Read the Whole Thing .. Dammit !

Originally posted by Rajk999
Certainly the notion that everyone in the world will be in Gods Kingdom, no matter what they do is ludicrous. So lets start what what was preached in the earliest period when Christ was born. What did John the Baptist and Christ himself preach? For sure there was absolutely nothing about believing in Christ. All of the teachings was repentance from sins and ...[text shortened]... resurrection Are those many thousands that followed Christ then not going to get eternal life?

So not everyone is saved according to you, why...because that would be ludicrous?
I think I'd prefer some scripture on that.

You are also suggesting that just because Christ is not mentioned he isn't key to our
salvation...because John the Baptist didn't say it? What did John say about Jesus?

What do you do with the scripture that says we are not saved by our works, do you
ignore them, forget them, how do you explain them away? Do you boast about your
works and the works of others before God and man? Do you suggest your good works
and others will force God to allow you into His Kingdom, or your good works and others
make God forget your sins due to your works so that your saved without Jesus Christ?

How does this all work as you read the scripture or is it just a feeling of yours? I get we
need to make Jesus Christ our Lord and if He is we will be doing His will/works. I'm not
sure how you can do the works of God without God in your life, you'll have to explain
that too.

Originally posted by sonhouse
A clever dodge invented by the priests to make sure their subjects were well and fully captured, body and soul. Just like all man made religions.

Your god (assuming there actually is such a cruel beast) is totally immoral, not caring how many millions die, not lifting a rhetorical finger to help those being tortured in war. So the Christians so tortured ...[text shortened]... et tortured forever in your despised hell.

And you call that a gracious god. What utter rot.

You are welcome to your opinion, but i am not going to worry about it. I have confidence that my God has a foolproof plan and will work it all out for good in the end. 😏

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by googlefudge

Much of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth is heavily steeped in metaphor and abstraction.

JC never walked the Earth or taught anything. He's a fictional character.

As such, it's foolhardy to take snippets out of context and take them at face-value.

If JC really existed AND really was who he is claimed to b ...[text shortened]... r care
because it has no relevance or bearing on my life and it isn't in my field of interest.

There is a lot of proof that Jesus existed. For me the following is the one best proof:

Proof that the Shroud of Turin is the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ!

YouTube

Whether He existed or not is only going to effect those that believe in Him. All others will receive their normal punishment of the second death.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So not everyone is saved according to you, why...because that would be ludicrous?
I think I'd prefer some scripture on that.

You are also suggesting that just because Christ is not mentioned he isn't key to our
salvation...because John the Baptist didn't say it? What did John say about Jesus?

What do you do with the scripture that says we are not sa ...[text shortened]... sure how you can do the works of God without God in your life, you'll have to explain
that too.

Most of your questions make no sense to me plus, Im not sure you are capable of carrying on a worthwhile discussion about this so I will not bother discussing further.

Let me just say that I read and follow what Jesus said about eternal life FIRST. Christ is the way to eternal life so His teachings get priority. Paul and the Apostles come after. So I interpret what Paul and the Apostles said in the light of the teachings of Christ. Not the other way around.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Most of your questions make no sense to me plus, Im not sure you are capable of carrying on a worthwhile discussion about this so I will not bother discussing further.

Let me just say that I read and follow what Jesus said about eternal life FIRST. Christ is the way to eternal life so His teachings get priority. Paul and the Apostles come after. So I inte ...[text shortened]... at Paul and the Apostles said in the light of the teachings of Christ. Not the other way around.

You seem to not understand tha Jesus was speaking to the House of Israel. Paul was sent by Jesus as a special apostle to the gentiles.

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. Therefore I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

(Ephesians 3:1- 13 NKJV)

But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

(Romans 11:14 NASB)

I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.

(John 10:14-17 NASB)

It was through His apostles that the gentiles heard the voice of Jesus, especially through the apostle Paul.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Much of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth is heavily steeped in metaphor and abstraction.

JC never walked the Earth or taught anything. He's a fictional character.

As such, it's foolhardy to take snippets out of context and take them at face-value.

If JC really existed AND really was who he is claimed to b ...[text shortened]... r care
because it has no relevance or bearing on my life and it isn't in my field of interest.

Your response is more than a bit of a ramble and I can't say as your reasoning makes much sense , but it seems to come down to the following:

... I will read it literally. Because that's the only way that makes any sense.

So you believe that all the words attributed to Jesus must be read literally and that it's not foolhardy to do so?

This despite that its simply a brute fact that much of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth is heavily steeped in metaphor and abstraction.

Okey dokey

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your response is more than a bit of a ramble and I can't say as your reasoning makes much sense , but it seems to come down to the following:

[b] ... I will read it literally. Because that's the only way that makes any sense.

So you believe that all the words attributed to Jesus must be read literally and that it's not foolhardy to do so?

Thi ...[text shortened]... taught while He walked the Earth is heavily steeped in metaphor and abstraction.

Okey dokey[/b]

No, that's not my reasoning at all.

And you can ask for clarification without being an ass about it...

Well you might not be able to, but it's a thing people with more sense and manners would do.


No I fully accept that the writers [not the non-existent fictional person JC] intended much of it to be metaphor.
And if you are reading it as a historical document then you have to take that into account to determine what
they meant.

I don't care what they meant. It's not my field of study or interest and it has no other relevance in my life.

Many people however idiotically claim it to be the inspired words and instructions of an omnipotent universe creating god.
If we take them at their word then we are fully justified in analysing it as if that were true and against that benchmark.
At which point it becomes nonsensical to read it anything other than literally.

And you keep saying "Jesus taught while He walked the Earth" as if that was a thing that ever actually happened.
Or that these books written years/decades/centuries after, with edits and forgeries after that, were actually the recorded
words even if he did actually exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What was attributed to him and the exact context is different between gospels, and different messages are intended in the different gospels. It is those writers overall messages you should be looking to and not some supposed overall message from a fictional character written about by four different people. Its like trying to suss out the 'true Batman' by watching all the Batman movies.

Not sure where you're coming from, but why don't you try a little thought experiment?

Let's say that there was a historical figure whose words were preserved and that there were four biographers each of whom built a mythology around those words. Now each biographer might only have access to a subset of those words or choose only those words that best prop up the mythology that they are trying to convey. Let's further say that many of the words were steeped in metaphor and abstraction.

The best way to derive the underlying themes and concepts of the historical figure would be take the words out of context of each biographers mythology and analyze them in their entirety.

Analyzing them solely within the context of each biographer's mythology would yield the themes and concepts of each biographer.

You've got it the wrong way around.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, that's not my reasoning at all.

And you can ask for clarification without being an ass about it...

Well you might not be able to, but it's a thing people with more sense and manners would do.


No I fully accept that the writers [not the non-existent fictional person JC] intended much of it to be metaphor.
And if you are reading it as a his ...[text shortened]... dits and forgeries after that, were actually the recorded
words even if he did actually exist.

Many people however idiotically claim it to be the inspired words and instructions of an omnipotent universe creating god.
If we take them at their word then we are fully justified in analysing it as if that were true and against that benchmark.
At which point it becomes nonsensical to read it anything other than literally.

Which many people do claim. So once again, "So you believe that all the words attributed to Jesus must be read literally and that it's not foolhardy to do so?".

Metaphor and abstraction is metaphor and abstraction regardless of the believed source.

Keep in mind that you wrote the following:
"In other words, "I fully endorse and approve of the commandments of the OT"."

To which I responded:
"Much of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth is heavily steeped in metaphor and abstraction. As such, it's foolhardy to take snippets out of context and take them at face-value. To understand any given teaching, it's imperative to have first analyzed the entirety of His teachings while He walked the Earth and derived the underlying themes and concepts . Unless one has done this, it's pretty easy to misconstrue His meaning as you've done here."

You foolheartedly misconstrued Jesus' meaning by not taking metaphor and abstraction into account and have been nonsensically talking around admitting it ever since.

And you can ask for clarification without being an ass about it...

Well you might not be able to, but it's a thing people with more sense and manners would do.

As if you weren't being an ass in the post I first responded to and in your responses since...

Originally posted by Rajk999
Most of your questions make no sense to me plus, Im not sure you are capable of carrying on a worthwhile discussion about this so I will not bother discussing further.

Let me just say that I read and follow what Jesus said about eternal life FIRST. Christ is the way to eternal life so His teachings get priority. Paul and the Apostles come after. So I inte ...[text shortened]... at Paul and the Apostles said in the light of the teachings of Christ. Not the other way around.

Really, I asked you to define who a Christian is, and that is over your head?

You suggest that you don't need Christ to be right with God, that you can do that through
works alone. If we can please God through works, why would Jesus need to die, just take
the worthy and be done with it.

I doubt my questions were confusing to you, I just don't think you can back up your
claims with scripture to me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Metaphor and abstraction is metaphor and abstraction regardless of the believed source.

My point, oh incredibly dense one, is that it is utterly nonsensical for an omnipotent god to try to communicate
its rules and laws and wisdom of the cosmos in terms that a vague and open to interpretation.

The fact that the bible IS vague and open to interpretation is testament to the fact that it is not written by a god.

However, when dealing with those who claim that it is written by a god, it makes sense to analyse the text as
if it had in fact been so written.

And if we look historically back to times when Christianity had not been tamed by secular morality you will find
whole societies of people who were acting just as if the words and testaments of the bible were written literally.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As if you weren't being an ass in the post I first responded to and in your responses since...

As if?

No I was actually not being an ass, you picked this fight all on your own.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure where you're coming from, but why don't you try a little thought experiment?

Let's say that there was a historical figure whose words were preserved and that there were four biographers each of whom built a mythology around those words. Now each biographer might only have access to a subset of those words or choose only those words that best p ...[text shortened]... y would yield the themes and concepts of each biographer.

You've got it the wrong way around.

However, and I will say this again, Christ was NOT a historical figure and never actually existed.

NONE of his 'biographers' as you call them actually met him even if he had existed.
And all 4 of their fictional accounts contradict each other.

You assume in your reasoning the JC actually existed.

This is false.

Thus so is your reasoning.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure where you're coming from, but why don't you try a little thought experiment?

Let's say that there was a historical figure whose words were preserved and that there were four biographers each of whom built a mythology around those words.

And that is the problem right there. You are assuming that there was a historical figure and that his words were preserved. Why?

Now each biographer might only have access to a subset of those words or choose only those words that best prop up the mythology that they are trying to convey.
Or invent words as might suit his message.

The best way to derive the underlying themes and concepts of the historical figure would be take the words out of context of each biographers mythology and analyze them in their entirety.
Only if you make the ridiculous assumption that the words were accurately reported. If you accept some amount of doctoring, then it is essential to first understand the various gospel writers intentions to get an idea of what they might have changed.

You've got it the wrong way around.
No, I simply don't think Jesus was a real person or if he was that the words reported as being his were really his.

Originally posted by KellyJay

... I'm not sure how you can do the works of God without God in your life, you'll have to explain that too.

"Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, "This is the way; walk in it." (Isaiah 30:21).

If our conscience is 'the voice of God' and an atheist adheres to his own conscience (even without realising it comes from a divine source) could it not then be argued that it is possible to do the works of God without God in one's life?