You know Kathy, we’ve been fairly blunt with you today. Flippant, too. And it’s tough when people talk to/about you that way. I’m sorry for that.
If we could cut through all the rhetoric for a second, I’d like to commiserate with you. A little over 4 years ago, I was a very dedicated Christian. I had some doubts, but they weren’t about the Christian faith, just my understanding of it.
I felt like there were problems in my beliefs about the gospel. I believed in a literal Hell, and I believed a lot of people would be going there. But I had a very hard time squaring that with a loving God. I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t think such people deserved Hell. In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.
So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not. But I had a very hard time finding anything in the Bible that backed up an idea that most people, regardless of creed or belief would be saved.
I didn’t give up though. I knew about Universalists, so I decided to read up on their reasons for thinking everyone went to Heaven. It sounded good, but I just wasn’t convinced by their arguments. I just didn’t see the Bible teaching such a doctrine, and I still believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God.
I was in a state of flux.
And that’s the position I was in when I first ran across articles that pointed out flaws in the Bible. I was shocked by what the articles said, but since I didn’t have any answers against them at the moment, I got busy with research. I didn’t even comment on the articles — I just went to work. It wasn’t about winning any arguments; it was simply a search for answers.
I think that frame of mind I was in made all the difference for me. Deep down, I was already struggling. The doctrines I had long believed in, and even taught to others, didn’t fit together in my mind as well as they once had.
That’s probably the difference between you and me. I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith. Not trying to put you down about that; just making an observation.
For me, discovering that the Bible was not the perfect book I had always thought it to be, and finding out that some of these church leaders I had always admired knew of these problems but never spoke of them, helped me make sense of a lot of things. It took time, and it wasn’t easy to come to the realizations, but everything finally fell into place for me when I realized Christianity was just another religion. For the first time, I finally understood the sentiment of that line from “Amazing Grace,” I once was blind, but now I see…
I don’t know if that’s helpful to you at all. Maybe one day it will be. Maybe one day, something will make you ask a few questions, and you’ll think back to those non- believers who were so insistent that Christianity was certainly not the only way. If that day comes, I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful and realize you’re not alone.
Finding Truth 
so you’re saying that the romans, who typically left crucified bodies to rot on the cross, took jesus down, and carefully wrapped his body and carried to Joseph’s tomb for him, because they either didnt want him to be unclean for the passover or they just didnt want a jew to handle a crucified body?
LikeLike
“so you’re saying that the romans, who typically left crucified bodies to rot on the cross, took jesus down, and carefully wrapped his body and carried to Joseph’s tomb for him, because they either didnt want him to be unclean for the passover or they just didnt want a jew to handle a crucified body?”
You are shooting your argument in the foot. the handling of a body would render them unclean for seven days. the fact that they got the body off the cross before sundown would have done nothing to change that.
I got to run. I had a break but its back to this project now that another order has come in. as for me making things up. try cracking open even an online commentary or two since you allege its all me and no scholars.
LikeLike
I was just asking, since you were talking about it – you’re the hebrew scholar, not me.
Whatever the case, john still plainly and explicitly says something you wish it did not. and your “evidence” boils down to desperate hope.
but i’d review a translation that words john the way you say it should have been worded.
LikeLike
“Whatever the case, john still plainly and explicitly says something you wish it did not. and your “evidence” boils down to desperate hope.”
The greek usage of the word is what is and theres nothing you can do about it. Even mark defines it as I do. The Jews had no thursday or friday etc so the term came to be synonymous with a day of the week before the sabbath or before any sabbath. Several scholars consider that phrase to be similar to what we call friday so the passage could and would simply mean in the culture the “friday”.preparation day of the passover.
Such cultural issues are not supposed to be reflected in any translation. I know of no Bible scholar (even liberal ones) that claims that the function of a translation is to replace commentaries , deeper exegesis or study of culture and language. Thats just your bone lazy argument unsupported by anyone in academia and would be laughable to ANY Bible scholar
At any rate all the gospels are in complete agreement that the next day was a sabbath and the torah is very clear that the passover meal itself was not a sabbath.
All that being the case your proof text is defeated as having another possible meaning. You can argue that those scholars are wrong but that would just be you desperately hoping they are.
Frankly all I needed to do was show another possible meaning and your claim at solid proof fizzles. I’ve done much more than that but please beg on as you always have. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you. You have done that when all your other contradictions went splat as this one too most definitely has.
LikeLike
“Frankly all I needed to do was show another possible meaning and your claim at solid proof fizzles.” – mike
mike, thanks for the additional clarification, really. I’m going to read up on it and think it over.
before I do that i wanted to comment on your quote here though. I dont understand it. Why does you pointing out another possible meaning “fizzle” my argument, but a possibility that differs from yours doesnt “fizzle” your argument?
The bible makes a remarkable claim – that it’s from god. how many books do you think there are in the world – yet it’s claim is that it is the only book from god, and your quote here, is seeming to indicate that it should get a pass unless it can positively be proven false, when we typically accept grand claims after they’ve been proven true.
why the difference with the bible?
I’ll read up sabbaths, preparation days and passover now, and will get back with you.
LikeLike
There’s an interesting discussion here the presents both sides of the issue being discussed between William, Nate, and Mike related to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion..
Not being a scholar, or even one who has studied this topic in depth, the explanation by “whopper” makes the most sense to me. “Mike 555” (maybe “our” Mike?) seems to do a lot of twisting and stretching to make his viewpoint work.
Sorta’ like the Mike on this blog does …
LikeLike
“Kathy, RE: “So, it seems you’re claiming that they had lots and lots of books to select from and match up? How many would that be?Where’s the actual PROOF that disproves anything in the Bible?” – this should hold you for a while –”
I require your source(s).. or it get’s ignored.
LikeLike
“I’ll be happy to give you the source, Kathy, knowing that whomever it is, you’ll scream “Liberal,” but not until you give me your word AS A CHRISTIAN, that you read each segment.”
I get your source under certain conditions?? Only a liberal..
LikeLike
“Know the real reason your Yeshua was crucified (if he ever existed)? Because to the Jewish religious authorities, he was a Liberal, trying to infuse a millennia-old religion with new, subversive ideas. And guess what? They felt exactly as you do about circumstantial evidence. Conservatives tend to refuse to look beyond the traditional, they’re uncomfortable with new ideas. “Come back, Little Opie – where ARE you?!””
Arch, PLEAE stop comparing Jesus to your brand of liberal today.. it’s just not the same, in any way. You all think your ideas are “new”?.. they’re not.. all of it is as old as the hills.. it’s what destroyed every prosperous nation in the end. That’s why “progressive” is such a contradiction.. you all promote things that take us back to the same old immoral practices and corrupt ideas that have destroyed so many people and prosperous populations in the past.
And Jesus wasn’t killed for His new ideas.. it was because He was a threat to their pride and egos. They were jealous and also extremely angry for being called out for the phonies they were. hmmm… pride and ego issues.. sounds kind of familiar. One of the biggest problems with liberals is that you all can’t seem to learn from past lessons and mistakes. It’s ALL there in our political history and religious history.. all the lessons necessary. And liberals are failing the class.
LikeLike
“Not being a scholar, or even one who has studied this topic in depth, the explanation by “whopper” makes the most sense to me”
thanks for the heads up Nan. That means Whopper probably got this head handed to him by my namesake knowing the facts you don’t
LikeLike
“I require your source(s).. or it get’s ignored.” – You want truth, Google each of the names and find your own truth, or stick your head back in the sand – you asked for proof, I gave you proof. As for what you choose to DO with that proof, in the now-famous words of Rhett Butler, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
LikeLike
“I get your source under certain conditions?? Only a liberal..” – There are a couple of alternatives – 1) do your own research, 2) remain clueless.
LikeLike
William, you said:
“@kathy,
Instead of copying and pasting a lot of what you said, i’ll just focus on this.
I agree with you, and I am also not compelled by the “evidence” you’ve presented. I wonder why you continue to list “martyrs” as evidence when all religions (and even nonreligious causes) have them? Again, even if martyrs were evidence for more than the martyr’s conviction, it becomes moot, because everything can list that as one of their evidences.”
William, I’ve already explained, several times where you go wrong in your reasoning here.. several times, because Nate also seems to not be able to understand this for some strange reason.. it’s really not complicated at all.. but it DOES require OBJECTIVITY. So, hence, one of my reasons for accusing you and others here of a lack of objectivity.. especially since I’ve had to explain this more than once..
William, while many religions can claim “martyrs”.. it doesn’t end there, even though your mind doesn’t want to accept this.. it’s a fundamental aspect of evidence.. the details!.. the specifics!..
Sorry for my tone.. it just gets frustrating having to repeat something over and over to people who I KNOW are intelligent enough to understand it.. the problem, again is a lack of objectivity.. it’s because you all don’t take the necessary step of asking yourselves if you are truly being objective, you just assume you are.. all the time.. you are wrong…. OR, you are intentionally rejecting anything that doesn’t support your narrative, regardless of it’s validity and truth.
William, if someone goes out and kills THEMSELVES.. AND takes as many OTHER lives with them as they possibly can, that’s not actually true “martyrdom”.. that’s suicide and homicide. So, you are in error when you attribute martyrdom to other religions if this is how it happened.
Again, as I’ve explained several times now, Christians DON’T take the lives of others.. and they DON’T take their own lives.. all they do is preach the Gospel, using their unalienable right.. and OTHERS take their lives because they don’t agree or they feel threatened. They are motivated by evil, when they take those lives and when they take their own along with innocent lives. Christian martyrs are motivated by nothing but love for God.
So, the problem is that you aren’t taking into consideration the actual specifics of the martyrdom of each religion. This is why we WEIGH the evidence.. because some evidence is by far, more valuable based on the specifics. Christian martyrdom is worth it’s WEIGHT in GOLD.
LikeLike
William, cont..
“My parable was just right, whether you agree or not. What you know of god didn’t come from god, but from people. Has god given you a hug? has he actually spoken to you? Have you even seen him? You even admit that he didnt even write his own book, but had people do it for him… and you only believe that because the book claimed it… ”
Again William, your parable doesn’t take into consideration that God is not your betrothed spouse.. He is your Creator. An incredibly important difference. Yet, you just skip right over that part.
And THEN, you make arguments/ complaints that God isn’t relating to you like a spouse.. like a fellow human being. Which indicates that you have set up the “requirements” that God needs to meet in order for you to follow/ accept Him.. further showing that you refuse to acknowledge God’s superior position. See? Always, it ALWAYS leads back to the atheist’s issue with pride and ego. But, you have been blinded to this truth.. due to your own choices. Just like the parable… the Master took the single bag of gold from the one who spited him and gave it to the one who had the most. Your willing blindness will only continue to get worse and worse… while those who seek the truth, honestly, will continue to grow in their faith.
LikeLike
Hi Kathy,
I believe in the Creator. I believe in the Creator due to the complexity of life and due to the fixed laws of the universe. However, I have no idea who he/she is nor anything about him or her.
How do you know that your god, the Christian god (Yahweh/God the Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is the Creator?
LikeLike
Actually no, Mike. “whopper” by far had the best “argument.” You really should take the time to read the discussion — although I’m sure you’ll discount everyone but “Mike555.” (Are you SURE this isn’t you??? He’s about as long-winded as you and has a real knack for that twisting and stretching I mentioned.)
_____________
An interesting tidbit from the forum discussion —
This seems very pertinent to what’s been taking place on this blog between the majority of posters (Jesus of history) and Kathy (Christ of faith).
LikeLike
“Actually no, Mike. “whopper” by far had the best “argument.” You really should take the time to read the discussion ”
I did and I caught Whopper three times complaining about using older commentaries – a positively stupid argument for a historical subject. Except for new finds – IF they relate to the issue – being an older commentary is not a reason to reject a bible scholar.
Thank you for the link – That mike made at least one solid argument I had not read before and that is that the passover was considered a festival week and the preparation day was the preparation day for the whole week not one meal. This would be the case as festival of the unleavened bread starts with a sabbath.. Makes perfect sense and fits in with what I have said.
Anyway I am not going to get int some positively stupid back and forth debate about who debated better on another site. I know that “long winded” is code word for you for “don’t confuse me with the facts”. After all you just confessed you know little of the subject. so combined with your bias your not understanding the issues makes your assessment of who had the better points somewhat ridiculous
LikeLike
“This seems very pertinent to what’s been taking place on this blog between the majority of posters (Jesus of history) and Kathy (Christ of faith).’
They are one and the same to many bible scholars so that point too is meaningless. You guys always quote some conclusion you agree as if its evidence with without ever touching the primary evidence that the conclusions are drawn from. its quite obvious all you really do is follow skeptical consensus which is no way to be educated though you claim superior education in that subject (which in discussions however even with Nate never materializes).
LikeLike
Hi Gary, you said:
“I believe in the Creator. I believe in the Creator due to the complexity of life and due to the fixed laws of the universe. However, I have no idea who he/she is nor anything about him or her.
How do you know that your god, the Christian god (Yahweh/God the Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is the Creator?”
I “know” God is our Creator because of my relationship with Him, because of answered prayers and other ways He has revealed Himself to me in my life.
I believe God, of the Bible, is our Creator because, as I’ve pointed out on this blog, Christianity has the most compelling evidence, and a lot of it, to support it’s truth.
I really like your question and how you set it up… and that you do acknowledge the obvious.
I agree and I believe the NEXT step is to ask if our Creator wants to make Himself known to His creation. And I can’t think of any valid reason why He wouldn’t. Creation is so detailed and thought out that it makes no sense that God would then just forget about us and leave us to our own fate. It’s clear that there is purpose behind this amazing existence we are a part of… and clearly, at the center of. Which, that will “rile” the atheist feathers.. watch… they’ll use that to try and claim I’m being “egotistical” and “prideful”. But it’s just merely acknowledging God’s plan and purpose.
Then, after coming to the rational realization that God would want to make Himself known to His creation, the question would then be, HOW would He choose to do that. I’ve already gone over these logical objective steps here, but since it obviously didn’t register with all of the atheists here, I don’t mind repeating myself (in this instance).
It’s fairly simple to deduce that God has 2 basic choices at this point.. either reveal Himself “empirically” where we would have “scientific” proof.. or not in an empirical way.
Obviously He chose not to give us “proof”. And then, we would ask.. why not? Another easily answered question if one applies objectivity. He doesn’t want us to have “no choice” in the matter. He WANTS us to CHOOSE Him. And this is PERFECTLY understandable. Because it would mean our love for Him would be genuine, not out of fear.
So, THEN, at this point, we have to “assess” all of the prominent religions.. and I think it’s a safe assumption that God would make sure that He would be in that mix.. and He DID do that, or, those who loved Him did that for Him knowing it was necessary.
And now we are at the point where we choose which religion has the “credentials”.. the most compelling evidence to support it’s truth.. and, without a doubt, it is Christianity. And I should note here, that I’ve asked all the atheists, and Nate specifically, to name another religion that has more “credentials”/ compelling evidence and no one was able to.
So, to sum up the answer to your question, I believe our Creator is the God of the Bible because Christianity offers the most compelling evidence.. and none of the Bible has been disproven. And further, and up there as of the most important reasons, the doctrine is the most meaningful and gives the most rational explanation for our existence. All the other religions offer nothing comparable… not even close.
LikeLike
At least I’m honest and admit I’m no scholar. Which reminds me, Mike — when might we receive your scholarly credentials? (See my post 7/17, 1:02 pm)
LikeLike
Whoops! 2:01 pm
LikeLike
“Creation is so detailed and thought out that it makes no sense that God would then just forget about us and leave us to our own fate. It’s clear that there is purpose behind this amazing existence we are a part of… and clearly, at the center of.”
LikeLike
Forgot to add: ~~ Douglas Adams ~~
LikeLike
I guess Kathy doesn’t like me, since she ignored my direct questions. At least I got some answers indirectly.
Among other things, I said to her (here):
Maybe there’s a “god”; maybe there’s not. Maybe he/she/it has revealed him/her/itself to us; maybe not. Maybe there’s life after death; maybe not. Maybe some humans know the answers; maybe no one does–maybe we never will. I will not assume that we have the answers, or that we deserve them.
Did you ever truly consider these possibilities? Did you ever put the Bible to the test, to see if it withstands scrutiny–as the truth ought to? Did you ever ask yourself whether “faith” it’s really a virtue? If so, what kind, what does faith mean, and under what circumstances is it virtuous? Are you humble enough to have ever truly considered that you may have been mislead for decades, and that the foundation of your worldview *might* be shaky, or even false?
And just above, to Gary, she explains that it’s all just so obvious–of course we’re created by a deity, who wants to reveal him(!)self to us!
Kathy, let’s say for a moment that you could be right about your claims, or you could be wrong. And if you’re unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong, then
“they’ll use that to try and claim I’m being ‘egotistical’ and ‘prideful’.”
Pretty much, yup.
LikeLike
Kathy says: “Obviously He chose not to give us ‘proof’.”
Response:
A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.”~Matt Dillahanty
LikeLike