Facing the Morally Bad Future

[Godscreated]

---

@ FallentoReason I've been reading the conversation between yourself and gomtuu77. If you don't mind I have a question for you, do you still believe in the God of scriptures? The reason I ask is this, I do not believe I've ever seen you write that you do or do not believe in Him. I am one who believes that a man can choose to walk away from God after he experiences Him, gomtuu77 gave the very reason from Hebrews, the passage says one falls away, it doesn't say one chooses to quite believing. I see it like this, one starts drinking and finds out that it makes them feel good, so they keep it up for the high. Then the hangovers start and every time after drinking one has to deal with the hangover, drink, hangover, drink, hangover, then one says if I stop so do the hangovers. When the one does stop, they no longer have to deal with those hangovers, they know that if they drink again it will feel good, they do not deny the fact they have learned, drinking feels good, they just do not like the hangovers, so drinking is out of their life.
God can be the same way sometimes, when one loses sight of who He really is, one becomes weary and after awhile will either leave the faith or reconnect with who God is.

---

That's actually a really good analogy. I have no problems in talking theology and discussing the God of the Bible, but I do not currently believe in said God.

With respect to the analogy, I see it as this: people insist that this drink exists and you will get these effects. I have found out for myself that the drink isn't actually a literal thing. They have been misled to believe this drink is a) a real thing and b) that it functions as they say.

I'm puzzled, since you have given up your belief as you say, how is it that you can say you were a true Christian. As far as you are concerned now there's no God, so how is it that anyone can be a Christian in your view if as you say, there's no God. I can't seem to understand what you're thinking, this is probably my fault, I do not know how to look at this situation other than the black and white of it. You call your friends Christians, yet you can not really believe they are, if there is no Christ there are no Christians, you believe they are wrong in their thinking/belief and yet you fail to let your friends know what you believe about them, is this truly fair to them. I know personally that would not set well with me, but I'm a lot older than you and your friends, and through the experiences of life know not to get bent out of shape if a friend told me he quit believing, younger folks haven't always acquired a sense of rational. I'm not saying that you should tell your friends that is a choice only you can make.

---

Another thing I do not know many Christians who claim the Bible to be a history book, I know plenty that know it as the greatest love story ever told, that includes me. Many places that use to be thought of as only existing in the scripture have been found in archaeological digs, and because of things like this some talk about scriptures like a history book. Certainly the scriptures give a time line down through history, however this time line was counting down to the arrival of Jesus and the wonderful gift of salvation through Him for all of mankind.

---

I agree. It is just assumed that these pieces of paper were recounting historical events. From the research I've done, not only do I believe Jesus wasn't a real person, but I've actually gone one further and found what they are trying to tell us and what the Gospels really are. This is what I mean by my explanation of the analogy. People keep telling me the Gospels are something but I know for myself now that they have been mislead. The Gospels aren't meant to be taken literally, they do not function that way.

So how do the Gospels function?
You say you were preparing yourself to be a defender of the scriptures, did you take into account the OT, or only the NT. There are prophecies in the OT that were actually penned hundreds of years before Christ's birth, and they were fulfilled to the letter, some maybe Jesus could have brought about Himself, others like not having a broken bone in His body. After the beating He took and then being crucified, the Roman soldiers broke the legs of those crucified so they would die before night. If Jesus were just another man there is no way He could have prevented this from happening. For what ever reason the Father was not going to allow it.

[FallentoReason]

I'm puzzled, since you have given up your belief as you say, how is it that you can say you were a true Christian. As far as you are concerned now there's no God, so how is it that anyone can be a Christian in your view if as you say, there's no God. I can't seem to understand what you're thinking, this is probably my fault, I do not know how to look at this situation other than the black and white of it.

It's simple. A belief is just that, a belief. I could say to you I believe pigs fly and all people that believe that are a part of Porkism. Whether the facts tell us this belief is justified or not, i.e. there's evidence for it, doesn't actually matter. It's the same with a Christian. I call my friends Christian because they believe in Christ, just like I did. I cannot call myself a Christian now because I lack that belief, therefore not making me a Christian.

You call your friends Christians, yet you can not really believe they are, if there is no Christ there are no Christians, you believe they are wrong in their thinking/belief and yet you fail to let your friends know what you believe about them, is this truly fair to them. I know personally that would not set well with me, but I'm a lot older than you and your friends, and through the experiences of life know not to get bent out of shape if a friend told me he quit believing, younger folks haven't always acquired a sense of rational. I'm not saying that you should tell your friends that is a choice only you can make.

Well, I'm still weighing up the moral issues of telling people what I think of what they believe. Some could take it really personally, I can't say for sure though.

So how do the Gospels function?

They're partly quoting the Old Testament and these quotes form the basis of the life of Jesus and sometimes what he said. There's other areas where they're using allegory to explain the hardships they, the Jews, were going through. So it's a blend of philosophical teaching with respect to the OT (when compared to Philo, a Hellenistic Jew) and hidden historical content in the form of allegories (which are revealed when compared to the works of Josephus).

You say you were preparing yourself to be a defender of the scriptures, did you take into account the OT, or only the NT. There are prophecies in the OT that were actually penned hundreds of years before Christ's birth, and they were fulfilled to the letter, some maybe Jesus could have brought about Himself, others like not having a broken bone in His body. After the beating He took and then being crucified, the Roman soldiers broke the legs of those crucified so they would die before night. If Jesus were just another man there is no way He could have prevented this from happening. For what ever reason the Father was not going to allow it.

This cuts both ways. Either the Gospel authors did use the OT as a source for what Jesus would do in their stories OR Jesus fulfilled all 323 prophecies. Given that the evidence for a historical Jesus is lacking, the most probable is that the Gospel authors used the prophecies as a basis for Jesus and therefore could explain their philosophical understanding of the OT through Jesus.

[Godscreated]

---

I'm puzzled, since you have given up your belief as you say, how is it that you can say you were a true Christian. As far as you are concerned now there's no God, so how is it that anyone can be a Christian in your view if as you say, there's no God. I can't seem to understand what you're thinking, this is probably my fault, I do not know how to look at this situation other than the black and white of it.

---

---

It's simple. A belief is just that, a belief. I could say to you I believe pigs fly and all people that believe that are a part of Porkism. Whether the facts tell us this belief is justified or not, i.e. there's evidence for it, doesn't actually matter. It's the same with a Christian. I call my friends Christian because they believe in Christ, just like I did. I cannot call myself a Christian now because I lack that belief, therefore not making me a Christian.

---

You call your friends Christians, yet you can not really believe they are, if there is no Christ there are no Christians, you believe they are wrong in their thinking/belief and yet you fail to let your friends know what you believe about them, is this truly fair to them. I know personally that would not set well with me, but I'm a lot older than you and your friends, and through the experiences of life know not to get bent out of shape if a friend told me he quit believing, younger folks haven't always acquired a sense of rational. I'm not saying that you should tell your friends that is a choice only you can make.

they believe[/i]. Some could take it really personally, I can't say for sure though.

A tough situation, be careful, you do realize it want stay a secret forever.

---

So how do the Gospels function?

---

---

They're partly quoting the Old Testament and these quotes form the basis of the life of Jesus and sometimes what he said. There's other areas where they're using allegory to explain the hardships they, the Jews, were going through. So it's a blend of philosophical teaching with respect to the OT (when compared to Philo, a Hellenistic Jew) and hidden historical content in the form of allegories (which are revealed when compared to the works of Josephus).

---

You say you were preparing yourself to be a defender of the scriptures, did you take into account the OT, or only the NT. There are prophecies in the OT that were actually penned hundreds of years before Christ's birth, and they were fulfilled to the letter, some maybe Jesus could have brought about Himself, others like not having a broken bone in His body. After the beating He took and then being crucified, the Roman soldiers broke the legs of those crucified so they would die before night. If Jesus were just another man there is no way He could have prevented this from happening. For what ever reason the Father was not going to allow it.

This cuts both ways. Either the Gospel authors did use the OT as a source for what Jesus would do in their stories OR Jesus fulfilled all 323 prophecies. Given that the evidence for a historical Jesus is lacking, the most probable is that the Gospel authors used the prophecies as a basis for Jesus and therefore could explain their philosophical understanding of the OT through Jesus.

You do realize who your talking about as authors, Jewish men who did not believe in a crucified Messiah. A lot of people will tell you that the Gospels were written much later than Paul's writings, if this were true then where did Paul hear about Christ, and we know his writings started around 50 AD. If Paul heard about it by word of mouth, it still came through the same Jewish people that would not have told of a crucified Messiah, unless they knew these events to be true. The one thing most people do not consider, the Jewish people were fervent in there beliefs of the OT, if something had not convinced them they would not dare go against their strong belief in the OT. Why do you think Thomas doubted, all the disciples doubted tell they saw Jesus. They were not completely sure what to make of the empty tomb, they had hope until His appearance. Why don't you read the OT again and see if you can see it as a writing of prophecy, just sayin'.

[FallentoReason]

You do realize who your talking about as authors, Jewish men who did not believe in a crucified Messiah.

Agreed. What are your thoughts on the Jew by the name of Philo, the philosopher who saw the OT as allegory?

A lot of people will tell you that the Gospels were written much later than Paul's writings, if this were true then where did Paul hear about Christ, and we know his writings started around 50 AD.

Now you're starting to catch on. 3 of Paul's authentic letters were indeed written before the Gospels. Now, if Paul only every preached about a spiritual Christ, does this seem to be contradictory with the fact that he wrote before the time of the Gospels? Furthermore, he was telling early Christians to ignore the heretics of the time. Well, if he was preaching about a spiritual Christ and if you believe Paul was a 'true Christian', then who is he telling us to watch out for? The ones that speak of a physical Christ. This is the range of beliefs within the early Christians (I posted this somewhere else):

Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
Catholicism – Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God

As you can see, Paul understood the allegorical teachings of those Jews like Philo. They weren't speaking of literal events.

If Paul heard about it by word of mouth, it still came through the same Jewish people that would not have told of a crucified Messiah, unless they knew these events to be true.

Agreed. Understandably you're still in 'historical mode' though. It came through those Jewish people that wouldn't believe the Messiah physically came, but again consider people like Philo: he saw the OT as allegory and philosophy. We aren't talking history here.

The one thing most people do not consider, the Jewish people were fervent in there beliefs of the OT, if something had not convinced them they would not dare go against their strong belief in the OT.

Agreed. Philosophical minds had already been around for 500 years prior to Christ though. Philo is a testimony to how Jews transformed their view of the OT under the light of philosophy and allegory.

Why do you think Thomas doubted, all the disciples doubted tell they saw Jesus. They were not completely sure what to make of the empty tomb, they had hope until His appearance. Why don't you read the OT again and see if you can see it as a writing of prophecy, just sayin'.

Well if we're explicitly talking the resurrection accounts now then I have to disagree. Mark being the first Gospel written didn't have resurrection accounts. Just an ending with an empty tomb.

[Godscreated]

You do realize who your talking about as authors, Jewish men who did not believe in a crucified Messiah.

Agreed. What are your thoughts on the Jew by the name of Philo, the philosopher who saw the OT as allegory?

One man, one idea, and an idea that was against most of Jewish thought, I thought you were interested in the history and not one person's philosophy.

A lot of people will tell you that the Gospels were written much later than Paul's writings, if this were true then where did Paul hear about Christ, and we know his writings started around 50 AD.

Now you're starting to catch on. 3 of Paul's authentic letters were indeed written before the Gospels. Now, if Paul only every preached about a spiritual Christ, does this seem to be contradictory with the fact that he wrote before the time of the Gospels? Furthermore, he was telling early Christians to ignore the heretics of the time. Well, if he was preaching about a spiritual Christ and if you believe Paul was a 'true Christian', then who is he telling us to watch out for? The ones that speak of a physical Christ.
As you can see, Paul understood the allegorical teachings of those Jews like Philo. They weren't speaking of literal events.

I did take those references out, not before I read them. Also I'm not sure what you mean I'm catching on.
Paul never taught about a spiritual Christ as you state, Paul started out persecuting Christians that believed in the physical Christ, he was part of those who stoned Stephen to death. Why do you think he persecuted these Christians, because he was part of the Temple crowd, those who also believed there would be a physical Christ, just not this One. Paul writes many times about being with the disciples, those who were there with Christ while He was on earth. He refers to the resurrection as a physical event. There is so much Paul has to say about a physical Christ, I can not understand how it's possible that you see he teaches of an allegorical Christ. Paul was always speaking of literal events. Most people who get confused about Paul's writings are the ones who question that he did not write about the life of Christ. Paul knew others had already accomplished this and had no need to repeat it. He also was preaching to the Gentiles who would not necessarily need to know the daily details of His life.

If Paul heard about it by word of mouth, it still came through the same Jewish people that would not have told of a crucified Messiah, unless they knew these events to be true.

Agreed. Understandably you're still in 'historical mode' though. It came through those Jewish people that wouldn't believe the Messiah physically came, but again consider people like Philo: he saw the OT as allegory and philosophy. We aren't talking history here.

Yes we are still talking about historical events, you are the one who said that it was historical events that caused your unbelief. Paul never writes about anyone he associated with who had an allegorical-philosophical idea of Christ. He never lived his life in a manner that would speak of that kind of idea.

The one thing most people do not consider, the Jewish people were fervent in there beliefs of the OT, if something had not convinced them they would not dare go against their strong belief in the OT.

Agreed. Philosophical minds had already been around for 500 years prior to Christ though. Philo is a testimony to how Jews transformed their view of the OT under the light of philosophy and allegory.

That statement you will have to prove, Philo is a man that believed his way and it did not speak to the way the Jewish people believed, they always believed in a physical Messiah, never a spiritual One, they believed Christ would come and restore the throne of David and free them from the slavery-captives they lived as so many times.
Let me ask you this how do you fit John the Baptist into a philosophical Christ. This is one of the purposes of John and he gave his life for it.

Why do you think Thomas doubted, all the disciples doubted tell they saw Jesus. They were not completely sure what to make of the empty tomb, they had hope until His appearance. Why don't you read the OT again and see if you can see it as a writing of prophecy, just sayin'.

Well if we're explicitly talking the resurrection accounts now then I have to disagree. Mark being the first Gospel written didn't have resurrection accounts. Just an ending with an empty tomb.

That is a copy we do not know that the original did not contain the resurrection. We see the copy of Mark as the earliest, this doesn't mean his was the first account written. Without the originals, which we will never have, we can only speculate about who's first and who's last.

[Angrboda]

This thread is gorgeous.

FallenToReason expresses concern about how the believers in his life will react to his unbelief, so Godschild jumps to the front of the line to be the first believer to be abusive and condescending to him.

Way to go, retread.

[Epimethean]

Ah, but tucked in there like nuts in the nougat is GC's hope to net another fish. Go jeebus propaganda wagon.

[Godscreated]

This thread is gorgeous.

FallenToReason expresses concern about how the believers in his life will react to his unbelief, so Godschild jumps to the front of the line to be the first believer to be abusive and condescending to him.

Way to go, retread.

Arrogance seems to be a trait that suits you, I've not been abusive nor condescending, if FallentoReason thinks so let him say, he is quite able to speak for himself without your worthless comments on a subject you have no idea about.

[FallentoReason]

One man, one idea, and an idea that was against most of Jewish thought, I thought you were interested in the history and not one person's philosophy.

What I've been implicitly saying is that history points towards one of many men's philosophy this whole time.

I did take those references out, not before I read them. Also I'm not sure what you mean I'm catching on.
Paul never taught about a spiritual Christ as you state, Paul started out persecuting Christians that believed in the physical Christ, he was part of those who stoned Stephen to death. Why do you think he persecuted these Christians, because he was part of the Temple crowd, those who also believed there would be a physical Christ, just not this One. Paul writes many times about being with the disciples, those who were there with Christ while He was on earth. He refers to the resurrection as a physical event. There is so much Paul has to say about a physical Christ, I can not understand how it's possible that you see he teaches of an allegorical Christ. Paul was always speaking of literal events. Most people who get confused about Paul's writings are the ones who question that he did not write about the life of Christ. Paul knew others had already accomplished this and had no need to repeat it. He also was preaching to the Gentiles who would not necessarily need to know the daily details of His life.

To begin with, Paul never once quotes Jesus. Secondly, he never speaks of the life of Jesus; where he was born, his mother Mary, his father Joseph, miracles, parables, his trial... pretty much take your pick from the Gospels and Paul wouldn't have the slightest clue.

In Galatians 1:9-12 he makes a pretty explicit statement of where he has gotten his wisdom from:

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Through revelation OF Jesus Christ, not FROM Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:1-6

1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given to me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the Gentiles have become fellow-heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Again, the mysteries (I'll get to that in a second) have been revealed by the Spirit. If all these Christians believed in a physical Christ, then a) how is any of this a mystery? He was just on earth, there should be no mystery about anything. b) He says that the Gentiles have 'become fellow-heirs' through the gospel i.e. good news. There is no physical Jesus, NOR Christians. Paul never uses the word Christian once and the reason being because of the mystery cults of the time. It was all one big collection of slightly differing beliefs from Mithras to other cults like that of Osiris, which all believed in the 'mysteries' of saviour gods like Jesus and his Father.

These are just two examples. His letters are plagued with similar phrases. I also believe he uses the word 'mystery' 25 times if my memory serves me right.

Yes we are still talking about historical events, you are the one who said that it was historical events that caused your unbelief. Paul never writes about anyone he associated with who had an allegorical-philosophical idea of Christ. He never lived his life in a manner that would speak of that kind of idea.

I believe I have shown enough evidence throughout threads that the burden of proof lies with you in terms of showing me where 'genuine Christianity' lies within the NT. As I said, Paul repeatedly refers to the mysteries of Christ and revelation through the Spirit, which sounds awfully different to what is preached today.

P.s. I also looked up the rest of Paul's confirmed letters. All 7 were in fact written before Mark, which is important information here.

That statement you will have to prove, Philo is a man that believed his way and it did not speak to the way the Jewish people believed, they always believed in a physical Messiah, never a spiritual One, they believed Christ would come and restore the throne of David and free them from the slavery-captives they lived as so many times.
Let me ask you this how do you fit John the Baptist into a philosophical Christ. This is one of the purposes of John and he gave his life for it.

But Philo was a Jew. The burden of proof lies with you. Show me where it says they believed in a physical Messiah.

John the Baptist is embedded within the pages of the Gospels. Therefore there's not going to be a problem with that if we're supposing the Gospels are allegory.

That is a copy we do not know that the original did not contain the resurrection. We see the copy of Mark as the earliest, this doesn't mean his was the first account written. Without the originals, which we will never have, we can only speculate about who's first and who's last.

The earliest surviving manuscript of Mark has no resurrection accounts. Also, according to the Synoptic tradition and Markan priority, it seems logical that Mark would have been written first. Mark is the shortest of the three by a considerable amount of chapters. Matthew and Luke have a good chunk of Mark plus more (in terms of chapters and things that Mark 'somehow' missed like a birth narrative).

[Angrboda]

Arrogance seems to be a trait that suits you, I've not been abusive nor condescending, if FallentoReason thinks so let him say, he is quite able to speak for himself without your worthless comments on a subject you have no idea about.