from the works of Torah
Law. Your theology makes no distinction between the Old and New
covenants - the latter being the Gospel or good news, which is: the
Law is abrogate IF you are walking by faith with Christ - that is the
good news, which is the meaning of the word "gospel" (or "evangelion"
in the Greek). That is where we get our words "evangelist" and
"evangelical." James gives us no good news, but a corrupted by Law
message.
The Book of James was written to contradict Paul. God included James
in the canon to contrast what is NOT the gospel as explained by Paul,
the chosen mouthpiece of Christ (Acts 9).
When Paul came to Jerusalem he caused riot and uproar, unlike James,
because his message was from Christ. James peacefully coexisted with
Christ's enemies. But when push came to shove, James came through. The
Pharisees asked him, after 19 years, point blank, if Jesus was the
Messiah and he said yes. They then shoved him off a cliff to
martyrdom.
So it may appear....
Yes it does, that is my point, the appearance is real.
....that James is saying that someone is saved
because they have earned their way with works,
That is exactly what James is saying. The central spiritual message of
the Bible, in context, is that works of Torah Law do not save, it was
only meant to declare what is right and wrong. Compliance with an
impersonal code of conduct is not the way to walk with God. Works is
not faith; and faith is not works.
but that
is not what he is saying we see by James 6:37, which
indicates that salvation is by faith. What James is saying
when he said "faith without works is dead," is that if
someone does not have the right kind of faith, which is
that which puts trust in Jesus Christ and him alone for
salvation, then what they result in is a dead kind of faith,
and not a living faith. Works are not a cause of faith,
but are a result of faith.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
False.
If works resut from faith (and they should, and do) THEN it is still
faith, not works.
That's what I said, Ray. Works don't cause someone to
have faith, but faith causes someone to have works.
Works are an automatic byproduct of faith.
Also, you have put words and intention in the message of James which
are not there. James did not understand the gospel, that is why the
word does not appear in his general epistle, not even once.
I don't agree with you, Ray.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Where is the Greek word "evangelion" (translated "gospel") or a
derivative in the general epistle of James, Suzanne?
My comment referred not to what is not in the book of |
James, but to your statement in a preceeding post, which
is (see above) "James did not understand the gospel, that
is why the word does not appear..." The word doesn't
have to appear in his book, in my opinion. He, like even
the apostles, did not comprehend fully what was going
on with Jesus' death, until after the resurrection. But the
very opening statements in chapter 2 of James notify the
reader that he trusts his brother Jesus to be "our glorious
Lord Jesus Christ."
| Quote: |
How could the Gospel of the New Testament, that is, the central point
and reason for being of the New Covenant, presented by Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John and Paul be absent from the message of James?
James is not a gospel writer, there are only four of |
them. When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane,
before he was taken to trial by the soldiers to whom
he gave his life (it was not taken from him), Jesus
prayed that his heavenly Father would sanctify the
people that followed them with the word of God.
He then in the prayer adds, that this prayer would also
extend to all of those that will hear the testimonies of
his followers, which certainly would include James.
The New Testament, in Acts says that as the believers
followed the Lord in their hearts, "the word increased."
The testimonies of his followers actually then became
an integral part of the word. That includes James.
| Quote: |
Like I said it is because he, like yourself, does not understand the
Gospel (= way of faith apart from compliance to a code of conduct).
I don't agree that I don't understand, Ray.
What you fail to see and understand is that when James is talking
about works he is talking about the works of Mosaic or Torah law, he
IS NOT talking about the outcome of faith. James is attacking Paul
when he says "show me your faith and I will show you my works."
Ray, he is not attacking Paul. He rather is speaking to |
those, such as possibly yourself, that totally misunderstand
Paul. Evidently in his congregation, there were some that
thought that you don't have to work at all after you receive
Christ as your Savior. He was setting them straight that
it doesn't work that way. He's saying that if a person truly
has been saved, then works should automatically follow
as a byproduct of their faith.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RAM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On May 6, 2:34 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12c7160f-6aeb-4b89-8b92-d0eee8743df2@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 1:41 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa6771a6-5b09-4893-b211-a3865e1c5ea5@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26511af-2fe2-4360-9dc6-044b6c63b062@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:00 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
81e6f84c-70aa-4803-afb9-358faf068...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Rhetorical point comparing the Bible with undisputed fiction (=
predictable Atheist belief, insult, rage and of course, bias).
If the Bible contains just one false claim I would agree. But I
have
never seen even one.
So you've changed your mind about the Epistle of James?
--
alias Ernest Major
Since James is in the Bible to show how the Gospel according to Paul
is corrupted, then no, I haven't.
Ray
Paul is not corrupted, Ray. He says that a glass is half full,
and James says a glass is half empty.
Meaningless rhetoric.
Their goal is the same,
Completely false. I will show you why.
and together they both reach many people. I'll show you.
Paul said in Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not
of works lest any man should boast." James said "Faith
without works is dead." But James also said "Him that
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (6:37).
Suzanne, my dear, it was not James who uttered the last quote in your
comments above, but Christ. More importantly, James and Paul were
adversaries. James pastored the Church at Jerusalem for 19 years and
got along with the Pharisees just fine because he denied that Christ
was the Messiah; and he dictated their message to his congregation:
the way God is embraced is through Torah Law, which is the Old
Covenant. The New Covenant or Testament is that God is embraced
exclusively through the Messiah by faith apart from the works of Torah
Law. Your theology makes no distinction between the Old and New
covenants - the latter being the Gospel or good news, which is: the
Law is abrogate IF you are walking by faith with Christ - that is the
good news, which is the meaning of the word "gospel" (or "evangelion"
in the Greek). That is where we get our words "evangelist" and
"evangelical." James gives us no good news, but a corrupted by Law
message.
The Book of James was written to contradict Paul. God included James
in the canon to contrast what is NOT the gospel as explained by Paul,
the chosen mouthpiece of Christ (Acts 9).
When Paul came to Jerusalem he caused riot and uproar, unlike James,
because his message was from Christ. James peacefully coexisted with
Christ's enemies. But when push came to shove, James came through. The
Pharisees asked him, after 19 years, point blank, if Jesus was the
Messiah and he said yes. They then shoved him off a cliff to
martyrdom.
So it may appear....
Yes it does, that is my point, the appearance is real.
....that James is saying that someone is saved
because they have earned their way with works,
That is exactly what James is saying. The central spiritual message of
the Bible, in context, is that works of Torah Law do not save, it was
only meant to declare what is right and wrong. Compliance with an
impersonal code of conduct is not the way to walk with God. Works is
not faith; and faith is not works.
but that
is not what he is saying we see by James 6:37, which
indicates that salvation is by faith. What James is saying
when he said "faith without works is dead," is that if
someone does not have the right kind of faith, which is
that which puts trust in Jesus Christ and him alone for
salvation, then what they result in is a dead kind of faith,
and not a living faith. Works are not a cause of faith,
but are a result of faith.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
False.
If works resut from faith (and they should, and do) THEN it is still
faith, not works.
That's what I said, Ray. Works don't cause someone to
have faith, but faith causes someone to have works.
Works are an automatic byproduct of faith.
Also, you have put words and intention in the message of James which
are not there. James did not understand the gospel, that is why the
word does not appear in his general epistle, not even once.
I don't agree with you, Ray.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Where is the Greek word "evangelion" (translated "gospel") or a
derivative in the general epistle of James, Suzanne?
My comment referred not to what is not in the book of
James, but to your statement in a preceeding post, which
is (see above) "James did not understand the gospel, that
is why the word does not appear..." The word doesn't
have to appear in his book, in my opinion. He, like even
the apostles, did not comprehend fully what was going
on with Jesus' death, until after the resurrection. But the
very opening statements in chapter 2 of James notify the
reader that he trusts his brother Jesus to be "our glorious
Lord Jesus Christ."
How could the Gospel of the New Testament, that is, the central point
and reason for being of the New Covenant, presented by Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John and Paul be absent from the message of James?
James is not a gospel writer, there are only four of
them. When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane,
before he was taken to trial by the soldiers to whom
he gave his life (it was not taken from him), Jesus
prayed that his heavenly Father would sanctify the
people that followed them with the word of God.
He then in the prayer adds, that this prayer would also
extend to all of those that will hear the testimonies of
his followers, which certainly would include James.
The New Testament, in Acts says that as the believers
followed the Lord in their hearts, "the word increased."
The testimonies of his followers actually then became
an integral part of the word. That includes James.
Like I said it is because he, like yourself, does not understand the
Gospel (= way of faith apart from compliance to a code of conduct).
I don't agree that I don't understand, Ray.
What you fail to see and understand is that when James is talking
about works he is talking about the works of Mosaic or Torah law, he
IS NOT talking about the outcome of faith. James is attacking Paul
when he says "show me your faith and I will show you my works."
Ray, he is not attacking Paul. He rather is speaking to
those, such as possibly yourself, that totally misunderstand
Paul. Evidently in his congregation, there were some that
thought that you don't have to work at all after you receive
Christ as your Savior. He was setting them straight that
it doesn't work that way. He's saying that if a person truly
has been saved, then works should automatically follow
as a byproduct of their faith.
Suzanne
|
I still see contradictions between you and Ray. Now you are claiming
the contradictions are only apparent and put their by the Lord to make
you think. Either you or Ray can't seem to think or you have to admit
ignorance about the contradictory interpretations of the Biblical
verses. Further your disparate interpretations belie the assertions
both you and Ray make about knowing Biblical literal truth.
RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RAM
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On May 6, 12:42 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"RAM" <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:273718a9-0bc7-4234-9d36-4878505be192@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 5:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26511af-2fe2-4360-9dc6-044b6c63b062@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:00 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
81e6f84c-70aa-4803-afb9-358faf068...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Rhetorical point comparing the Bible with undisputed fiction (=
predictable Atheist belief, insult, rage and of course, bias).
If the Bible contains just one false claim I would agree. But I
have
never seen even one.
So you've changed your mind about the Epistle of James?
--
alias Ernest Major
Since James is in the Bible to show how the Gospel according to Paul
is corrupted, then no, I haven't.
Ray
Paul is not corrupted, Ray. He says that a glass is half full,
and James says a glass is half empty.
Meaningless rhetoric.
Their goal is the same,
Completely false. I will show you why.
and together they both reach many people. I'll show you.
Paul said in Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not
of works lest any man should boast." James said "Faith
without works is dead." But James also said "Him that
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (6:37).
Suzanne, my dear, it was not James who uttered the last quote in your
comments above, but Christ. More importantly, James and Paul were
adversaries. James pastored the Church at Jerusalem for 19 years and
got along with the Pharisees just fine because he denied that Christ
was the Messiah; and he dictated their message to his congregation:
the way God is embraced is through Torah Law, which is the Old
Covenant. The New Covenant or Testament is that God is embraced
exclusively through the Messiah by faith apart from the works of Torah
Law. Your theology makes no distinction between the Old and New
covenants - the latter being the Gospel or good news, which is: the
Law is abrogate IF you are walking by faith with Christ - that is the
good news, which is the meaning of the word "gospel" (or "evangelion"
in the Greek). That is where we get our words "evangelist" and
"evangelical." James gives us no good news, but a corrupted by Law
message.
The Book of James was written to contradict Paul. God included James
in the canon to contrast what is NOT the gospel as explained by Paul,
the chosen mouthpiece of Christ (Acts 9).
When Paul came to Jerusalem he caused riot and uproar, unlike James,
because his message was from Christ. James peacefully coexisted with
Christ's enemies. But when push came to shove, James came through. The
Pharisees asked him, after 19 years, point blank, if Jesus was the
Messiah and he said yes. They then shoved him off a cliff to
martyrdom.
So it may appear....
Yes it does, that is my point, the appearance is real.
....that James is saying that someone is saved
because they have earned their way with works,
That is exactly what James is saying. The central spiritual message of
the Bible, in context, is that works of Torah Law do not save, it was
only meant to declare what is right and wrong. Compliance with an
impersonal code of conduct is not the way to walk with God. Works is
not faith; and faith is not works.
but that
is not what he is saying we see by James 6:37, which
indicates that salvation is by faith. What James is saying
when he said "faith without works is dead," is that if
someone does not have the right kind of faith, which is
that which puts trust in Jesus Christ and him alone for
salvation, then what they result in is a dead kind of faith,
and not a living faith. Works are not a cause of faith,
but are a result of faith.
Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
False.
If works resut from faith (and they should, and do) THEN it is still
faith, not works.
Also, you have put words and intention in the message of James which
are not there. James did not understand the gospel, that is why the
word does not appear in his general epistle, not even once.
Ray
Is this a contradiction about the "plain literal Biblical truth"
between you and Suzanne?
Or is Suzanne not as skilled an interpreter of Biblical complexity?
Ray seems to be a Paul hater. Since Paul wrote about
half of the New Testament, that causes a great problem
to that person that doesn't like Paul. It causes great
trouble to their theology in some places. I have no
private interpretation of the Bible, and it has the ability
to interpret itself.
|
Then why do you and Ray and millions of other Bible readers disagree
on so many interpretations. I see a contradiction here as well.
Surprise! Surprise!
| Quote: |
I do know some deeper meanings of
the scriptures. For example, there are, what is called,
"types of Christ" seen throughout the Old Testament.
|
This is a new one how come that was made clear 1700 years ago.
| Quote: |
For example, the Ark of Noah was slathered inside and
outside with pitch in order to keep God's wrath against
--
sin away from the people that were inside the Ark, the
wrath being represented by the flood, itself.
|
This is absolutely bizarre. This is the "made of whole clothe"
interpretation that I grew up with and while it is quaint it adds
nothing to the meaning of Christianity qua Christianity. And it
confirms my observation of the hokum that is fundamentalism has
become.
| Quote: |
So, the
Ark, itself, becomes a "type of Christ" in it's pattern,
with the Ark being symbolic of Jesus' death on the cross,
paying for the sins of the people that trust in him, and
thereby keeping out the wrath of God against any sins
we might have.
|
More of the same and totally irrelevant to the notion of pitch (tar)
used in the Ark and the meaning of Jesus' Life.
| Quote: |
The pattern becomes even more obvious
when one has the knowledge that the Hebrew word for
the pitch (tar) is "kopher," which is translated in other
--
places in the Hebrew as being "atonement."
|
Classic coincidental irrelevance.
| Quote: |
Thus, the
atonement of Christ which is extended to those that
will put their trust in him by simple faith, imputes
righteousness unto the ones trusting in him, and that
places the person into "Heaven entry" status. For the
purposes of doing God's will after that, rewards and
losses of rewards will be given at the Judgment Seat
of Christ (aka. "the Beama").
|
Are you sure that isn't a hidden reference to Obama?
| Quote: |
So works are important
for that purpose, but not at all for entry into Heaven.
Only trusting in what Jesus did for a person puts the
person on automatic "entry into Heaven" status. This
is confirmed in the New Testament.
Another of type of Christ is Abraham's willingness to
sacrifice his son, which he makes clear in the event
will not happen (he tells the others to wait and that he
and his son Isaac shall return from the mountain). When
he goes to sacrifice the son, which is only a test, he
becomes as God the Father in type, Isaac becomes the
Son of God, the Christ, in type. But when he has an out,
the Ram caught in the thicket, becomes the type of Christ,
representing Jesus' having to die for the sins of someone.
Another, the first Passover: The pascal lamb and the blood
of that lamb become what God's death angel recognizes
as he goes into Egypt. The application of the blood of that
lamb that each family has slain, is applied to the doorposts
of the house, and on the points that a cross would touch if
leaned up against the doorway, which makes a sort of
double "type of Christ." The death angel passes over those
who have applied the blood to their house. Then the orders
from the Lord are, that when they get ready to leave, they are
to eat the passover lamb, roasted, of course. They then go
--
out into the world nourished by the lamb that is now on the
inside of them. In Christianity, the believer receives the
Holy Spirit when he accepts Jesus' death for him personally,
and the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible then indwells
permanently inside the one who has put his trust in Christ.
There are a multitude of these types of Christ in pattern in
the Old Testament. This kind of thing is known by people
who study the Bible and pray for the wisdom to be given
by the Lord to understand it, and also learn any deeper
meaning. Anyone can discover these things, they are not
secrets, only deeper studies.
Or are both of you, like the classic evangelists, hung up on their own
private interpretations of the Bible? (This of course could never
happen between you and Suzanne, since the contradiction is readily
resolved by some other as yet unnamed Biblical passage.)
In my opinion a "classic evangelist" is not hung up on his
own private interpretation, if he is an evangelist called by
the Lord.
|
Your opinion may mean a lot to you but it means nothing to me. The
history of evangelism is filled with numerous incidences of personal
and idiosyncratic biblical interpretations.
| Quote: |
Also, in Christianity, Christ commissioned all
believers to be evangelistic in their lives. His departing
words were to go and tell the gospel to all. This is known
as "The Great Commission."
2 Peter 1:20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
scripture is of any private interpretation."
|
Clear evidence of a failed religious prescription.
| Quote: |
RAM
(BOLD LETTERING WOULD HELP) biblical verses (the proverbial proof
texts) of the this disagreement such that one concedes the other is
correct.
PS to Suzanne.
To give you a heads up about your opponent below is a post he made
when the cyber world was frustrating his posting.
Begin Quote
From:
Ray Martinez - view profile
Date:
Tues, Apr 18 2006 7:47 pm
Rating:
(3 users)
show options
Why is this mother fucking system, which was not fucking broke, all
of
a fucking sudden better by clicking on a topic expecting the fucking
click to take you to the fucking last post when it takes you to the
first fucking post ? Then a mother fucker has to fucking click
endlessfuckingly to get to the last fucking post ?
Why don't you fucking know-it-all fuck face Darwinian mother-fuckers
fix this piece of shit system the fucking way it used to fucking be
when a mother fucker clicked on the fucking topic and it took a
mother
fucker to the last fucking post ?
What the fuck !
Ray
This is like ...
read more » |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
chris thompson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
|
|
On May 6, 4:29 pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 6 May, 17:55, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
But they are the ones who believe that living by period societal
values is right, and who can't state their position, won't discuss it,
Snipping a person's position isn't the same as that person not having
one.
Of course not. But you aren't producing yours either, coward.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
My position was this:
*****
| Quote: |
They aren't the ones proclaiming the "truth" of walking snakes and ...
|
*******************
| Quote: |
(change of subject snipped)
|
*******************
It was _not_ a change of subject, it was perfectly on-target.
You're just too cowardly to face it.
*****
And surprise of surprises, you snipped it.
Funny how you call me coward, but you cut out all the stuff you cannot
deal with.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob Casanova
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
|
|
On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:43:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Roger Pearse
<roger.pearse@googlemail.com>:
| Quote: |
On 5 May, 23:39, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
6dd7b9f0-3b3e-4c6b-847f-a723c8229...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> writes
On 5 May, 22:04, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
[snip]
Any fool can vituperate. But this sort of low-rent atheist excuses
for drink and fornication went out with the ark.
Why would an atheist need an excuse (low rent or otherwise) for drinking
and fornication?
Bad conscience, I would guess. The excuses are real, tho. Why else
would anyone bother with atheism?
The obvious reason for anyone being an atheist is a lack of sufficient
reason to believe in any deity. Your ... (personal abuse snipped)
A very standard excuse, this! Unfortunately most atheists don't think
about it before parrotting it. We all know that 'lack of evidence' is
what *agnostics* claim (generally more or less sincerely). It could
hardly be a reason for atheism.
|
That's ridiculous. "Atheism" merely means "without belief in
any deity"; it's in the word itself (a = "not"; "theism" =
"belief in a deity"). Atheists do not believe that a deity
exists because there's no objective evidence that any
deities exist. Agnostics believe that there can be no
evidence that any deity exists, but allow for the
possibility of such existence.
| Quote: |
But the excuse is fraudulent anyway. Atheists don't produce evidence
for anything. We rarely see any atheists bother with evidence for
anything that they wish to believe. Hey, most can't even state the
religious position by which they live, never mind offer evidence for
it -- all they can do is repeat excuses.
|
Atheists have no religious position, and aren't required to
produce any evidence; such evidence is required from those
claiming the existence of a deity, not those who say they
haven't seen any evidence supporting such existence.
| Quote: |
So I'm afraid that all this reply has done here is demonstrate again
that atheism is intellectually bankrupt, or as found online. Note
that I'm not saying that YOU are an idiot; but that you've adopted a
position that is idiotic.
Whether Christianity is true or not (a whole separate question),
atheism of this sort must be wrong.
|
That's because your definition of "atheism" is rather
unusual.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kcgia560wh2f.w2h3cp5v17fq.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:55:35 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:12c8zra1yme5.1e5o0ftn7rp1.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:35:54 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsd@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c16qw3b6vosk$.v79mw5cytfyp.dlg@40tude.net...
[...]
So how come there is not one extant story of a native christian
preceding a bible or a missionary into a newly discovered country? Why
does it seem that Jesus manifests himself only to those previously or
newly exposed to the bible/christianity. Whilst I am familiar with the
thinking behind your response, you have comprehensively failed to
answer
my questions.
What about the experience would lead someone who has never heard of
Jesus, the bible or christianity to conclude that certain events in
their life were designed to lead them to someone they have never heard
of? Why has no explorer, it seems, ever recorded a homegrown christian
from a newly discovered native population? And why, even in the
unlikely
event of someone amongst those untouched by any sort of familiarity
with
jesus/bible/christianity, feeling that jesus is the answer when they
finally hear about him, has jesus been signally unsuccessful in
communivcating his name to them, when his name is all so important to
the whole salvation process?
I can think of just such an answer as you are saying
you want. Do you know who Helen Keller is/was?
She died a few years back, of course. But you know
she was deaf, blind, and was this wild, unruly little
girl that a teacher, Annie Sullivan taught sign language
to. Little Helen could not make the connection from
the letters Annie formed with her fingers with her
hand pressed into Helen's hand, to what the real thing
was that the fingers spelled. The story goes that one
day as they were pumping some water, Helen caught on,
as it is so vividly portrayed in the movie "The Miracle
Worker." Once Helen understood that all that time,
Annie was not playing a game, and that the words that
she had taught Helen to spell, had meaning, the whole
world opened up to that little girl. Years later, after
she had become a Christian, someone asked her about
what it was like to get to know Jesus. She replied that
she already had known him. She said, "I just didn't
know his name." Apparently in her dark world, the Lord
had made his presence known to her.
My contention is, and nothing you have suggested leads me to
conclude otherwise, is that if Helen Keller grew up in
Saudia Arabia, she would have become a Muslim. Note that she
did not come to jesus independently, she had to have help in
identifying who theis mystical entity was, yet the name is
considered so important and seems to be the one thing that
jesus cannot do.
Of course, Helen was born in Alabama, in the USA.
The Bible verse that says that no one can come to
the Father unless the spirit draws them, should settle
that idea.
Why? it's a completely unsupported assertion that is
unprovable.
You didn't ask for me to prove it. You just asked for an |
example, and you end up still asking just for an example.
Someone's testimony is not proveable. It's hearsay, it's
what they claim. I don't doubt that Helen Keller's
testimony is true, but you evidently do. This about what
you are saying. How are you going to prove what
someone does spiritually? What? Are you going to shine
gamma rays on them and then dust them with whoofle
dust to see if they glow? : D
| Quote: |
There have been people who were born in
Saudi Arabia who did become Christians even though
they were submerged in another culture and religion.
Without any contact at all with a bible, a christian or a
means of communicating with one?
Uh...you said it differently before. You said what if |
Helen Keller was born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim
people. You didn't say anything about her not coming
in contact with someone who tells her about Christ.
| Quote: |
Also, the Lord would have been the reason that any
people bore the message of his Son to others. He
would have sent those people. Helen's testimony is
that she knew the Lord before she found out about
him from others. I'm quite sure that she found out
more about him from others later.
That is your self serving interpretation that is not
supported by her words. She claims she knew something, and
only after contact with another christian did she put an
identity to the feeling. Thus she may have misidentified and
never knew it.
I have no motive at all to be "self-serving," to simply |
supply Helen Keller as an answer to what you had
posed earlier. Why do you think in such negative
terms about people?
| Quote: |
No, she did not say she knew "something," she said about |
Jesus, "I knew him, I just didn't know his name." That's
what I originally reported to you.
| Quote: |
Acts 2:21: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be saved.
Accts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
For example in South America, is there, apparently, not even one
recorded instance of anyone knowing anything about Jesus prior to the
advent of christians going in and telling people about him?
snip irrelevancy
But the thing is, what we are supposed
to be concentrating on is telling the living, and
leaving the things we can't do anything about up
to the Lord. God doesn't need us to spread the
faith. He wants us to share with him in that.
But it seems that he does need us, as the faith is not
spread without people, you have not presented any example of
someone coming to jesus, specifically, without any influence
from society, other christians or a bible.
I think that I did give you an example in Helen Keller,
and from her own testimony, which I think is very
reasonable.
Er, no, as she did not know the identity until after another
person told her. If she lived in Saudia Arabia and that
person had been a Muslim, she would, almost without a
doubt--based on what is well known, that children usually
follow the religion of their parents--have identified that
feeling as Allah.
You are being dishonest.
However, why do you not want the story
of God's son to be spread by people?
I don't. I would just like to see even a halfway unequivocal
story of someone who came to identify jesus without any
external help from either a bible or another person.
I gave you one. You threw it back in my face and |
said I was "self-serving." So, you would not believe
anyone who showed you someone like that.
| Quote: |
Each Christian
has the Holy Sprit living inside of them and he
motivates the people to tell them about the Lord's
Son's having died for their sins. The Holy Spirit takes
over from there and works in that person to draw them
unto himself.
Which makes a mockery of your earlier quotation. It seems
that even you admit that that way it actually works is that
no-one can come to the Father ubless the spirit draws them
from the pool of people already predisposed by contact with
a christian person or christian society. This is rather less
astounding that what you said was the case.
You are remarkably dense. My testimony that I gave |
demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was working in my
heart and leading me through a series of events that
resulted in my understanding that he was desiring to
communicate with me about how to be saved. I have
no mockery in what I said, but if you wish to think so,
there is not a lot that I can do about it, but I can say
that you have an awful chip on your shoulder.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Wed, 7 May 2008 22:19:06 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
| Quote: |
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kcgia560wh2f.w2h3cp5v17fq.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:55:35 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:12c8zra1yme5.1e5o0ftn7rp1.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:35:54 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsd@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c16qw3b6vosk$.v79mw5cytfyp.dlg@40tude.net...
[...]
So how come there is not one extant story of a native christian
preceding a bible or a missionary into a newly discovered country? Why
does it seem that Jesus manifests himself only to those previously or
newly exposed to the bible/christianity. Whilst I am familiar with the
thinking behind your response, you have comprehensively failed to
answer
my questions.
What about the experience would lead someone who has never heard of
Jesus, the bible or christianity to conclude that certain events in
their life were designed to lead them to someone they have never heard
of? Why has no explorer, it seems, ever recorded a homegrown christian
from a newly discovered native population? And why, even in the
unlikely
event of someone amongst those untouched by any sort of familiarity
with
jesus/bible/christianity, feeling that jesus is the answer when they
finally hear about him, has jesus been signally unsuccessful in
communivcating his name to them, when his name is all so important to
the whole salvation process?
I can think of just such an answer as you are saying
you want. Do you know who Helen Keller is/was?
She died a few years back, of course. But you know
she was deaf, blind, and was this wild, unruly little
girl that a teacher, Annie Sullivan taught sign language
to. Little Helen could not make the connection from
the letters Annie formed with her fingers with her
hand pressed into Helen's hand, to what the real thing
was that the fingers spelled. The story goes that one
day as they were pumping some water, Helen caught on,
as it is so vividly portrayed in the movie "The Miracle
Worker." Once Helen understood that all that time,
Annie was not playing a game, and that the words that
she had taught Helen to spell, had meaning, the whole
world opened up to that little girl. Years later, after
she had become a Christian, someone asked her about
what it was like to get to know Jesus. She replied that
she already had known him. She said, "I just didn't
know his name." Apparently in her dark world, the Lord
had made his presence known to her.
My contention is, and nothing you have suggested leads me to
conclude otherwise, is that if Helen Keller grew up in
Saudia Arabia, she would have become a Muslim. Note that she
did not come to jesus independently, she had to have help in
identifying who theis mystical entity was, yet the name is
considered so important and seems to be the one thing that
jesus cannot do.
Of course, Helen was born in Alabama, in the USA.
The Bible verse that says that no one can come to
the Father unless the spirit draws them, should settle
that idea.
Why? it's a completely unsupported assertion that is
unprovable.
You didn't ask for me to prove it. You just asked for an
example, and you end up still asking just for an example.
Someone's testimony is not proveable. It's hearsay, it's
what they claim. I don't doubt that Helen Keller's
testimony is true, but you evidently do. This about what
you are saying. How are you going to prove what
someone does spiritually? What? Are you going to shine
gamma rays on them and then dust them with whoofle
dust to see if they glow? : D
|
No, I merely expect that someone who does accept such
stories and realises the unprovableness of them does not
then go on to suggest that the stories alone are enough to
"settle it."
| Quote: |
There have been people who were born in
Saudi Arabia who did become Christians even though
they were submerged in another culture and religion.
Without any contact at all with a bible, a christian or a
means of communicating with one?
Uh...you said it differently before. You said what if
Helen Keller was born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim
people. You didn't say anything about her not coming
in contact with someone who tells her about Christ.
|
Then you need to go back a little bit further and re-read
where that is my premise all along. Also note that I
specifically said she had to have human help in identifying
the source of her feelings.
| Quote: |
Also, the Lord would have been the reason that any
people bore the message of his Son to others. He
would have sent those people. Helen's testimony is
that she knew the Lord before she found out about
him from others. I'm quite sure that she found out
more about him from others later.
That is your self serving interpretation that is not
supported by her words. She claims she knew something, and
only after contact with another christian did she put an
identity to the feeling. Thus she may have misidentified and
never knew it.
I have no motive at all to be "self-serving," to simply
supply Helen Keller as an answer to what you had
posed earlier.
|
But her example is not an answer unless you impose your own
thinking on her experience hence the self serving tag. If HK
had arrived at Allah as the source of her feelings, you
would undoubtedly disparage both her and her feelings as
being somehow less than your own, yet the feelings may in
fact be identical.
| Quote: |
Why do you think in such negative
terms about people?
|
Well for a start, you have demonstrated elsethread that you
play fast and loose with the truth and that you move
goalposts. Those sorts of thing tend to colour my judgement
of people somewhat.
Or are you conveniently forgetting where you said,
emphatically, that the Koran does not say that Allah loves
people, and when I posted a surah? from the Koran that uses
those exact words, you both denied it again and then
goalpost shifted to say the Koran does not "teach" that
Allah loves people.
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
