Summations Only

Get real, No nuclear weapons, that is not even close to what I am saying or arguing. He is saved or not saved by the blood of Christ. What his beliefs are after that fact has nothing to do with that established factChrist often claimed that the Apostles had little faith, "Oh yeah of little faith", but he never characterized them as not saved or Gods childrenIf you are going to represent someone, try and do it with some intelligence, objectivity and all the factsNonukes writesThe Bible saysDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again with respect, you simply do not understand. Before you believe anything it is and becomes a simple logical propositionIf we claim that it is from God, insist that we cant really distinguish between which writers were accurate and factual, insist that thier are contradictions and cant distinguish between which facts are accurate, then nothing else is verifiable, not even the reusurrectionA good reason to believe something, with this kind of rational becomes non-sensical and idiotic. Again with respect to you as a person, I am addressing you position, not youIts not that choosing a literal approach feels better, its that it makes no LOGICAL sense to begin with As I have just demonstrated with my usual force of reason, you above statment is not the caseTo disregard Gods infinite power and suggest that he would leave us with some type of guessing game makes no logical sense. To suggest that we ourselves could work out and decide what should be accepted in the parameters of what we consider is his word, makes no sense Unfortunately you are picking and choosing again. You are leaving out Gods infinite wisdom and mercy to make such decisions as those described in the OTAgain I dont mean to suggest that I have a perfect faith, only that we seem to need to work on different aspects of it. But the point is that you cant take one part and leave off another While this is true and every good reason to believe that I need to work on this aspect more than yourself, it does not change the fact that you position on this matter, is illogical, irrational and unscriptural, considering the amount of information we have concerning, the nature of God, the direction and purposes of God, the inspiration of God, as described in his wordI am truely enjoying our discussion, see you after Christmas, which by the way, for all the non-believers and liberals out there, is About Christ (not holidays)and his life and death and reusrrectionDont let the liberals win, keep Christ in Christmas, dont let the liberals have an inch. Stop the mouth of the gainsayers Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How about what you havent provided, a method of rational evaluation that allows us to distinguish between that which is to be believe from God and that which is to be rejected.GDR, your faith that jesus was true and the others were not, is not enough to establish your postion as rational, it has to be rational to begin with.The literal approach is atleast rational, and is consistent with what the scripture has to say overall, especially with what it has to say concerning Gods characteistics and natureIn your approach, you have God as a finite, limited, confusing, lying, immoral monster. Now I know you dont believe or practice that, but that is the conclusions of your positionIf not, how do we decide that which is to be as accepted. Should we do this on GDRs conclusions and estimations alone? What is someone disagrees with your approach to the resurrection. Can he still be saved beliving the story is to be believed only as a mythical story?When you are preaching to him concerning the reusrrection and he simply cannot believe that it was real, is he GOOD TO GO? What evidence will you provide him that that Jesus was real and had authority to correct things in the OT. BTW, Jesus was not correcting the OT, but thier misguided perception of it. God did atually provide a bill of divorcement, but then God has always been mercifulHere is the proof from the NT,as you you believe it to be the truth"At the times of this ignorance God let pass, but now commands that all men everywhere repent and come to a knowledge of the truth" ActsIf however we dont know or cannot distinguish what the truth is or is not, then it is impossible to come to the knowledge of anythingSo you see the Old and the New do agree and thier is the explanation from the NT, about the OldYes God si the same yesterday, etc, but as Heb 1 points out he does things different thing in different ways, fo r the purpose of his peopleBTW, what authority did jesus have to correct anybody about anything. Both Moses and Jesus claim to be from God. Who is telling the truth and why?Bertot writes GDR writesYes you know what I meanthere is the point GDR. In your OP you made an assertion and an allegation. You now need a way to sustain that assertion.My purpose is not to put you on the spot or hot seat as it were, just to let you know if you make assetions or allegations, you need to be able to defend them in some logical rational fashionIf you choose not answer this question that is fine. Again,do you believe the miracles as described in the Bible are and were real?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This position that you take is not rational at all for any reason. A literal position atleast starts from a rational standpoint. Let me demonstrate with an example to perhaps get you to understand. Your approach is nonsensical at the outset. As an example Dawkins, Hitchens whoever, begin an attack on God saying he is evil, they derive this partly from scriptures and what God has doneBut now watch and pay close attention. thier approach to whether God is evil is the same as your contention as to how we approach the scripture, it makes no sense to begin with, its irrational, illogical and nonsensical, even before we begin an examination of the scripturesFor them to call God evil, they need to have a standard that is absolute to characterize God as evil. If they only have a standard that is subjective and that is all it can be, from any finite perspective, this premise dosent even allow them to characterize anything concerning any book anywhere, much less the Bible. Thier argument is irrational to begin withIts not that they cant talk about the Bible or come to mental conclusions, its that thier premise is irrational and illogical to begin with. Any further arguments or conclusions or thier part, having NOT resolved that very glaring contradiction are nonsensical and a waste of timeIn the same way, your approach makes no logical sense, its not rational, even before examining what the scriptures has to say. Your starting with a premise that says there is no rational way to know what is or is not truthThe comparison between you and them is unmistakeable, neither of you have a logical approach that says truth is possible to begin with Wrong, as I have just demonstrated. your position ignores even the simplest rules of reason. Your position like thiers is contradictory before it even begins to examine any book, witing or text, muchless the bibleLike them you have no standard of truth or objectivity. Your original premise and starting point is that truth is not obtainable actually. It follows that any points or observations of claimed contradiction by yourself are therefore illogical, irrational, or at best faulty observationsLike them, you have no way to distinguish what is actual, factual, objective or believable. Im not just saying your interpretations of the scriptures are inaccurate, your approach like thiers is irrational and a glaring contradiction to begin withOnce in the scriptures, your position becomes even more unreasonable, because it claims God is somehow its author, then you ignore the characterizations of God as infinte, then start picking and choosing what you want to believe is moral, acceptable and believableDont you see GDR, your making the same initial, illogical mistake our secular fandamentalist atheist friends are making, when they characterize God as evil. When you ask them how they decided or came upon what is good and moral, they flounder to give you an answer, because thier survival of the fittest position is subjective at best, which means there is no real evil to begin with Which involves them in immediate contradiction, like your approach to the scriptures.Forget what the Bible has to say ANYWHERE IN ITS PART OR WHOLE, your approach gives us absolutely no way to decern what the truth or facts are on any matter to start with.Your FAITH in your ability to distinguish between what is real or truthful, is no better than thier subjective nonsesne, about god being evil. Since you like CS Lewis and he said that there is no reason to talk about evil, if there is no standard of good by which to judge it. it would follow that there is no need to talk about what is truthful, actual or real, if there is no way to identify it, other than our own INDIVIDUAL observations and conclusions, which will soon clash with the next personsThink about it this way. Its ok to have an opinion, belief or faith about something, but when that fiath, belief or opinion makes claims and demands requirements as Christianity do, then the approach to those claims has to be atleast logicalIts one thing for the atheist to believe God does not exist, but to claim he is evil is another proposition. He has to have a basis for that claim that starts off in some logical fashion, they dont because they have no basis for what is good or evil. Even disregardinf what the scripture says thier approach is illogical to start withYours is the same wayIn like manner its ok for you to believe that the Bible contains some of the word of God, but when you attach, demands and requirements in the for m of obeying the Gospel, believing Jesus to be saved and hell, then that becomes a different proposition. You approach has to atleast logical and rationalYour approach makes the resurrection subjective, because even within your own approach you have no standard to imply that it is even possibly true. Yet you insist that it has to be ture for Christianity to be valid or believable, yet your approach offers no method t assit in this beliefHow would your approach to Gods infinite and eternal word, as the bible describes assure anyone that the resurrection actually happened or could evn be believed You have consitently ignored anything I have quoted concerning Jesus' veiws on hell Remember my original point above. Its pointless for you to contrast scriptures, when you havent established an initial mehtod for deteming which is true or belivable to begin with. First things first. What is your objective method for deciding which we should accept and what we should be discarded, as non truth and not actually factual?If you dont have a method, then just say I have no method, Im just winging it Even in your responses your words give you away that your approach is not rational to begin with. Your statement above is tantamount to saying that you are winging it. Disregarding even what the scriptures say about this or that, is tantamount to saying I dont actually have a clue about what is real or truthful, even including doctrines such as the resurrection It appears now, in your above statement, that you are now, not even giving God any credit for any of its content. The "decernable reason" as you call it, is intially made by using atleast some form of sound reasoning in appraoching its contentIn a book that is repleat with claims of inspiration, "Thus saith the Lord", "The Word of the Lord came to me Saying", "you shall be guided into all truth", etc, etc, etc, should be given atleast the benifit of a rational approach to begin withYour position and approach is not even logical or rational, even before you start speaking about faithDawn Bertot writes: GDR writesNo GDR they do not disagree. Jesus had already maintained that he believed and upheld the Law of Moses by saying not one jot or tittle would pass from it, until all was fulfilledHis corrections were to fine tune what the Law actually said, verse what they had come to believe as doctrine. Example, Hillel and Shami were two very conservative priest that had interpreted the law of the sabbath to mean, you can get out of bed, but do nothing (No work). The other said, you cant even get out of bed. To which he said which of you having a donkey fall into the ditch would not try and get him out, even on the Sabbath"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath"The people had come to understand that they personally could take an eye for an eye, outside the law. Jesus takes it one step further and says, love you enemies. He is trying to show what you should do on a personal level, he is not disregarding the law or proceedure. They had understood and had come to mean on a personal level. Jesus is addressing it from a personal levelNotice that Jesus' response is on personal level, because that is what they had began to be taught, that on a personal level, you could take the law into yoiur own hands. His response is personal, man to man, because that is how it had begun to be taught by "Them of old", not the law. Them of old were those that had interpreted the law, they wwere not the law makerSometimes they had changed the law altogether and said if you give that to the temple you had set aside for your father and mother, you are discharged from you obligation to honor your father or mother in this regard.Jesus said where did the law ever allow thatWhen Jesus said "you teach for doctrine the commandments of men". This is clear indication he believed the law of Moses in all its parts. he would not be correcting something he agreed with and said needed to be fulfilledThink about it logically, why would Jesus say I believe in God, I believe the law will be fulfilled,nothing shall pass out of the law and the Law is the Doctrine of God, then turn right around and start explaining why the law and Moses were wrong.He was not correcting the Law but the traditions that had grown up around the LawIf your position is correct, not only do we have the Old contradicting the New, now we have Jesus contradicting his own words. That is not what he was doing. He was not comparing his words to MosesHe was showing two distinctions. Traditons that came into direct conflict with Gods law and how we as individuals should act concerning eachother. The law, is that which convicts of sin, not usAgain, for Jesus to say, "You teach for doctrine the commandments of men", implies logically he knew and understood what that law actually was, what the exact parameters of the law were.It would make no sense for him to contradict what he knew to be true. He was not comparing his words to Moses and implying Moses was in error, when he had already agreed to the validity and content of the Law
.Dawn Bertot writes: GDR WRITESthanks for this for now we can discuss its implications at another timeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

GDR, there is no "actual evidence to the contrary", for your argument or position,if you dont know what is real or not and if you have to pick and choose by your own judgementsLet me demonstrate. In the beginning of post 42 you stated "The thing is I have faith in God". I would very much contend that you have no faith in God at all. Here is why.You have been presented with two passages that involve God taking action upon human beings. Acts 5 and Numbers 15. Youve also been presented with many NT passages that imply God will take extreme judgement on people in HellIn each of these instances you have used your own rescources (your mind) to decide what is or is not Gods actions, what is factual and what is real You pick and choose, essentially making your own mind and decisions God himselfIn fact there is no not one single point or statement in the Bible that you could point to and say you have complete faith on God, on that alone. You have chosen every single point from your own mind, on what is Gods and what is not.Why do need God at allIn Acts 5 and Numbers 15 you have charged God with inappropriate behavior, or at bare minimum, You make God non-effective and your mind supremeIsnt it possible that God knew the reason in Numbers 15 why that person should be stoned, just like he knew why Ananias and Saphira should dieYou actully have no faith in God at all and you dont let him make his own decisions, you make them for himYou decide what is truth and what is not, what is historical and what is not, what was an actual miracle and what was not, what morality is and what is not, etc, etc, etcWhy do you need Gods principles at all. If I am wrong, point to one single thing that you have let God deicide on his own, without your approval. Then tell me how you deicded itTell me what it is actually you actually have faith in. You say God, but then I cant see anything you havent decided for yourself and by yourself aloneYou intimate that i intellectualize the Word for God, but it is actually you that makes all the cognitive decisions for God and people to accept or rejectYour standard of faithis your own mind. Tell me one thing where you have let God be the soul judge in the matter, without your approval or disaproval, without involving your own standard of morality, without involving yourself at all. Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. I dont claim anything for God, except what you and I have already agreed upon, is that it is his Word. I take the Word at its word and his judgements as valid concerning his characteristics as they are describedYou have read the book of Job correct? Again, do you see any mental processes going on here, where you are deciding for God, or what even may be Gods decisions, being made by GDR?There is no faith on you part here, regardless of what else you see the scriptures teachingIsnt it possible that the person described in Numbers 15 was openly defiant and that part was not revealed to us.Isnt that a much better approach to faith in God, instead of deciding for God what his judgements should be in each situation"There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death""It IS NOT in man to direct his own steps"A non-literal appproach leads to every man being his own Judge and even GodI dont understand why a guy reaching out to catch the Ark from hitting the ground should be put to death either.So Iam faced with a delimma. I can reject it outright or I can say Im not God and will not rationalize his decisions to suit my purposes this statement closes the door of doubt about who is in charge, in Gods decision making process, its not God, its GDRIf you believe the scriptures are the Word of God, then you read them as the Word of God, without letting your or mine own decision making process, interfere with Gods judgementsYou have it backwards, all you do is interfere with Gods judgements, edicts, commands and decisionsThen you tell us God is moral for sending some to Hell for an eternity, in eternal tormentAgain why and what do you need God for, if all we need to do is decide for ourselves. Surely if we can decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral on Gods part, we dont need Jesus to save us from anything, nuchless God. because according to you he doesnt even know what he doing most of the timeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

GDR, Ill get to your latest post tommorrow, its pretty lateDawn Bertot

Of course it is your judgement when you have picked Jesus verses Moses, Jesus verses some scribe, with no valid way of distinquishing how you do this. Saying you have faith one is true and one is not, will not work. GDR, the only way you know any of these things about even Christ, is from the Bible. Youve put your faith in Jesus, but refuse to believe God is infinte in wisdom and knowledge as the Bible describes himYou cant even make your faith consistant within the same book claiming to be from GodHere are a few questions. How many of Jesus words are actaully his in the Gospels? How many of the miracles attributed to him and the apostles actually happened and how do you distinguish these from the legends you described in the OTIf we cant trust the writers in the Gospels concerning what seems to us outlandish claims, there is no valid reason believe that if I do or dont believe in Jesus, i will or will not be savedclaiming you have faith in one and not the other is the worst of all approches You have know way of knowing, muchless having faith in any of these things, because they only way you know of them iis by the Bible, a book you say we cannot trust, can trust, cant trust, can trust, cant trust, etc, etc, etc And with no valid approach to what the Bible tells us concerning all of the characteristics of God, your above statement makes the word of God the most confusing and contradictory book in exisistence. It also demonstrates you faith is based in you decision making abilty, not God. IOWs you have dead faithThe very things you hold as true and the very things you use to judge one standard by another are all contained in the same BibleEven if you insist that there are many books, not just one, the ones you claim are telling the truth, are relpeat with the same type of information, miracles, claims and judgements by GodYou position on interpreting the Bible gets no more rational, even if we were to narrow it down to one book. You would claim there are things to trust and things to not trust, even in the same bookthere is not one single thing in the bible you can point to, to insist, you have faith on it, because you will reject things that are contained in the same book, then illogicaly claim we can trust the writerYour faith is no faith at all, it is dead from the start, or at best it makes no sense for someone searching to actually accept it I agree 100%, have you ever stopped to consider how much bigger is Gods wisdom and knowledge than ourshave you ever actually considered he might know what he is doing, without the advice and recommendations of "Christian scholars", views of him, not to mention yoursAny so called Christian scholar that insisted that the Lord didnt actually know what he was doing and claims we can trust Jesus not the writings in the OT, needs to be disarded as quickly as possibleSpeaking about Numbers 15 and Acts 5, I believe the only way to square it up, is to rely on what the rest of the scriptures has to say concerning his Characteristics. Atleast you should start there, that would make logical sense. Nothing your attempting does Where did you learn about God and the trinity and how can I trust that writer concerning those charactersDont you find it the least bit ironic that the only source that provides you knowledge of any of these things, you characterize , as unreliable, incosistent and contradictoryTell me how you know anything about the Holy SPirit or Jesus outside the Bible?You dont trust the Bible, but you will trust a small voice in your head?If you cant trust the Bible, how do you know the Spirit is leading,you, since you only know that from reading the scriptures? Wouldnt it make logical sense to trust both, to be even remotely consistenntEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Given wisdom from where, about what and by whom? There very book that reveals that you have been given wisdom, you reject in a logical fashion and make it and faith a joke"If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who has given us a book, filled with human perspectives, lies, inconsistencies and at best conjecture, sprinkled with Gods, tid bits of truth, with no visible logical course to to distinguish between what is truth from God and the perspectives of man"GDR"If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbradeith not"Im going to take James words. If I took your words, I couldnt actually have faith that what James said was REMOTELY trueHard as you try GDR, you cannot resolve youself from the consequence, in you rtwo statmentsUsing mental gymnastics to justfiy or rationalize will not make them consistentRead your two comments above and see if they would make any sense to anybody, but yourselfWhen you can resolve in a logical fashion such nonsense then you will have platform, for instructing others on the Word of GodGDR, the reason we keep going in circles and the reason I keep repeating myself, is because you have not even resolved the initial problemI know you honestly believe that saying you have faith resolves that, but it does notExample, saying you have faith then claiming to know that he has given us wisom to distinguish between it, is as glaring a contradicton, as any position could beSaying you have faith, then claiming you know a contradiction exists, from the same source, makes no sense. Your claiming to know something a contradiction exists and then using the same source say we can only have faith in it.I keep repeating myself to and get you to give me something other than, " I have faith"Dont get me wrong, faith is fine, but not where you claim to know and are able to distinguish(in your mind) between other items, such as contradictions, human perspectives, what miracles actually happened or did not, etc, etc, etcYour claiming to KNOW from your human judgement, but say we can only have FAITH in God, out of the same source. So yes your are placing your judgements above GodsYour talking out both sides of your mouth, no matter what you think the history of the Bible is or is notYou say you have faith, but have the strictest confidence in your judgements concerning Gods words. Does that make sense to you?Give me something that atleast looks like a rational approach, then I will quit repeating myselfHere is a perfect example. Look at the extreme confidence expressed in you abilites to KNOW what was and did take place between these writers and who it was from" Why then should we have faith in anything the writers of the Gospels had to say concerning JesusDont the skeptics make the same argument, you are inyour comment above, when comparing Jesus to Paul?Your faith is NO better than that of a skeptic, like those on this boardYour are free to show me why I am wrong if you wishDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

My faith is two-fold and is that way because that is the way God is described in his Word.First and primarily God is described as infinite in wisdom and knowledge. The scriptures have precedence of morality and hieracrhy of understandingIf I cannot trust or believe the first principle to be true, it does not matter what God asked anyone anywhere else to do, or what words or commands are ascribed to him, because he would be following an unobjective and abstract moralityIf however, God is infinite in these qualites, then it follows his thought are not always my thoughts and his ways are not always mineHere is an example. In the wilderness the devil quoted scripture to Jesus. Jesus acknowledged and did not deny what the devil said, or that it was actually Gods words. he did however show precedence of scripture by stating to him, there is a greater principle satanWhile, he will keep you from dashing your foot against the rock, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."One superceeds the otherIf the Bible is the Word of God, then you take him at his word for the reasons the Bible indicates. If its not, then who cares.But one thing is sure there is no middle of the road approach that makes any logical sense. If it does, whos sense is it? You have three billion people to choose fromYes I believe God ordered those things, because the same God sent his only Son to die. Trust me that which Jesus suffered on the cross was much worse than than those things described in Old TestamentFaith is taking God at his word, not everyone elsesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

GDR, if the above reality of the trinity is to be accepted as factual, then the Trinity is a part of lies, misconceptions, immorality, inconsistencies, axe griding, scribal errors and embellishments and irrational and illogical approaches.Because the only way you know of the Trinity is from that unreliable Bible. You cant actually believe the Trinity is real or actual if you believe the Bible is notDoes that make sense to you? I hope it doesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The Word is already deifyed. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God"These are nice sentiments GDR, but as I have demonstrated to many times to mention now, you have no visible way of distinguishing one truth from another as being from GodIf your subjective way works for you then you have justified it in your mindOn the other hand, there is no way to set it out rationally, that makes any logical senseExample. The only way you know there might be three personalities in the Godhead, is from the Bible. If the Bible cant be trusted in other areas of doctrine and morality, the it follows you have no rational way of knowing or believing that is true eitherIts no different that those claiming that everything is just matter in motion claiming some sort of ethics or morality. Its sillinessYou may present all the emotional perceptions on how you establish truth, but until you deal with this problem in some rational way, your position is irrational and subjective at bestDawn Bertot

For the hundreth time that makes no sense, except to say you like the New Test better than the Old. Iam Joseph, likes the Old better than the New, he believes the Old To be the Word of God and I think he blieves the NT, to not be the Word of God, who is correct?You even pick and choose out f the NT, so it never stopsAnyone would have the right to decide what they wanted to accept or reject and you would have no way to determine if they were correct or incorrect.Dawn Bertot

Yes but that is not like saying the Law is not totally Gods WordPaul made it clear that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.Both Christ and Pauld believed the Law was all from God. They did not try to decide what out of it was and was notSo if the law was given to Moses by God, does that mean ALL of the Law or just Some of it?Also, I did not fairly and completely respond to your post 113. I will do that as soon as I can. I have respond to the other threads as well. Youve asked some good questions in 113
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

GDR writes: No, I dont have to come up with a answer, that has already been provided before I read any passages from the Old Test or the New, about what God may or may not have done. You just keep ignoring, that precedence of scripture exists.Or as I suspect, you dont trust or have faith in itIts called heirarchy of spiritual standards. A. God exists. B. God is infinite in wisdom and knowledge, you are not. If I cannot trust what it says concerning his makeup and nature, who cares what the rest of the Bible has to say. Because if I cant trust that primary principle, I surely can trust nothing else, correct?Here is an example. Tell me, is any of the following passages out of the Torah, true?Would God actually do to the Irealites, those things he did to the Egyptians?Did this miracle actually happen?If he would, why do you think that you have a right to decide for him?And, that is all dependant on whether you consider the following passages as real in the first place.Lets see what you have to say.Exodus 15: So what would and did happen, if they did not obey his commandsDid the earth really swallow up nearly three thousand people when Moses came down from the mountain and the people were simply disobedient? Or is your claim that God did not do that. Or is that a made up story as well. Where does your approach endDid that happen and does simple disobedience justify genocideHere is the point, if I have to pick and choose out of the Old Testament, then there will be vitually nothing leftThen of course I am now obligated to do the same with the NT, with things like Acts 5 and the topic of HellOr we could just write our own Bible, like Thomas Jefferson and leave out all the miracles entirelyAgain whos method do I follow, your or Jeffersons. Since you said some miracles are legend, how do I decide which ones are not If we both believe the Bible is the word of God, then the difficult questions are already answered, as I I have indicated aboveYour problem is that you think you need to answer for God. I dont. Are you kidding me? Do you realize what this says concerning you status compared to God. We dont needs Gods justice and mercy, we will consult GregEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

GDR writesYour opinion is neither humble or accurate as I will demonstrateI wanted to bring your silly comments over to this thread, as they relate to it more, than they do to the previous thread. To introduce these types of comments in that thread and that summation, not only shows a lack of intelligence, but it demonstrates you know nothing about good form in debating As I have demonstrated to many times to mention, you dont know what, nor can you believe anything the scriptures has to say because you run around picking and choosing out of both the Old and New testament what suits your fancies. Then when I ask you why you belief it and how you establish it, you say becuase Jesus believed itOf course anyone with half a brain knows the only way you know anything about Jesus is contained in the scripture, therefore we have no way of knowing, whether those writers were accurate about Jesus or what they said he said, and this is both the way you establish what is truth and amazingly, yet with the audacity of an untrained youth, this is also the same way you use, to run around condeming people like myself and Buz for believing what it actually saysOnly someone not paying any attention at all, or someone that is blinded by complete stupidity, could not see the contradiction they have involved themself in. Your condemantionof myself and Buz is as silly as the method you use to make the claimSince Jesus is the only one that ever spoke ill of the Pharisees and that is contained in the Bible, how do we know, using your method of truth, if he was correct, or should I say his scribes were correct, concerning the phariseesSince Jesus never wrote anything downor didnt claim to, how in the world can you trust the scribes of the NT, using your method of Pick and CooseYou see my point GDR, you cant even trust using your method of establishing truth, which is actually no methodEvery passage i have presented to you and asked you to simply state whether it is actually true or not, especilly concerning miracles and supernatural things, you sidestep them and pretend they dont make a difference Only someone that understands little or nothing would make such ridiculous comment. The only way you can know that the God of the Bible created anything is for it to tell you that in the first placeOn the other hand, only someone with little or no faith would believe that the God that did create the universe, could not perform a miracle, such as the flood. My simple friend, the purpose of Genesis is to let you know how you came into existence, in the first place. Why would you make such a silly comment concerning whether God would worry about that. Of course he does, that is why you have that account to begin withOh I see now. Now you are discarding any of that as truth as well. Do you see what happens GDR? Little by little, piece by piece, statement by statement, story by story, truth by truth, passage by passage, book by book, you eliminate any semblence of truth. And you do this by your ridiculous method of establishing truth had you known what the actual pharisees were like and what they actually did, for Jesus to make such a comment, you would not apply this accusation to myself and BuZ. They were thieves, murders, adulterers, extortionists and the such like. You do remember that according to the NT, they had Jesus put to death correct. Do you claim such things for me and BuzJesus said that they were, on the outside like white washed tombs, but inwardly they were full of dead mens bones. You dont even know me and Buz. The arrogance and stupidity attached to your statement, staggers the imaginationThats is, if we can, in the first place according to your silly method of finding truth, know, if that which the writes wrote was accurate in the first place Your accusation is based both in unsound reasoning and a complete lack of knowledge about who and what the Pharisees were.Since you believe in Jesus words you should employ the principle by him, to "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement" Until you know what Buz' and my life are like, you should not use lean on your own understanding. Jesus knew without a doubt, the activity that the pharisees involved themself in, then he experienced first hand. You on the other hand seem to know diddly Ah yes the pot calling the kettle black. Of course as you have demonstrated you already have wide range of discussion in many different areas, inlcuding that thread correct?I suppose that you are too blind or simple to see that We, like you, are arguing for the truth of scripture. Whether that comes in the form of discussing the flood or in the form of, what are, actually Gods words Of course you wouldnt see such a simple point would you, since you have everything figured out, correct?So we will see how much time you actually want to spend here,, defending what you believe to be truth, right Jesus, Paul, Augustine and Lewis, were not confronted with the same issues that misdirect people from Gods truth, as we are today. Its a different type of error and a different threat to Gods wordIf you were around in the Apostle John's day, you would be telling the Apostle John, Ahhh come on John, does it really matter whether people ACTUALLY believe, whether Jesus really came in the flesh or not. Just as long as they love God and thier neighbor, isnt that ok John?You would be asking John, Do you really mean I cannot sit down and eat with or fellowship with someone, who does not believe that? You would be telling John, using your form of interpretation, John that is not Christ like, is itWhen you learn what truth is and how to establish it, it will matter to you as well. When you quit telling God, his word and his Apostles what to believe and not to believe, what matters and what does not matter, then and only then GDR, will you, understand truth While that is important, as you can see from the Apostle John, it is not all that matters, GDR. Todays, is a different threat, a different evil. In that other thread, I have exposed it with stinging accuracy, with the gift froom God, as you have described it.Thank you for reminding me where our talents come fromDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.