Uncategorized

Kathy Part 5

Nate

After breaking 1000 comments on the previous thread, I felt it was a good time to start another.

As a reminder, here are some of the most recent outstanding questions for Kathy:

From Laurie:

You said you answered my questions, and wish more questions were asked. Here are some questions that were not addressed.

Matt 23:8 read first

Philemon 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:14-17
1 Corinthians 12:27
2 Timothy 1:11
1 Timothy 2:7
Ephesians 4:11,12

Why is it that messiah says not to be called rabbi or father, but Paul it’s not obedient to this command?

Matt 10:7,8

1 Timothy 5:17,18
1 Corinthians 9:11,12

Messiah says here that he had given freely, go and freely give. Again, Paul is disobedient.

Matt 18:15

Galatians 2:11-14

Messiah said that if you have a problem with your brother, you should deal with it privately. Here Paul lashes out at Peter “before them all”.

Matt 9:10-12

2 Thessalonians 3:6,7

Yahusha said in the passage above that he came to call the sinner to repentance, not the righteous. Why would Paul want to separate from those that actually need him?

From William:

the “evidences” you listed arent real evidences. And since you refuse to look at things that are counter to your current beliefs, how can you honestly speak to me about evidences?

here’s all I’ve seen you provide:

1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them.

2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.

3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.

4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled.

5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.

In addition to these, I’d like to ask something of both Kathy and Laurie (Matt or Hayden or portal001 (Ryan) can chime in as well):

The Bible defines God as being all-loving, all-merciful, fair, just, etc. It can also be read as promising an eternity in Hell for those who don’t serve him correctly. As a believer, how do you square those two statements?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

954 thoughts on “Kathy Part 5”

  1. “a father that is prepared to come down to his child’s level of comprehension and take his punishment for his child’s transgression by paying the cost himself, is a father that loves his child. If that specific cost requires him to lay down his life for his child to avoid that child making such a payment himself, then that fathers love is expressed in his willingness to do this, and still give his child the option to do what he wanted with this.”

    A father that is prepared to come down to his child’s level of comprehension and take his punishment for his child’s transgression by paying the cost himself, for disobeying rules that he, himself, had a choice to make or not make, yet chose to make, is a fool.

    “I told you that if you ate the candy that I set down in the center of the table, directly in front of you, that I would kill you – you ate the candy anyway, but rather than kill you, I will kill myself.” – I’m just not seeing the logic.

    Like

  2. I didn’t take offense to anything, Ryan, but thanks.

    So would you call yourself a Universalist? And what do you make of Jesus’s warnings about Gehenna?

    Like

  3. Just read what I posted

    wow :I sorry Nate, not including the letter I before, changed the tone completely,

    seriously didn’t mean to convey that, sorry if it came off as dismissive, wasn’t trying to be.

    It is seriously easy to be potentially misunderstood by mis-wording or/and accidentally leaving out vowels. My apologies 🙂

    Like

  4. I told you that if you ate the candy that I set down in the center of the table, directly in front of you, that I would kill you – you ate the candy anyway, but rather than kill you, I will kill myself.

    That actually made laugh out loud 🙂

    As obscure as that scenario is, I don’t think its the same thing. rather than “don’t touch the candy” a better illustration might be don’t murder, steal, molest, abuse your neighbour, yourself ect.

    Like

  5. So would you call yourself a Universalist? And what do you make of Jesus’s warnings about Gehenna?

    Nate, I don’t know….I just don’t want anyone to be in eternal torment, I don’t like the idea.

    Like

  11. Arch,

    I’ll give it a read. found it interesting that it links to Valerie’s blog, I’ve read a few of her articles, seems like a nice lady, writes really well, even if we disagree on some major points.

    Like

  14. “rather than “don’t touch the candy” a better illustration might be</em" – don't eat the fruit?

    Like

  15. “I just don’t want anyone to be in eternal torment, I don’t like the idea.” – if Kathy were here, this would be the part where she would throw in caveats like, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!”

    Portal, you seem like a genuinely nice person. And no, that’s not sarcasm.

    Like

  18. Arch,

    ““I told you that if you ate the candy that I set down in the center of the table, directly in front of you, that I would kill you – you ate the candy anyway, but rather than kill you, I will kill myself.” – I’m just not seeing the logic.”

    As if anyone would expect you to??

    Like

  19. I just found out about a new book that I’m very excited to read.. it’s called “Jesus on Trial: A lawyer affirms the truth of the Gospel”.. by David Limbaugh

    what a coincidence.. with me alluding to trials and juries. Here’s a book recommendation from me for a change. Watch the video to get an idea of all the different aspects (including science) he covers in the book..

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09/david-limbaugh-discusses-latest-book-jesus-on-trial-on-hannity-video/

    Like

  21. I’ll put it on my Amazon list, Kathy. It sounds similar to a number of other apologetic books I’ve read as well.

    To balance things out, do you have any intention of reading anything from the opposite point of view?

    Like

  23. Yeah, we’ll do that Kathy – just as soon as you’ve read and watched everything we’ve recommended to you. Do let us know when you’ve done that —

    Like

  24. Kathy, just had to check-in and add a quick note —

    It’s gonna’ take a whole lot more than Limbaugh’s book to convince me. ESPECIALLY when (based on his interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez), he claims that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.

    Are you aware this is a doctrine that was put into place 325 years after Jesus? Because some thought Jesus was man and others maintained he was God, the council at Nicaea A.D. 325 — headed by a pagan political emperor, namely, Constantine, decided on a God-man to please both sides. This doctrine, though unfounded in Scripture, is generally believed by Protestants and Catholics to this day.

    As a lawyer, one would think he would have based his “conversion” on the “evidence.”

    Like

  25. Oh yeah … need to add another excerpt from the interview where Limbaugh says:

    … we are instructed to offer the reasons for our faith — with gentleness and respect.

    Did you read that, Kathy?

    Like

Comments are closed.