Christianity and the End Times

But that is simply not true Phat; you and Faith do NOT start with the Bible but in reality simply ignore the Bible and start with the dogma of your particular Cult and with your personal desired outcomes. Why?Look at the description of the God found in Genesis 1 versus the description of the God found in Genesis 2&3 (remember you claim to begin with the Bible).The God in Genesis 1 is competent, sure, assured, but also aloof, having absolutely no contact, no communication, no communion, no interactions with humans or ANY of creation at all.The God in the much older Genesis 2&3 story though is in communion with humans, does interact with humans, but also is unsure, not very competent, not honest, fearful and punishes humans even though that God created the conditions that made and assured they could only transgress.Remember you claim to begin with the Bible.Which description is the God of the Bible, or are they simply creations of the authors of those stories designed to fit the plot and needs of each story?Or would you prefer to begin with the God YOU need and desire?

The Bible says God cannot fail, and you are denying that.I have no preconceived ideas about any of this either, but you accuse me of it anyway. But denying God's infallibility is you putting your beliefs ahead of the Bible which clearly declares Him infallible.There is nothing in the quote from Jeremiah that contradicts the infallibility of prophecy. He is not talking about prophecy at all, he is talking about the effect of sin and disobedience versus righteousness and obedience on the destiny of a nation. If a nation changes from one to the other it will reap the appropriate rewards or punishments. That has nothing to do with prophecy.

Quite honestly, I believe that my side at least believes that we know God.Your accusation is that we create the God that we want, supported by our "cult". I believe that you and some others never experienced the internal confirmation that I believe that I have. Granted i cant explain how knowing God is possible. I can't defend what I believe nor can Faith, though she tries mightily. You gotta give her credit for chutzpah. IIRC, I never started with the Bible...apart from what I was taught by my parents and culture. I had my "getting saved" moment and felt a major change. I never questioned it or doubted it for many years.To this day I am afraid to throw all of that away and examine religion critically from a human perspective. Faith is even more dogmatic than I am on this point.

I don't think anyone has ever doubted that you believe what you claim to believe. Yet just a few posts ago you claimed that you, Faith and others start with the Bible. Exactly. You maintain the God that you desire, need and create.

quote:

---

The Bible says God cannot fail, and you are denying that.

---

If God changes his mind and doesn’t do. Something he said he’d do, is that a failure ? Because if it is you’re arguing with Jeremiah, not me.

quote:

---

I have no preconceived ideas about any of this either, but you accuse me of it anyway. But denying God's infallibility is you putting your beliefs ahead of the Bible which clearly declares Him infallible.

---

Of course you have the preconceived idea that he prophecy must succeed no matter how you have to torture the text.Also, of course, I’m not saying that Bod is fallible at all. All I am saying is that the Biblical prophecies failed - for whatever reason. If you think that means that God is fallible then that says much more about your assumptions than anything I said.

quote:

---

There is nothing in the quote from Jeremiah that contradicts the infallibility of prophecy. He is not talking about prophecy at all,

---

Prophecy is EXACTLY what he is talking about. If God sends a message saying that he is going to do something that IS prophecy.

quote:

---

...he is talking about the effect of sin and disobedience versus righteousness and obedience on the destiny of a nation. If a nation changes from one to the other it will reap the appropriate rewards or punishments.

---

And the effect is that God can change his mind and not do what he said he’d do.And let’s make the problems for you clearer. How could God not know what they are going to do in advance ? Because if he did know wouldn’t he also know that he wasn’t going to do what he said he was going to do ? Wouldn’t he be knowingly telling a falsehood when he said he was going to do it ? And in your belief didn’t he even intend that they would act in a way that caused him to go back on his word ?

1. That is not the point. The question is whether there is material in there from other sources.
2. Yes, the Gospel does contain original material. Primarily that is Luke's viewpoint.
3. Luke was not a witness, therefore none of the details of any event is original to Luke. It all came from somewhere or somebody else.

You have not given good reasons. You've given silly reasons that are easily rebutted. Tell us what the traditional belief is about Luke's sources. Nobody cares what you believe without looking.

What I mean is that now...after I changed...I use the Bible to support my beliefs. It's nearly worthless to use it with you because you take it where it leads and finds value in other religious texts as well as Mark Twain...so my argument supporting the God Whom I believe in falls flat with you. You always frame the issue that says that humans basically created God and god, and that GOD is beyond all of this. My dogma asserts that GOD is knowable and is not beyond all of this, yet I cant demonstrate how this is possible. Using the Bible to support my argument never works with you for you throw counterexamples right back at me. Yet if I "threw Him away" what would we even talk about except your infamous charge to go feed the hungry and not worry about a correct religion

Would that be so bad? No Phat, you don't.You take those pieces parts that YOU think work for what YOU want but already throw all the rest of the Bible (like the God of Genesis 1) away.

Taking it where it leads is a bad thing? Do you value the Bible only because all other texts have no value?

I've BEEN telling you what ONE of the traiditional views is. They are all mostly in accord but there are, as usual minor differences. From a conservative blogger:I don’t read Luke as dissatisfied with the other reports, since he refers to them as reporting what had been preached by the eyewitnesses to them already: I read it as his wanting to fill out the accounts with more historical detail, which is clear from the gospel itself that he did.And here he gives a scathingly accurate portrayal of the methods of the liberal scholars: Sorry this is rather sloppy, and I may need to go find other statements. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course not. But the Bible to a believer is God speaking to us, often personally but always to believers in general.I've been trying to find a sermon I just heerd this morning by a Josh Moody on "The reliability of the Bible" which he ends with a wonderful statement about how the Bible speaks to us as believers. If I find it I'll reference it although it's an audio sermon so probably nobody will listen to it anyway.Another recent comment comes to mind, by Rosaria Butterfield describing her conversion from a happy life as a lesbian professor of English literature to Christian wife of a pastor, "My Train Wreck Conversion" and other versions of her testimony can be found at You Tube.; Anyway she describes discovering that the Bible is a supernatural work, and her knowledge of literature allows her to apply some strong adjectives to it as having "edgy poetry, compelling narratives, sophisticated (I don't think that was her word but something similar) philosophy" and so on, even from the time when she first started reading it in order to debunk it and still hated its worldview.The Bible is God speaking to us. I can hardly open its pages without being overwhelmed by a palpable sense of peace that seems to emanate from it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I value the Bible because I value God. I honestly believe that I have met God and that He accepted me, though I'm not going to simply use the Bible to find out about Him. On the other hand, what type of maze would I find myself in if I had no point of reference apart from an inner unction? And you must have gone even farther---you initially questioned your inner unction before you let your Faith blossom it into an idea and then a belief. You went with evidence and science instead...and thus remain an atheist. (or am I wrong in my assessment?)

How? Describe it.

I've never heard anyone question the fact that the writer of Luke and Acts traveled with Paul. It is pretty much agreed that Paul was executed in the mid 60's. The general consensus seems to be that Luke was written sometime after 80AD, but I agree that it could have been anytime after Paul's death. At the very least then it would have been more than 30 years after the crucifixion.He clearly indicates that he used the testimonies, written or oral, of eyewitnesses and early Jesus followers and then carefully validated them before doing his best to put them in chronological order.He may himself have been an eyewitness, but if that is the case then it is very strange that he doesn't include himself with the eyewitnesses that he references. I think it is safe to say that he wasn't an eyewitness. Also it is generally conceded that Luke was a gentile or possibly a Hellenic Jew and wouldn't have been in Judea at the time of the resurrection.There is the strong possibilty that Luke would have been with Paul during Paul's sojourns back to Israel where he would have spent time with people like Peter and James, gathering and validating the material in the Gospel.The fact that he as a gentile or Hellenic Jew became a Christ follower after listening to the eyewitnesses and Paul for that matter, is very supportive of the validity of his message.If it was strictly wriotten out of his own head it would have far less validity IMHO.