Raf

Here's the only "spoiler" I'll give you. "Out of Time" may well have been the best single hour of superhero television I have ever seen. Excellent, excellent writing.

You started the Biblical Unitarian site? Kudos! That was good work.

I don't understand your objection to this thread question. "Why spend any more time testing faiths?" To whom is that question addressed? Why would anyone who subscribes to a religion not want to be honest about why he believes what he does? On what basis does he reject other religions in favor of the one he has adopted? Would his own religion survive the scrutiny he applies to other religions? Only a dishonest person would avoid that question.

Since this is a Bart Ehrman thread, his view on similarities between Jesus and previous figures is the priority for this discussion (which I humbly suggest belongs in the Questioning Faith subforum in Doctrinal). Without going into too much boring detail, Ehrman's position is that the similarities between Jesus and the earlier figures are overstated. I am inclined to believe him for two reasons, both having to do with bias. Bart Ehrman is a self-described agnostic. He no longer believes in the Biblical God. Therefore, he has no vested interest in the Bible being true, or in the stories about Jesus being based on an actual historical figure. If the evidence led him to believe Jesus was a mash-up of earlier messianic figures, there's nothing in his belief system to stop him from pursuing and adopting that belief. He doesn't. That tells me, at the very least, that he is being sincere in his belief that the similarities are overstated. The second reason has nothing to do with Bart Ehrman directly, but with a historian who disagrees with him about the historicity of Jesus. Richard Carrier is probably the most academically qualified and prominent of those who refer to themselves as Jesus Mythicists. These are people who believe Jesus never existed, or at least that if there was a historical character, he has been so overwhelmed by legend and exaggeration that he might as well not have existed. For them, the gospels are literally historical fiction, much the same as Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot was entirely fictional, despite its verifiable historical settings and despite the fact that the main character is indeed based on someone who existed in real life. So many liberties were taken with the historical character that we rightly say the movie character never existed. So Richard Carrier is a full-on mythicist. He thinks the Jesus of the Bible is a complete work of fiction. And even Carrier believes the similarities between Jesus and previous figures are overblown. Now, BIAS would lead both these scholars to accept and adopt the position that the similarities are significant. In fact, predictably, Carrier accepts more of the similarities than Ehrman. But they agree that as a whole, the similarities are overstated. I recognize that I am appealing to authority here, and none of this guarantees that either of these men are correct. But when a dentist tells me what's wrong with my teeth, and shows me the evidence, I'm inclined to accept his expertise and believe him. Unless I were inclined to investigate the historical record on my own, I feel I am on safer ground relying on experts -- especially when those experts are adopting a position that runs contrary to what you would expect them to find given their biases. Note: I am suggesting that the similarities are overstated and overblown, not non-existent. It's like comparing Wierwille to Jim Jones. Yeah, there are similarities. But the differences!

But... but it says so.

The problem is that they didn't understand the Old Testament law as well as we do 2000 or so years later. Oh, and no love.

WordWolf was correct. E.T.

I missed that.

Wolf, how far behind are you? Exactly one week?

Like I said, it was the only thing in the REV concerning the Lazarus story that got my attention. It may not even be the subject of MRAP's concern. I hope he clarifies. That was fun.

No. Later line: "YOU PROMISED YOU WOULDN'T TELL!!"

Original first post on this thread: This thread was merged on 11/4/2015 with a new thread posted by George St. George. Here is the first post of that thread (still in place as post #92 on this thread)

Most of the people who CAN aren't posting here now either. Most of the people have put it behind them. Years ago.

Nope. Easier than that.

"He's a man from outer space and we're taking him to his spaceship." "Well, can't he just beam up?" "This is reality, Greg."

"If I let you go, you must swear you will never say you saw me, never say you heard me speak, never tell anyone how I look, never repeat what I have said - a promise, forever!"

Good work! MRAP, was that what you were referring to in John 11? Or was there something else?

Tee hee. He thinks he's the first pro-TWI voice on GSC. Tee hee hee. Ok, some history: MANY posters are QUITE pro-TWI in terms of doctrine and appreciation for Wierwille and the things he taught. We are quite capable of distinguishing between what he actually taught and how he lived. Even when we accuse him of plagiarism (of which he was TOTALLY guilty, by the way), that is never presented to discredit the doctrine itself. So what if Kenyon said it first, largely in the exact same words? Was it true? Or at least, was it Biblically accurate? So no, you don't get piled on for defending TWI. You get piled on for excusing abuse. You get piled on for idolizing a selfish opportunist who feasted on our love for God to satisfy his lust for money, women and power. But you don't get piled on for accepting Jesus Christ is Not God. You don't get piled on for distinguishing between Holy Spirit and holy spirit. You don't get piled on for praying or for giving or for believing in the rapture/gathering together. "Stick together in your anti-TWI rhetoric"? But we don't. Each of us draws a line, and I would venture to say that no two people draw the line in exactly the same way. "Plan to exclude said individual"? Not one person, not one, has criticized you for a view you've expressed. Not one. Every criticism leveled at you has been about how you are addressing us. It is, as I said elsewhere, a tad condescending. Perhaps you don't see it that way. Well, that's why we're pointing it out to you. Excommunicated? No way! Where would this site be without people like Oldiesman, Johniam and others who are unafraid to stand up for what they believe in? They're not excluded in the slightest. I'll admit, most people who are defenders of some parts of TWI are long gone from the GSC. But that's to be expected: Most posters are long gone from the GSC. Very few remain. We have, as stated elsewhere, moved on. I stick around for three reasons: 1. I'm a moderator, and there's not a lot of us who keep checking up on the place. 2. I have recently "come out" as atheist, and I find value in exploring/defending that position with people who knew me as a believer. And 3. The game threads are nifty and fun. You're not getting excommunicated unless you get abusive. You have not been. Far from it. I think any missteps you've made are easily the result of enthusiastically trying to introduce yourself to a group whose dynamics you do not know very well. Personally, I think you're the most interesting thing to happen to this forum in a long time. I'm glad you stopped by, glad you figured out how to find me, and glad you're posting. Sir!

Your assumption here is a false one. While I'm sure there are some who dismiss any research coming from a TWI background, there are others -- a majority, I think -- who evaluate arguments on their merits, not basing our conclusions on the source. Though I am no longer a believer, there was a time I went to great lengths to sort out what was taught in TWI and considered whether it was Biblically accurate or not. My conclusions were highly debatable (and hotly debated), but my goal was pure and appreciated even by those who disagreed with me. It had nothing to do with the source of various teachings (I focused on Wierwille). I never rejected a doctrine because it came from CES/STFI, or from any of the other various offshoots, or even from TWI itself. And I think I speak for many people on GSC, perhaps even a majority, on that point. If you accept the Bible as God's word, you are obliged to accept or reject a doctrine based solely on its conformity to the Bible, regardless of who taught it. Even with my present beliefs (or unbelief), I find it possible to weigh whether a doctrine is Biblically consistent. The only difference is, I no longer make the leap from "Biblically accurate" to "true." If you do, that's good for you. I don't. Would you be able to accept my views on what the Bible actually says, knowing that I do not believe Yahweh exists? In other words, if you have a bias against my position, can you make an unbiased comment about the conclusions I reach concerning the Biblical accuracy of certain statements and doctrines?

I just read that section in John 11 and I don't see exactly what you're getting at. The only verse that got my attention was v. 26 "and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?” Other translations read a variation of: "and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?" So the issue here is the apparent addition of a qualifier: "in the age to come." Did Jesus mean to say that people who believe in him would never die? Or was he saying something more realistic, that they would die temporarily, but would someday inherit eternal life? I think our presumptions go a long way toward interpreting this verse, but the most important thing to evaluate is the actual language used, which I do not have the inclination to research. Which is the more accurate translation? If the traditional translation is more accurate, then Jesus spoke something that is quite obviously not literally true. However, it is reasonable to conclude that even if he spoke the traditional sentence, he meant what is recorded in the REV. Clearly Jesus knew that believers would die. He said as much elsewhere, didn't he? I'll have to check. But I can't imagine he did not know that people who believed in him would someday die. The alternative is preposterous: Jesus literally believed that people who believed in him would live forever, uninterrupted, never to die. This interpretation is possible only if Jesus was not too bright. He would have spoken a false prophecy, and would therefore lack credibility as a spokesman for God. So I think, whether it is literally an accurate translation or not, the REV articulates a Biblically true statement by adding the words "in the age to come." If Jesus didn't mean that, his statement is a false prophecy, regardless of the actual words used. If you DON'T presume Jesus must have been right, the absurdity of his literal statement (assuming it is an accurate translation) becomes evidence that he was not who he claimed to be. That would make him a cocky, arrogant so-called prophet with no more credibility than Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts. This presumption entails that he is not the Son of God and that the Bible's stories about him, by extension, are not reliable. I won't explore that further because I don't think such an examination is the purpose of your question or your thread. It is an alternative way of looking at the Biblical record, but I suspect it's a view you did not intend to explore or entertain.

In the Line of Fire

MRAP, respectfully, it's a tad condescending to come onto a board where you don't know people and assume you know more about our journeys than you do. Is it hard for us to look beyond ourselves...? What a backhanded insult! (Yes it is). Can we see something new in the word? Gee, none of us ever thought of that until you came along! You came here expecting us to be something and, upon learning we are not what you expected, you have done nothing but berate us for not fitting the mold you presumed for us. Well, sorry to disappoint you. Nonetheless, if you actually want to talk about the things you say you want to discuss, some of us would be more than happy to approach your questions from a variety of perspectives. And if you don't like our approaches, please bear this in mind: we didn't ask you. We think for ourselves around here. We don't get pushed around by military, police, reverends, fathers, brothers, elders, imams, yogis or booboos.

A Time To Kill

Not Othello. Not even close.

That was correct