Charity

God's wrath - you know like In the OT: his wrath was kindled; thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble; my wrath shall wax hot; the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath; God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him; rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure; and In the NT: he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him; But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasure up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath; But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath; For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience and In Revelation: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand; seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God; and he treads the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of almighty God Excuse my frustration, but giving a tyrannical, vengeful, threatening, pseudo-powerful "being" a pass or thumbs up (as many Christians give Yahweh) merely because HE claims his opponents are "evil" is - what shall you call it – sickening, insane, self-destructive, an incentive to oppress others, etc.

TLC, your post has brought up a curious concern I've come to realize over the last few months but rather than discuss it here, I am starting a new thread in the sub-forum of Matters of Faith: Atheism, non theism, skepticism: Questioning Faith. It's called "Sin and the Need for Perfect Love." I will be quoting your paragraph above in my opening post, and I'm hoping you will share more of your thoughts there. Charity

I don't have the intestinal fortitude to watch this right now - and most likely ever. Any word on how The Young Adult Rock 2024 went?

NaRd? So true when it comes to men writing historical accounts - not so when Jesus is leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit.

Paul wrote in Romans 5 about all men being sinners and falling short of the glory of God and therefore in need of salvation specifically as a result of what happened with Adam in Genesis 3. What evidence is there that these two people ever existed in a garden called Eden other than the Bible saying so? Do you really believe there was a talking serpent that tempted them, that the experiences of painful childbirth, women becoming subjected to men and the existence of thorns and thistles were really the consequences of their disobedience to God, that blood sacrifice became God's preferred choice of how to clothe them, and the deal of there being a tree of life which enabled them to live forever?

When it comes to the specific contradictions between John's account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus and the 3 synoptic gospels, I find it perplexing that your head isn't spinning. John has Joseph and Nicodemus binding the body in linen with a ton of spices before they lay him in the sepulcher. If true, the women in Mathew-Luke would have seen this but that is not what those gospels say. Luke even has them leaving the tomb to specifically go and prepare the spices and ointments. John writes about Mary Magdalene coming alone to the tomb (without spices and without giving any other reason) which again contradicts the other 3 gospels. How do you explain this? Guards were placed at Jesus' tomb for a specific reason (Matt 27:62-66) - it was not a common practice for all burials. If mourners came, they would have stood outside the tomb, not go inside and mourn the body there. The point of the video was that the common Jewish practice of preparing a body for burial was to use ointments to both wash the body and to keep the smell of decomposition away. Once the body was buried, there was no longer a need for such an anointing. Whether one Mary or 3 women came to the tomb (with the latter group wanting to wash a badly beaten body that had been decomposing for 3 days and 3 nights), the outcome was that the supposed resurrection of Jesus' body was made known (by one or two men or angels). It's a very convenient and necessary event in the plot of a story comprised decades after the death of Jesus.

Right, along with many other differences contradictions occurring between the 4 stories of the death and resurrection of Jesus. You really have to wonder what the perfect interpretation is according to "the Comforter [who] is come to lead us into all truth (since Jesus is still alive and well, and leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit)." What I have found important to understand is the history behind the gospels like how they were written decades after Paul wrote 8 of his epistles; how Mark is now considered to have been written first between 65–73 CE, then Matthew/Luke 80–90 CE and finally John 90–110 CE (which shows each one that followed had the previous one(s) to embellish upon), and that the authors were actually anonymous and most likely were not even eye-witnesses (still looking into this). Without the historical facts surrounding the creation of the bible, one is only left with what the bible claims about itself. Not only that, it requires faith to believe it is the actual word of God since there is no evidence that proves it is. Dating the Bible

It's difficult to believe in the resurrection if the Comforter inspired the writers to record events that don't make sense. The short video link below brings up such an event. Here's a summary of it. Jewish custom was that when washing a corpse and during the funeral and burial processions, specific spices strong enough to mask the smell of decomposition were present in order to cover up the odour. Once the body was buried, there would be no need to return 3 days later to put spices inside because no one would be near the body anymore. Mark, Matthew and Luke tell of Joseph wrapping Jesus’ body and placing it in the sepulchre without the spices and the women saw this. Luke, written last of the 3 gospels, adds the women going and preparing the spices. These gospels then tell of the women going to the tomb 3 days later to anoint Jesus with the spices when in reality, it was no longer necessary and therefore made no sense for them to do so. The point of the video is to show that this story was completely made up so the writers could have them discovering an empty tomb where an angel told them of a resurrected Jesus - an event which also never happened. John corrects this first nonsensical event by adding Nicodemus who took care of the spices before the burial. Then, only Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb the next morning without any mention of spices and sees the stone rolled away. I find the above to be valid points. Any comments? There was No Empty TombꟷGospel’s Resurrection Accounts Never Happened! -Rabbi Tovia Singer

Thanks for the new vocab "pericopes!" I love your last sentence. Other posters have written similar ideas to this. A hunger to gain spiritual insight as it relates to one's spirit defined as "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character" is a wonderful thing. A belief in a god is not required. In fact, after relying so long on mythical beliefs for your identity, such a hunger is necessary in order to avoid nihilism after deconstructing.

It doesn't work because it's based on myths, superstition and man-made concepts which explain why there are so many holes in the biblical story. Since God made death the penalty for sin according to the myth of Genesis 3, blood sacrifices of animals became necessary as a reminder to mankind of this judgment and as an atonement for their sins. (Weren't blood sacrifices already being offered to ancient "pagan" gods in order to obtain favor from them before the time Genesis was even written? If so, this idea was simply adopted by men who created their Hebrew god Yahweh. The NT writers then extended this concept to include the human sacrifice of Jesus.) The biological evidence concerning why human bodies eventually die heavily outweighs the superstitious/ignorant belief held back then that death was because of some mythical sin. It's hard to consider that the emperor Yahweh is wearing no clothes.

Another obstacle in being blinded by the gospel “truth” is believing the following lies about yourself: your heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; you are all as an unclean thing, and all your righteousnesses are as filthy rags; you’re carnal, sold under sin and you’re wretched, just to name a few. However, the fictional Dorothy learned a real human lesson which was to believe in oneself.

One of the attractions and perceived strength of being a bible-believing Christian is the idea of finding "truth." Doing so is building your house upon a rock and being rooted and grounded so you are no longer being tossed to and from with every wind of doctrine. Doubting, as Peter found out when his walk on the water with Jesus began to go south, is never a good idea. Fortunately for Dorothy and her 3 companions, it was the powerful sniff-and-hearing dog Toto who had the sense(s) to discover and reveal the lie about the great and powerful Oz

Which is why I wonder how anyone who lived through years of believing vpw's teachings that the Bible was the inherent and inerrant word of God would think that another pastor would hold the keys to teaching there is such an idea of Jesus' perfect interpretation of the Bible being known to anyone. The opening post of this thread began with "of interest to anyone?" Even though I believe the bible was written by men based on their man-made beliefs in God, I am interested in how she knows what she believes now falls under the description of being perfect.

I don't see a significant difference between the words perspective and interpretation. I have bought the book on Kindle to read Yancey's interpretation of the Old Testament. If Annio reads your post and my reply, I'm hoping she will share more about what she thinks is Jesus' "perfect" interpretation of the Bible as quoted by EJ Martone, her Assembly of God pastor, as well as the "perfect" harmony Jesus makes available. Such perfection would be vital to know when one is searching for truth amongst all the other interpretations out there that are messing up people's heads.

Hi Rocky, Inspiration is the product of one's mind when personally interacting with something or someone. It would be based on how that person first interpreted what they saw, read or heard. Any parts of the bible that were inspired by God (as opposed to being directly given by God) would have been the writer’s interpretation of and their resulting thoughts and feelings about an event they credited to God. I think this is a good possibility. However, 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20,21 and Gal 1:12 respectively say scripture is God-breathed, is of no private interpretation and is not of men but is the revelation from Jesus Christ. Additionally, according to the opening post, there is only one perfect interpreter of God’s word and that is Jesus. I’m waiting to hear how this one interpretation has been made known to everyone over the thousands of years to ensure their likemindedness. Obviously, I think this is an impossibility.

Annio, I appreciate your excitement over such an idea as what you shared in your post. You wrote that Jesus makes known the perfect interpretation of the Bible by leading and guiding Christians in perfect harmony with the Holy Spirit? That means there is only one acceptable interpretation. What happens when two Christians have a different understanding of a particular verse or passage in the Bible? How does one decide which Christian's interpretation is the perfect one from Jesus? How does Jesus make this known to them?

"Fact" was not the best word to have used in my post when mentioning how many Christian denominations are in the world. It's what came up first on a simple google search - admittedly, not the most in-depth way to research something. Concerning your mention of stories above, the first gospel was written over 30 years after the life and death of Jesus. (“The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel) Also, “The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels One has to take it on faith when believing the gospels (which contains Jesus' perfect interpretation of the law and the prophets according to the opening post) were inspired by God and not simply stories (imo) passed on by men for most likely self-serving political and/or religious reasons. Remaining on topic of this thread, I think any interpretation of the Bible is that of the person teaching it. Calling it "Jesus' perfect interpretation" is a fallacy.

Or, apparently, EJ Martone, Assembly of God pastor as mentioned above. VPW - no scripture is of any private interpretation (iow - the bible interprets itself) EJM - Jesus is the perfect interpretation of the bible Fact - There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations globally and more than 200 in the U.S., according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. Which one has Jesus' "perfect" interpretation?

If Jesus is the perfect interpretation of the bible, how does this explain the multitude of different interpretations people have of bible scriptures? Does one still not have to interpret Jesus' interpretation? For example, Jesus says: Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Yet, Paul writes: Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. What is Jesus' perfect interpretation of "one saved, always saved"?

I wrote something similar to the following on the "God's accountants, revolving doors, and Occam's razor on the scarcity of miracles" thread in this subforum. When taking God out of the equation, one no longer has to try to justify the unjustifiable things God does. ~~~~~ I reactivated this thread because of a recent event that took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Almost Immediately after the shooting there, it was being declared as a miracle of God that "you know who" was only slightly injured instead of being killed. The obvious question then is where was the miracle of God for the man who was killed and the two others who were shot and were in critical condition? The logical conclusion to this would be that God clearly picked and chose who to save and who not to save - who to protect from being shot and who not to protect. Different Christians will have different reasons for why God is justified in doing this. One belief might be that God had/has a purpose for the lives of each shooting victim and that His plans will continue to ripple out to include their loved ones and maybe even further. If you take God out of the picture, what is left are just the sad but real facts. ~~~~~ The above is what the name of this thread is about.

The sentence "I hope this makes sense." was referring to my first paragraph. I was in a hurry to finish the post and stuck it at the end. It was a "haste makes waste" sort of thing. "Taking it on faith" is considered a strong virtue for those who believe in a religion. Even when their god(s) fail them, most will hold on to it still.

I reactivated this thread because of a recent event that took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Almost Immediately after the shooting there, it was being declared as a miracle of God that the ex-president was only slightly injured instead of being killed. The obvious question then is where was the miracle of God for the man who was killed and the two others who were shot and in critical condition? The logical conclusion to this would be that God clearly picked and chose who to save and who not to save. Different Christians will have different reasons for why God is justified in doing this. One belief might be that God had/has a purpose for the lives of each shooting victim and that His plans will continue to ripple out to include their loved ones and maybe even further. If you take God out of the picture, what is left is just the facts.

I guess I was coming from the perspective that as far as Christians are concerned, their beliefs are rooted in the supernatural or spiritual realm and therefore have top authority over all human thoughts, desires, etc. Non-believers are not just disagreeing with them but with their God. So when they criticize those who leave the faith for whatever reasons, they see their criticism as speaking on God's behalf. But I see your point - the reality is that they are humans defending what they as humans have chosen to believe. I hope this makes sense.

I'm getting a better understanding from the above of what you mean by BELEEF, something you have mentioned before in your posts. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding anything. BELEEFS = beleeve like me, think like me, get indoctrinated like me, or I’ll shun you. They cause division which can result in harming others who disagree with you. Beliefs = what everyone has on a multitude of topics but do not need to be pushed upon people. They can be discussed civilly with people who think differently; therefore, arguing with and/or criticizing others are both unnecessary and unappealing. I'm thinking back to what you shared about your mother on page 2 of this thread.

It’s a noteworthy point – when young children see something that is different from what they know or something they simply don’t understand, they often show their wonderment or confusion on their faces and then will ask questions – the most favourite one for parents is “why.” You got to love them for it.