Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

Thanks for the admission in your and you gods weakness to accomplish simple task, that is sad indeed.Free Will is an amazing thing AM, to answer your question, yes it can. Atleast on the subject we are speaking about I have done this numerous times in many ways, Ill let any reader decide for themselves. Where did you get the exact information about God creating anything, did you see him do this. Where did you get the information and how would you demonstrate that the life in a tree goes back to God after it allegedly leaves a tree. We can do this all day AM. LOL, I have to admit I did not see this one coming, that is very comical AM. You have shut off any objections to this kind of evidence. I simply cannot respond to the force of this powerful argument. Give me a break AMWhat exacally is an "animating being"? Great. Lets see if there is any evidence to support this delusional Paul guy. No, all of the NT was completed by the end of the first century at which time the spiritual gifts were still in full operation along with oral tradition through inspiration of the Holy Spirt. It makes no difference what some council did in 325, good for them. Congradulations you have found an instance where Jesus confirms what I have been saying to not only Peter but the rest of the Apostles, you making progress. In John 16, Matt 18 in conjuction with Acts 1 and chapter 2 we can actually read about this event.Acts chapter 1. Would you say from a scriptural standpoint the promise of the comforter was fulfilled (John 16:13), a simple yes or no will sufficeWould not the book of Acts confirm not only this fact but Paul's contentions about Apostleship and his authority. Here we have a source in Acts of an corroboration other than Paul himself, eh. Or should we throw out Luke the physician and historianD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

bertot wrote;

quote:

---

AM wrote in post #222: Again, if what someone says “speaks for itself” {i.e. makes logical, reasonable, rational sense} then “belief” in the “person” is less important than the message they are conveying. To most if not all Pauline Christians “the messenger” is the most important part of the gospel message. To me the message conveyed is what is most important. Jesus could have been depicted as having said nothing and simply performed some miracles, and then died for the sins of humanity. However, the Four Gospel writers depicted Jesus of Nazareth as having quite a lot to say, and I suspect there is a good reason for these writers to have shared the New Covenant Gospel Message in this fashion.

---

“For the sake of the argument” the above quote should tell you how I personally perceive the truthfulness of the scriptures I quote. When the Holy Spirit enters into the discussion then the Holy Spirit should also be discussed, and when the authenticity of the Scriptures enters into the discussion then the authenticity of the Scriptures should be discussed. I do not see how these subjects can be kept out of the discussion regarding how the Four Gospel writers describe what Jesus of Nazareth supposedly said as opposed to what Saul of Tarsus {a.k.a. Paul}states in his Epistles. This is the second time in this one post, supposedly in response to my post 222, and I will quote myself once again from post 222:

quote:

---

Again, if what someone says “speaks for itself” {i.e. makes logical, reasonable, rational sense} then “belief” in the “person” is less important than the message they are conveying. To most if not all Pauline Christians “the messenger” is the most important part of the gospel message. To me the message conveyed is what is most important. Jesus could have been depicted as having said nothing and simply performed some miracles, and then died for the sins of humanity. However, the Four Gospel writers depicted Jesus of Nazareth as having quite a lot to say, and I suspect there is a good reason for these writers to have shared the New Covenant Gospel Message in this fashion

---

No I do not, apparently. Right off the bat in the following paragraphs you bring up the Holy Spirit and apparently have a need to “assume” that I believe that Spirit to be actual. Why is that? Don’t assume anything on my behalf. We are discussing the New Testament according to Jesus of Nazareth and Saul of Tarsus. Whether I believe any of these characters to be historical and/or actual beings is beside the point, and totally unnecessary to our discussion. Yes, Jesus of Nazareth promised the Apostles - Paul was not an Apostle at this time - guidence from what Jesus referred to as “The Comforter, or Holy Ghost/Spirit, or The Spirit of Truth. That passage is a part of the Four Gospels. In Mark 13:5 & 6 Jesus warns his Apostles:

quote:

---

Take heed lest any deceive you. 6. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am; and shall deceive many.

---

Paul was not a would-be Apostle at the time of this warning. I perceive this warning as pertaining to someone fitting Saul of Tarsus’ description: Paul describes an uncorroborated supernatural event and then appears to become the foundation of the fledgling church when according to Jesus Peter was to be that foundation. Something appears to have occurred here and I see Paul as someone allegedly coming in Jesus Christ’s name and deceiving many.You appear to automatically accept Paul’s fantastic story, and therefore perceive Paul as a true Apostle carrying on Jesus word through the Holy Spirit. I do not perceive Paul’s role in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as being aligned with the message Jesus was originally conveying. That is what I have been attempting to relate to you, but you seem to be unable to admit even the most blatant examples I have shared. You are really not reading what I am writing to you. I am saying that you “deny” even the slightest possibility that the Hebrew Eden Narrative is a “parable.” And you seem to want to argue over the most innocuous applications of the English language. This is unnecessary and does not help us make progress in our discussion. You throw around the word “facts” while you are stating your personal opinion. Your opinion does not constitute “a fact.” Sorry, bertot, that’s just how it is. Your faith does not constitute “a fact.” Your comparison of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas to the National Enquirer of today is an extremely uneducated comparison. Much of what is in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is also found in the Four Gospels of the New Testament.It is like you are saying something to the effect, “I have never eaten this or that, but I know I don’t like it.” Well, why don’t you quote me a passage from the Four Gospels saying that the Gospel Jesus wanted shared with all nations was supposed to be altered. Did Jesus ever say to his Apostles of the time when he was mortal that the Gospel message he was sharing would in the future be changed or altered in any fashion? I have not yet found that passage that describes Jesus saying, “his words will never pass away” except when the Holy Ghost and Paul may deem it appropriate. Where is that written in the Four Gospels?You keep trying to lay the burden of proof on me. I think it is up to you and Jaywill and ICANT to come up with a little proof of your own. The Comforter assisting the Apostles is quite different than The Comforter altering what Jesus regarded as the Gospel that should be taken to every nation. I think you are indeed just being obstinate. You have taken that which I said totally out of context. You are indeed confusing a secular society to a theocratic society. I can show many instances in this secular society where theocratic beliefs still rule the day. However, that is not the point. The point I was attempting to make is that made by Jesus in Matthew 18:15 thru 17 regarding someone being trespassed against: The final step in resolving the trespass according to Jesus is “tell it {the trespass} unto the church.”When Paul makes a statement such as this:

quote:

---

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body. 24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (KJV)

---

Paul continues the male domination of women in all societies that believe Paul is speaking on behalf of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Male domination of women has been part of Christian beliefs since the earliest times of the church and continue to be an aspect of even the most secular societies where the Christian church plays a profound role in shaping social behavior. Yea, imagine that. Like it was copied right out of the Septuagint. Now there is really something to get excited about. Quite often my wife drives me. We share the responsibility. What, does that not fit your conception of the natural arrangement of things? I don’t know who told you this nonsense, but that is exactly what you are conveying is nonsense. All of it! There is no “Adam” the “helper” is the stronger, “woman” was not built from Adam’s rib, the term for “rule” is that of “representing”, and there is not Eve. These Hebrew grammatical factors are not conveyed in the Greek Septuagint. But, what the heck, you really don’t want to look at the Hebrew Eden Narrative in that fashion. The Hebrew term “shall rule” does not express “domination”, but rather “representation.” There is a vast difference. I like God’s order just fine, it is your interpretation of God’s order that I have sincere questions about. There is a difference.I’ve got to get some sleep.
All the best,

Am I have just read your last post and I dont see anything "new" that requires an immediate response, just your usual misunderstandings, complaining and gripping about things you clearly dont understand, ha ha. Therefore I have got to get numerous things done today I will get to this last nonsensical post of yours as quickly as I can this evening. Hold if you will and I will got back with you.D Bertot

Well, apparently your God is a little weak in this department also. There are many who do not share your view of what is “written” or where it actually came from. If an anthropomorphic Supreme Being cannot make himself clear in any human language, then how are human beings supposed to do any better? I still do not see this so-called “Free Will” thing at work in the world. To make an informed and willful choice first one needs unambiguous information and then one needs the freedom from threats and coercion in order for one’s choice to be truly free. In regard to your God and His commandments, we humans have neither. I know for a fact insofar as my reality is concerned, human beings are still unable to create anything that is “living” in a mortal state. I did not see an old pine tree start growing from the ground hundreds of years ago, but I know that is how this old pine tree got started. I did not see the mountains form, but I know that at one time they did indeed form. In fact, I know that they are continuing to form as we speak. I know that human beings did not create the old pine tree or the mountains. There is life in the mountains and the old pine, and there is life teeming all around and inside of me. And this life was here before I was born and it will be here after I die. There is something going on here that humans are subject to and that humans will always be subject to. I really don’t care what you call it, but I do not need to apply my human imagination in order to know and respect what it is. What exactly is a “dude who can walk on water”? Oh, I don’t think Paul was delusional. I think Paul was calculating and shrewd. My friend, you really need to examine the actually history of the first century CE. But in order to do that you might want to refine your definition of “history”. That which requires “belief” and/or “faith” is not referred to as “historical.” I can’t believe you believe this kind of fantasy. Taking all the New Testament into consideration and believing the unbelievable, the answer to this loaded question would be “yes”. But that “yes” is a qualified *yes.

quote:

---

7.He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 10.They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11."Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

---

Why do you think that not even the one of authority here can give a straightforward, clear and concise answer? Why doesn’t the Father share his secrets with his Apostles? He doesn’t trust his Apostles? Or, could it be that the author of this scenario doesn’t have a clue, but really wants to keep the audience hooked into the story?Oh you bet. There’s no human imagination involved here. Well, I wouldn’t throw out anything. But I also wouldn’t just blindly believe the story because the story does not, in and of itself, make any reasonable sense. Acts was supposedly composed anywhere from 60 to 150 CE. Paul’s writing and influence began about a decade or more before the earliest date. Think about it. I have read that Luke and Paul were close friends. Now wouldn’t that be convenient?There was a movie called “To Live & Die in LA.” The movie was total fiction, but LA is a real place; there were undercover police, drug dealers, drugs, sex, and violence - all of which can be regarded as founded in reality. However, the fictional movie was not a documentary or a historical account of anything that it depicted.All the best,
Ger

I understand what you are saying here. However, this ignores the fact, that it is simply ignorant to pick and choose out of what someone may have said or not said. If you pick and choose what you want and reject the other things attributed to him, like his claims of Deity and belief in Hell and the such like, it demonstrates you have no understanding of how to proceed objectively
and rationally. Example, if we can not have confidence in the things he claimed and the things he taught on Hell, then it is completley idiotic to assume he could have been correct on any other thing, or that he even made those statements. You pull out the things that fit you theories and reject the others, this is a nonsensical way to proceed at best.This began by me asking you to provide a statement in scripture that required blind faith. When you presented Mark16:15-17, I demonstrated from scriptures that the Apostles had and recieved inspiration from Christ and God to speak on thier behalf, and in fact that it was not the Apostles but Christ Himself (Rev 2) accomplishing these additions and changes, to the methods and not doctrines, issues and truths.You still have not provided any argument or scripture that will suffice to demonstrate that these changes were not authorized and accepted. You have not demonstrated that even nulification is not justified. If God decides to alter or change a method and scripture indicates the method and this was accomplished, then you a huge task to demonstrate "from" scripture that this was not the case. For the same reason you use Jesus' words in an argument as if they were true. If you dont believe all of his words its simply silly for me to believe you accept anything else he had to say. with regard to deminishing or nulifying.. In other words what reason is there to believe that his promise of the Holy Spirit later should be considered as valid or truthful? What right would he have to ask us to keep his commandments, you know, the verese you quoted. It is logical when discussing scripture for scripture to assume atleast in that context the truthfulness of the statements, if you do not it becomes a farce.This would be like me discussing the Eden narrative with you and myself picking and choosing out of the narrative what I want to believe or not believe and not simply trying to interpret the narrative itself. I assume the truthfulness of the narrative, wether I accept it as metaphor or literal, then proceed with the interpretation.If you are not willing to assume even for the sake of argument the possibility of the truthfulness of statement in scripture, it would be idioic to continue a expanded discussion of what the Holy Spirit did or did not do, what he said or did not say, what he altered or nulified, etc, etc . Tthat is a silly way to proceed, at every turn we would be stopping an questioning even the exitence of such a thing, do you see what I am saying? AM I dont mind having a discussion about the HS, real or not. At present we are only trying to decide weather or not the scriptures contradict themselves, weather or not Pauls words are in conflict with Christ. Do you see the difference between these two discussions at present. I cant fathom why this is so hard to understand. Thank you. Now since this promise was actual atleast from scripture, would it not follow that these words were not the Apostles but God's himself? Further, the Gospels do not limit the criteria of this promise to the present Apostles, there is no indication in scripture that it had limitations to the present Apostles, this is you assumption. Could you provide a passage that limits this to the then existing 12. AM it is easy to fabricate fanciful theories about this or that, in this case about Paul. Your one main problem is the book of Acts, Peter himself in his epistles and Church History do not support you unsupported conjecture. Do you realize you have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence for this outlandish claim. You have not shared anything that I have not demonstrated to be a misunderstanding of scripture. Where in history could even a shred of what you are saying be supported, when the Apostles themselves accepted what he had to say and teach.
Now I have a choice I cantrust AM here or I can trust those closest to the events themselves, the book of acts, Peter and the rest of the NT writers, guess who i pick? Oh yeah that s right, this is where we switch gears and start talking about the nonexistence of Peter, the falsity of the book of Acts and the rest of the NT writers and the extreme prjudice of the early Chruch father. Darn it, I keep forgetting the rules, when AM quotes Jessus he is real and believable, when I quote Jesus, Paul or another NT writer, they are imaginary and undependable authors at best. I really should try anfd pay attention. How do you know what is in my mind unless I reveal it to you. I do not "deny" the "possibilty" of it as a parable anymore than I do the book of Job or Luke 16. However, in my mind I see other evidence to the opposite, than your interpretation. The first of which is the author of the narrative, the same one that wrote the rest of the Torah, seems to think it was actual. This is not denying anything "absolutley", get your facts straight. And the National Enquier has some facts in it as well, but do you accept it as a realiable source AM. The facts are that earliest Christians, the Apostles, new what the truth was in a aritten form, this is why the gnostic gospels cannot be nearly reproduced in thier writings. Sorry AM that just the way it is. OK, no problem. "Howbeit when he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into "all" truth, and will show you things to come."If they did not have all truth it follows that more was to come. Changing a method of doing something does not constitue alteration of the truth or nulification of its precepts. Expansion of truth is not alteration, either. And you are accusing me wanting to argue the most innocuous items of the English language. None of Jesus' spiritual truths changed by application of the Holy Spirit only the method of application. I dont see why this is so hard to understand.
The gifts given by the HS, AM, were not themselves spiritual truth but the item they related or communicated. The "method" of application faded, the truth remained in a different fashion. This does not constitute alteration of spiritual truth. Wow I cant believe you cant see that. The Comforter altered nothing of Spiitual truth, or altered any of Jesus' truths. God , Christ and the Holy Spirit are in ONE purpose an understanding, how in the world would that happen anyway, that they would contradict eachother"Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Please go back into history my friend and show me where man has not generally taken the lead in relationships in or out of the Church. Heck go back into history and show me where man has not taken the lead in any or most affairs. I am not trying to sound dominant or stereotypical, that just the way it is by design or creation. I choose creation. now AM is this society dictating this or is it the natural order. Any thinking person can see it is a natural order. This natural order can be disrearded or ignored or in the case of nature sometimes not follow its exact pattern, but that does not mean the general rule is not there. I have seen the movie" Island of the Amazon women", and I would very much like to visit this Island where they all look like., Linda Carter an hit you with sticks when you disobey them, but this is not reality.Jesus' statement has to do with Gods people with eachother not what you are to do in civil matters, ie, "render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and unto God what is Gods". These are two different things and you are inavertently transposing the two.
I was not speaking about Chruch rule verses civil, but a womens relationship to a man in the Church and thier marraige. Pauls exlamation of submission has nothing to do with domination in the sense you are trying to represent it. You are equating submission with slavery, nothing of the sort is contemplated in his Epistles. As a matter of fact his words make women equal with man, except from the design God has established from a spiritual standpoint. Notice Pauls words, "Husbands love you wives as you would love your own body", "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it" does this sound like domination and slavery to you? The stronger serves the weaker.The institutions of marraige, the family and the Chruch are institutions appointed by God. It is not unreasonable that there would be a rule and structure of leadership in them. These are not Pauls rules and guidelines at all, they are the LordsChrist acknowledged the order God had set up in the temple service and its relationship to women, Christ had ample opportunity to overide these principle should he wanted to. Paul was simply stating throught the Holy Spirit and order that was established long before he came on the scene. Were Moses and God also descriminatory in the old covenant, or was Moses simply followiing a spiritual rule set up by God himself. Do I need to bring back ICANT and have him show you once again the simalarites between the DSS, MT and Septuagint?ICANT writes post 13 of Eden 1: More accuately your response does not fit reality. I brought this up to demonstrate a simple point and you are avoiding it like a plauge. Is it a general rule that men take the lead in situations, relationships, circumstances, etc. Especially in relationships across the world. Sorry AM, it is ironic that you claim "natural" all the time but cannot see this very simple obvious fact. Evasion AM does not become you.It occured to me that if you are not willing to see such a obvious point in this instanceyou will probably not be reasonable in any other simple examples of life or scripture. You know the answer to my above question you simply want to avoid it at all costs.Christ and the Apostle Paul simply try to bring this simple principle of our roles before God into proper perspective in thier lives and writings. Christ and the Apostles removed it from domination and slavery to respectability and reality. If you do not like Gods plan in nature and his word find another one, as I suspect you have already.bertot wroteBy all means my friend please elaborate and show me why this is nonsense, from nature and scripture. I cant wait to hear this gem of wisdom. I believe ICANT has already addressed most if not all of these issues. Who said anything about domination in the sense you are using it. Even representation means "to act or speak for". Wow that sounds alot like Pauls words, eh. The women is silent in represenaive situations or she shows the proper respect for the mans lead, as God has designed it.Also, I would assume there are more definitions than 'representation', could I see the others the Hebrew dictionary offers for this expression, in there order. Tell me what exacally is Gods order and where do you learn of it from
? What did he not make himself clear about? A person can make a decision if he or she has little, some, no ,or absolutly complete information. Information is not the primary factor in making a choice, it helps, but its not the deciding factor, your will is the deciding factor.
AM even with the threat of prison and the death peanalty people still choose to act incorrectly, this shots your coercion theory in the proverbial foot. This is nothing against you personally but this is the most idiotic postion I have ever heard anyone try and defend, that people dont have free will or choice. Even in America freedom is not the right to doanything you want but that which is withing the law. I dont see how it could be any simplier. Do you know for a fact that if the universe is infinite as you suggested that it could not be a product of itself? Impressive beyond belief Shrewd and calculating people do not suffer and die for a cause that would bring them pain, suffering and and imprisonment constantly. Another nonsensical response from AM In this instance history corroborates my position, if any of the Apostolic fathers are to be believed. Oh yeah bertot, dont you know they are all liars and fakes!!! Also, Jaywill writes in post 208 of Eden 1: AM writes:So when Jesus promised this he was delusional, phony, fake and idiot, stupid, imaginary, it didnt happen, what exacally should I believe AM.. A qualified yes and that answer is only going to be settled by AM, correct? So you overwhelming brillant conclusion is to compare the NT and the book of Acts to a hollywood movie, and you cant understand why you cant comprehend any of these things.I also suggest that you dont blindly believe either, just review the evidence for its reliability. The first of which is that it has not been discredited with all its facts, history and related information. It gets nothing wrong. Now thats an impressive start. [qs]quote:
7.He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 10.They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11."Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." If he gave an answer you would say it should not be trusted or accepted as reliable. When we say Jesus spoke you say he never wrote anything down. When we say Moses wrote the Torah you say it was not him. Do you see how your logic works. It doesnt matter what the evidence presented is, you will reject it.So in this instance it was the author that lied about what some imaginary angels said. So why could we trust anyhting the authors said about what Jesus did or did not say?One last thought here before wrapping up. It is interesting that you campare pauls teaching to domination and slavery. Because in neither before marraige or during it does the Apostle command either of the partries that they "have" to get married or command that they "stay" married. He incourages them to stay married but he does not command it. "If the unbelieving wishes to depart let them, in such cases the believer is not under bondage"All captivity is slavery but not all slavery is captivity. I am a slave to my job, family and God because I choose to be, however, I am not a Captive in the sense of the children of Israel in Babylon or the Jews in Germany, they did not have choice to go or stay, they were captives.Paul does not make that kind of state of affairs existent in the marraige bond. If however one chooses to accept that status it should be by Gods rules but they are not "forced" to remain in that situation. That is the difference of what God is saying and what you are trying to make the Apostle say. Paul was a slave (free will) to Christ because he choose to be, not a captive in the respect that he had no choice, see the difference?References:"That which is Perfect"
http://www.bibleweb.com/proveallthings/pat1-23.htm"Did Paul invent Christianity"
http://www.godandscience.org/...l_invented_christianity.htmlWho Founded Christianity - Jesus or St. Paul?Another interesting discussion.
Is soul sleep biblical? Do we go to Heaven when we die?A discourse between Dr. Jaywill and Dr. Autumnman in Eden 1 Two points of interest here and I promise I will quit adding things to this post.Given all the information we do have about Saul or Paul, this question presents itself. Why would a fellow that is persecuting and executing people of a certain "Way" of thinking, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, aside of the one offered in the book of Acts, change his way of thinking and decide to adopt the Gospel of Christ, or most of what Christ taught and then be willing to suffer all of the same things he was persecuting the 'Way' for and the items attached to it. This would make no logical sense.If one objects and says, well there is no evidence that Paul suffered any of these persecutions or trials, would it not behoove that person to provide atleast some evidence that he was the type of person that is being offered, other than what is indicated in Acts, Pauls Epistles, the rest of the NT and Church history.Second point, why is the Paul of shrewdness and calculation never presented from any historical context or is this view of him ever supported by anyother source than his own writings. If the book of Acts, his epistles and the rest of the NT are not a reliable source about Paul, what are the sources that would present him in the context of a "hijacker" and perverter of Christ's teachings.If there are no sources to determine this type of evidence, outside of the ones we know about, then it would follow, that these are the only reliable sources to begin with. secondly, it would follow that the logical way to proceed, would an examination and comparison of what the OT, Christ, the rest of the Apostles, Paul and the NT teach, correct?D Bertot.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Hi Bertot,I just poped in to point out something about Paul's teaching concerning women.In I Cor. chapter 14 Paul is setting up some guidelines for the Church.It seems everyone wanted to speak in other tongues whether there was an interperter or not.There is no such thing as unknown tongue.Tongues were for a sign to them that believe not. vs 22.Any Church can make the rules for how worship service is carried out.So these rules were made so as paul says: You guys keep batting the gospel of Jesus around like it is a tennis ball.Jesus taught many things.But the Gospel of Jesus is the GOODNEWS.JESUS CAME TO PROVIDE A WAY MAN COULD BE REUNITED WITH GOD.
JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS. HE WAS SEPARATED FROM GOD THE FATHER.
JESUS WAS BURIED.
JESUS CAME FORTH FROM THE GRAVE.THEREBY WE HAVE VICTORY OVER DEATH HELL AND THE GRAVE.
WHEN WE ACCEPT THE FREE FULL PARDON OFFERED BY GOD.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I agree 100% here, the Gospel is the facts you have set out. AMs contention is that the other teachings of Christ could not be altered or nulified in any respect either. I have tried to make it clear that a change in method does not constitute a change in doctrine or spiritual knowledge.Thanks for you comments I enjoy them and I know AM appreciates thwm as well, even if you guys vehemently disagree, I suppose that is part of the process and fun, it is to me anyway. trying to come to atleast some agreement.Thanks again and please jump in at any time, I am sure AM gets tired of hearing just myself.D Bertot

bertot:You put an astounding amount of work into your previous post. I am impressed and I thank you. It is my intention to reply as soon as I can. Today is not a good day for me to respond, however. I have a great deal going on and I'm still working at completing my fence repair.If I've got the mental vitality to respond this evening, I will. But if not I'll see what life is like tomorrow.All the best,
Ger

AM writesHas anyone heard from the Naturalist, Autunman? Its been several days now with no indications of what his status might be.

You know as much as I do.Maybe he is studying trying to figure a way out of a dilemma.He might have a physical problem.He may have decided it was not worth his time arguing with a fence post.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT writes:Wait a minute here, who is the fence post here you or me, ha ha.D Bertot

I know I am because I have six messages to him with no answer to any of them yet.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Good enough,Ill shoot him an e-mail to see if He is ok.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

bertot & ICANT & Jaywill:Sorry about not being able to get back with you guys. Fence repair, harvest, the weather and my level of energy have all been in the way of me getting back with the conversations.bertot: I’m going to go back up to that last long post you shared and begin a response to it.I’ll stay with it as long as I can tonight.All the best,
Ger

post 230bertot wrote: There are certain things that the authors of the NT claim that are nonsensical and idiotic, and that defy objective or rational reasoning. Jesus being born of a virgin, him walking on water, raising a four day old rotting corpse from the dead, to name a few, are nonsensical, idiotic, objectively ludicrous, and irrational literary proclamations. For one Gospel writer to state Jesus saying, “love your enemies...and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” and “be therefore merciful as your Father as” (Luke 6:35/6). And then another Gospel writer describes Jesus saying, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16) certainly gives the appearance of contradiction. It is a little hard to be “kind to the unthankful and the evil” and at the same time “damn the nonbelievers.” So, you are saying that what is written in Mark 16:15 thru 18 was only meant for the Apostles? Only the Apostles were to be able to take up serpents and drink deadly things? No one after the first century CE or even the second century CE and on through the centuries were to read these passages at the end of the Gospel of Mark and understand these passages as literally speaking to them personally? I do not merely assume that anything or everything written in the Scriptures is accurate, or truthful. To me, it is illogical to do so. Nothing becomes a “farce” by approaching the Scriptures in this fashion. I do not merely believe everything I hear or everything I read. I ask for real, objective, tangible proof. I am no more skeptical of what I read in the Scriptures than what I read in the current Newspapers.I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was anymore God in the flesh that you or I. Without the spirit of God in our noses neither one of us would be here having this discussion. To me, that is a fact. To you it probably sounds like naturalist blaspheme. I think that your example is a little off. Jesus of Nazareth being depicted as God in the flesh who has mainly come to die for our sins is quite different than an narrative that clearly contains metaphorical and/or figurative references woven throughout its narrative context. Regarding the Eden Narrative and its poetic context, in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Thomas describes the living Jesus as saying:

quote:

---

“Indeed, you have five trees in paradise, which do not move in summer or winter, and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever is acquainted with them will not taste death” (GTh 36:21-24).

---

The term “paradise” is the LXX equivalent of Heb. “garden” in Eden. The five trees are then described as being metaphorical and/or figurative “trees”.Whether you accept these word as being spoken by Jesus or not, the fact remains that someone nearly two thousand years ago perceive the “five trees in paradise” as being metaphors within a parable. Whether I blindly believe in the ethereal existence of an anthropomorphic entity referred to in the Scriptures, as the “Holy Spirit” should have no bearing on whether what the human authors of the Scriptures proclaim the Holy Spirit supposedly said; that is in black and white in scripture. I am questioning what is written, copied, translated, and copied again. Whether the Holy Spirit is an actual ethereal being is not an issue; we are discussion what the authors of the NT wrote down for us to read. Apparently, somehow the HS being real or not came into the discussion. Perhaps that occurred because you are or were claiming that the HS bestowed powers on the Apostles and then took them away leaving us with little more than a bunch of words in a book. To me, as I read the NT the words of Jesus of Nazareth do indeed conflict with the words of Paul and Acts by Luke. If it is Jesus of Nazareth’s “words” that will last forever, then that is what I tend to read. And if the words of Jesus of Nazareth convey different gospel messages, then I look to see how the contradiction can be resolved. I think what I perceive as the “limiting” factor here is the literary context indicates that Jesus is talking only to those who are with him at the time, and I do not recall reading where the Gospels expand the issue to all those who will follow. It seems that Jesus would have made it clear that the HS was going to be there for all of the followers who would come into play after his death on the cross. Perhaps you could help me find the passage in the Four Gospels where Jesus states that the HS will be there for all those followers who come after the original 12.Sorry, bertot, but I am too tired to keep going at this point. I will try to get back to the rest of your impressive post by tomorrow evening.All the best,
Ger