"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[Clownboat]

Do you actually disagree that tales of resurrections were a fairly common thing or are you arguing that they were not common when compared to today?

The former. Specifically, we were told that "resurrection" was a common theme in ancient mythology and religions, and then given 34 examples to demonstrate that point.

None of the names mentioned in that list are examples of ancient figures who were thought to be "resurrected." A few of the names on the list are not even ancient figures, and were just invented out of whole cloth by whoever originally put together that list. This is not a serious source we are dealing with.

Would you like to examine the figures on the list? We can start with Zoroaster, since I already mentioned him: What historical evidence is there that Zoroastrians considered him to be a "God" who died and was "resurrected" as was claimed above?

I acknowledge that you think that resurrection tales were not more common in ancient history and I acknowledge your complaints about the provided list.
Why I feel you are mistaken:

- Ancient Greece and Rome: From the 5th century BCE onwards, literature was filled with stories of "revenants"—dead people who returned to life, often as solid, corporeal beings to haunt the living, take revenge, or even procreate.
- Mesopotamia: The Epic of Gilgamesh (2nd millennium BCE) includes the goddess Ishtar threatening to break down underworld portals to let the dead rise and outnumber the living.
- Egypt: The myth of Osiris—who was murdered, dismembered, and resurrected by Isis to become king of the underworld—was the cornerstone of Egyptian afterlife belief, with citizens seeking to replicate this resurrection through mummification.
- Religious Myths: Many ancient cultures had "dying-and-rising" deity myths tied to agricultural cycles, such as Tammuz (Babylonian), Attis (Phrygian), and Persephone (Greek).

Here are some reasons as to why such beliefs were much more prevalent in ancient history when compared to today:

- Many ancient cultures believed that dead bodies could reanimate if not properly buried or if they had unfinished business.
- Stories of gods dying and returning to life (like Osiris or Inanna) were used to explain the seasonal death and rebirth of crops and vegetation.
- In a world without modern medicine, cases where people appeared dead (coma, severe shock) and later woke up were interpreted as supernatural resurrections.

Again, I acknowledge that you don't think resurrection tales were more prevalent in the past and I trust you understand why I disagree with your thoughts on the matter.

PS. I notice that you quote mined this out of your reply to me which offered clarification on my position:
"Do you find the valid (please ignore any you feel are completely fabricated) ancient resurrection tales to be all true, some true or likely that none of these claims are true? If at least one is true, how do we choose which to believe? Thanks for clarifying."

Can I assume you are uncomfortable answering these question?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #18]

Well, let us get back to it.

I would know this claim is false. There is no need for 'another Moses', because we have Christ

And the funny thing is, you would have never known the name of Christ had it not been for the Bible. Moreover, you would not have known who Moses was if it had not been for the Bible. So then, it is because of the Bible that you know there is no need for another Moses, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus speaking to you directly.

who lives and who speaks, and we are to listen to Him.

Yes, Jesus does live and speak through the Word, and we can listen to Jesus as we read the word, and hear the word preached. But He ain't speaking to you directly.

He is the mediator between man and God.

Straight out of the Bible which means, Jesus did not communicate this to you directly.

Not Mike Johnson.

Exactly! So, you see, you were just able to demonstrate that Mike Johnson could not have possibly heard from God that he was the Moses for the United States, and you were able to do this with what is contained in what we call the Bible, and you did not need Jesus to communicate this directly to you. But here is the thing, you are avoiding the question here. Mike Johnson claims God was communicating to him directly, and God informed Mike Johnson that he was to be the Moses for the United States. If you claim Jesus is communicating with you directly, then you must believe that He communicates with others directly, and Johnson is claiming this direct communication, and yet you have demonstrated Johnson to be in error from the scripture, but you want to insist the communication you are receiving is true, correct, and what is communicated to you has to be on par with scripture, since it is Jesus who is doing the communicating. In other words, Johnson is claiming the same exact thing you are claiming, and somehow it will always be you who is receiving the correct communication when there are those such as Mike Moses Johnson with whom you are now insisting must and has to be in error.

Because you see, it will do you no good to go up the Mike Johnson and insist you have a different communication from Jesus which contradicts what he claims to have received, because neither of you could possibly demonstrate who was truly hearing from God. On the other hand, when you do what you just did by using the revealed Word delivered to us all, you were able to demonstrate his error just fine. The point is you cannot continue to insist you are hearing directly from Jesus on the one hand and then go on to insist that others who claim this same exact thing could not be hearing from Jesus, when these folks claim to be hearing something different than you.

Christ also said that His Kingdom is not of this world.

Did Jesus reveal this to you directly? Or did this come straight out of the Bible? It came straight out of the Bible, and you did not need Jesus to communicate this to you directly.

If Mike Johnson made specific individual claims - then I could also test those, hold them up to Christ.

You just did, and it was not the voice inside your head, but was rather the revealed Word to us all.

Although I'm not sure what is meant here by the word 'ordain'

Priestly authority.

there's nothing particularly wrong about the claim of Donald Trump being raised up to this position by God.

Was Hitler raised up to his position by God? Just to be clear, I am not at this time comparing Trump to Hitler. I am just saying that if this is the position you take, then we would have to agree that God raised up Hitler to the position he held.

You don't need to have heard from God (or rather, His Son - because God speaks through His Son) to accept that though.

I know, because again, you are getting what you are saying from scripture.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! You are arguing with me that you hear directly from Jesus, and you continue to refer to scripture as opposed to what Jesus is telling you internally. At any rate, should those who found themselves under the governing authority of Hitler, be subject to his authority, since it was God who established it? Would this mean that those who attempted to hide the Jews were guilty of sin against God since they did not obey the governing authority? The governing authorities attempted to insist the Apostles stop preaching Christ. Should the Apostles have obeyed these authorities since they were established by God?

That would include Obama though (and I suspect that this group of yours wouldn't like that claim as much).

What "group" are you referring too? I would much rather prefer Obama rather than Trump. Looks like Jesus would have revealed that to you.

Remember, God also raised up Pharaoh for a specific purpose.

Again, you are appealing to scripture rather than what Jesus is communicating to you directly.

(I'm not saying Trump is or is not Pharaoh

Well, you should be able to tell us one way or the other since you have this direct communication with Jesus. Or maybe it is because you are not in the U.S. that Jesus does not feel the need to communicate this to you?

It didn't turn out so well for Pharaoh at the time, but at the end, Israel had been set free AND many non-Israelite people (including Egyptians) also left Egypt to follow God.

What in the world would this have to do with Jesus communicating to you directly?

Regardless, my Lord's Kingdom is not from this place. He will establish His Kingdom on the earth, Himself, when He returns - and He is my King. My job - my purpose - is to bear witness to Christ, to give praise to JAH and to His Son.

All straight out of the Bible. No need to hear from Jesus directly concerning anything you have to say. Again, you would have never known anything at all about Jesus, you would not have known a thing about His crucifixion, you would not have known a thing in the world about His resurrection, and you would have never known a thing at all about Christianity had it not been for the revealed Word made available to all of us.

Seems sort of strange. You insist you hear from Jesus directly, but we have not heard a word from you concerning what Jesus is revealing to you directly. Rather, what we are hearing from you, we can all read from what has been revealed to us all from the scripture.

I look forward to the rest. It will indeed be the best.

[historia]

I acknowledge your complaints about the provided list.

You're coming at my argument sideways, my friend.

The overarching point that I'm making here is that people often uncritically accept things they read when those things appear to confirm their prior beliefs. I'm not merely "complaining" about the list that Zzyzx plagiarized. I specifically pointed to his use of that list as an example of my overarching point.

Do you think that list is accurate? If not, then you're not addressing my argument.

Now, I appreciate the fact that you'd rather change the focus of our discussion to his broader claim that "resurrection was a common theme in ancient mythology and religions." Let's keep that specific wording in mind, though, as some of your subsequent AI-generated examples here are going to miss that mark.

Ancient Greece and Rome: From the 5th century BCE onwards, literature was filled with stories of "revenants"—dead people who returned to life, often as solid, corporeal beings to haunt the living, take revenge, or even procreate.

More precisely, we have a handful of stories in (pre-Christian) Greek and Roman literature of people coming back to life. These kind of folktales crop up in Medieval Europe, too.

Importantly for our purposes here, though, these are not part of the "religion and mythology" of ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks and Romans found the idea of returning to physical life appalling. So, while the rare tale of someone returning to life crops up in their literature here and there as a morbid story, it did not figure in their religion and mythology.

Mesopotamia: The Epic of Gilgamesh (2nd millennium BCE) includes the goddess Ishtar threatening to break down underworld portals to let the dead rise and outnumber the living.

Cool. That's one example.

Egypt: The myth of Osiris—who was murdered, dismembered, and resurrected by Isis to become king of the underworld—was the cornerstone of Egyptian afterlife belief, with citizens seeking to replicate this resurrection through mummification.

You might want to ask the bot that gave you that answer how Osiris was "resurrected" by Isis. Or we could just look at the article on Osiris in the Encyclopedia Britannica, as that is a reliable source:

According to the form of the myth reported by the Greek author Plutarch, Osiris was slain or drowned by Seth, who tore the corpse into 14 pieces and flung them over Egypt. Eventually, Isis and her sister Nephthys found and buried all the pieces, except the phallus, thereby giving new life to Osiris, who thenceforth remained in the underworld as ruler and judge.

Again, 'resurrection' denotes a return to physical life here on earth. Osiris being buried so he can then go on to rule the Underworld, the land of the dead, where he remains, is not what we mean by 'resurrection.'

This loose use of language plagues your remaining examples as well:

Religious Myths: Many ancient cultures had "dying-and-rising" deity myths tied to agricultural cycles, such as Tammuz (Babylonian), Attis (Phrygian), and Persephone (Greek).

These, again, are not examples of 'resurrection' in the sense that we mean it. Dumuzid ("Tammuz"), for example, was dragged into the Underworld by demons, and then subsequently travels back and forth from the Underworld twice a year, symbolizing the seasons.

Again, I acknowledge that you don't think resurrection tales were more prevalent in the past and I trust you understand why I disagree with your thoughts on the matter.

That's not what I said, though. Whether "tales" of people coming back to life were "more prevalent in the past" compared to today is your concern, not mine.

What I've challenged is the claim that 'resurrection' as we understand that term was a common theme in ancient religions and mythology. Most ancient religions do not include that idea, let alone claim, as part of their mythology or other sacred texts, that an ancient person or god was actually resurrected.

The list Zzyzx provided above unintentionally demonstrates that, as it includes a wide array of figures from several ancient religions -- including Asian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism -- who were not considered to be resurrected, showing this idea was not common.

I notice that you quote mined this out of your reply to me which offered clarification on my position

I usually just ignore questions that aren't relevant to the point I'm making, or are not interesting to me -- that's not "quote mining" -- just as you ignored my question about what historical sources support the above claim that Zoroaster was a "god" who was "resurrected."

As I've said countless times on this forum, Christian belief in the Resurrection is a matter of faith. It's not something one can arrive at through an historical analysis. Why some folks here keep pretending that's not the case is a bit beyond me.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #0]

"Christianity" is in decline because more and more people are seeing the falsehood in religion

Is Christianity a religion?

Usually "Christianity" refers to religion.

Faith - as a Christian - is something different from religion.

and the lies and hypocrisies of the religious leaders.

I am not talking about the decline of religion. I am talking about the decline of Christianity,

Didn't Christ say that there are few who find the Path that leads to Life? That many are called, few are chosen?

There is a lot of religion. There is also a lot of 'having a form of godliness, but denying its power."

But faith is few.

and I will agree that this decline can be attributed to Christian leaders, who on the one hand are more concerned about the behavior of those outside the Church, that they are neglecting those inside the Church, many of whom are convinced they experience the naked God.

Christians have one leader: that leader is Christ. If you need to see that, then you can read it at Matt 23:8-10.

At least some are hearing the call to "Come out of her, my people!"

And because of many of the Christian leaders who are more concerned with the behavior of those outside the Church, they are allowing their own flock to attempt to experience God in the nude, who will end up finding Satan.

Their own flock?

Doesn't Christ say that there will be ONE flock, with ONE Shepherd?

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:16

You claim that the bible is all that people need, that it is the Word through which Christ speaks (it is not... Christ is Himself the Word of God.) Yet you talk about Christians leaders and their own 'flock' (see John 10:16) as if there isn't just one flock, with one Shepherd. One Leader. One Teacher. One Master.

So what is this "church" that you are talking about with human leaders who have their own flocks? Sounds like you are describing religion to me.

But you think that is more dangerous than the lying preacher, the false religions, all misleading people?

My friend, back in the 1990's I stood on the floor of a statewide conference of the denomination I was a member of, after it was brought to the floor that we should send a letter of protest to Disney World, concerning their decision to cover same sex partners, and I asked the question on the floor, "what do we have to do with Disney World?" I went on to say, "Disney World does not name the Name of Christ" but there are many, many, Christian organizations who do name the Name of Christ, and they are preaching a false Gospel. I would be more than happy to send a letter of protest to these Christians, but I do not see what we have to do with Disney World."

The point is, whether it is lying preachers, false religions, or those who are claiming to hear a voice inside their head, they are all reckless, and dangerous, and I do not attempt to determine which is the most, as opposed to the least dangerous, since anything which leads us away from the Christ in scripture leads to death.

"You diligently search the scriptures because you think that in THEM you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to ME to have life."

The scriptures testify to Christ. We're supposed to come to Christ.

And there are religions that teach people that there is nowhere else to go - never teaching them that it is not a 'where' but rather a 'whom'.

The "whom" you are referring to is Jesus, and here is a fact for you. You would not know a thing in the world about Jesus, nor Christianity, nor would you even know to attribute that voice in your head to Jesus, if it were not for what is contained in the NT.

I did not learn that Christ speaks from the NT. Someone else bore witness to this truth. The bible simply supports it.

And yes, I did want to hear my dear Lord once I learned that He could speak, that He said His sheep would hear His voice, and that there are multiple examples of Him doing just that. I am one of His sheep. Why would I not want to hear Him? I love Him, and if He speaks - absolutely I want to hear His voice and listen to Him.

"Lord to WHOM would we go? YOU have the words of eternal life."

This is unreal! What in the world does this passage have to do with Jesus communicating to you directly?

I'm snipping out the rest of what appears to be a bit of a rant, because the verse was simply put in to support the sentence in the previous point. (Look back at the previous quote)

Jaheshua - meaning JAH saves/salvation of JAH.

What in the world does this have to do with you hearing the voice of Jesus?

You keep suggesting I hear the voice of Jesus; but that is not His name. I'm just clarifying.

And there are plenty of preachers who say different things and who all claim this is what the bible says.

Correct! But I can demonstrate the error in those who are claiming what the "Bible says."

So say many people. JW's claim to know what the bible 'really says'; Catholics make the same claim; evangelicals claim the same; here you are claiming the same thing as well. Yet you all have different messages. Different understandings. Many of which contradict Christ, Himself.

As an example, I have been in debate with a well-known pastor who happened to preach at the United States Pentagon yesterday, and I was able to demonstrate his error concerning his interpretation of what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians, "We take every thought captive." I am also waiting on you to reveal to us what Paul meant by this, and this should be easy for one who gets direct communication from Jesus.

Your test seems to be based on the idea that your interpretation is the absolute test of truth. So that if I understood this verse the same as you (even if I did not hear it from Christ but just read it and came to the same conclusion as you), then I must be hearing Christ? And if I don't understand this verse the same as you, then I must not be hearing from Christ?

You don't take people's word for it. You test the inspired expression. You bring it to Christ.

OH? So, you do not bother with the revealed Word outside of us to determine this, rather you bring it to Jesus, and ask Jesus to reveal to you internally if what is said is true? In other words, the revealed scripture is not sufficient to determine this sort of thing, so we need to rely upon what each of us is determining what Jesus tells us in our spirit? If we all disagree as to what the answer is, what in the world do we do in this case?

If after everything we still disagree, then we disagree. Leave it to God and to His Son to correct one (or both) of us at some point.

What do you do if you and another person disagree as to what the answer is from what is written?

You hold all things up to Him - listen to HIM, believe HIS words.

Which words? The Word revealed in scripture? Or the word in my head? Which wins out?

His words as the Spirit, the Living Word of God. That would be first and foremost.

If a person does not (yet) hear Him, then at the very least, that person can look to what He is written to have said. But also ask and wait to hear from Him, the truth of any matter.

Love is also a test (as stated.)

Test also against love - because God is love, and nothing that comes from Him will be against love.

So then, it was love when God said, "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated?"

What exactly are you arguing about?

Is God love?
Is what comes from God love?

Are you going to answer no to those questions?

Love is the law (the law from the beginning, the law that comes from God.)

My dear Lord taught me these things.

I have no doubt!

Then you can stop suggesting that just because I back up my posts with scripture (so you and/or the reader can see what is actually written), that this somehow means that my Lord does not speak to His sheep.

What is the point of John telling people to 'test the spirit/inspired expression' if we are instead supposed to reject every spirit/inspired expression?

What about the fact that John was communicating to an audience at the time who did not have the completed Word?

Who taught you that the bible is the completed Word of God?

The bible does not teach that.

You claim Christ does not speak so you could not have learned that from Him. The men or religion who teach that doctrine also could not have learned it from Him.

So where did you learn this doctrine?

As well, earlier you claimed that 'has spoken' from Hebrews, meant that the Son was no longer speaking at that time.

So are you telling us that you believe Hebrews was written after 1John?

Because if Hebrews was written before 1John (as the historical evidence seems to attest), then the words 'in these last days, God has spoken through His Son' COULD NOT have been used by the author to mean that Christ no longer speaks to us. Since the author of 1John is later telling people to test the spirit/inspired expression.

Something to think about perhaps.


Peace again to you.

[Clownboat]

The overarching point that I'm making here is that people often uncritically accept things they read when those things appear to confirm their prior beliefs.

I acknowledge that people often uncritically accept things they read and am fully aware of confirmation bias.

I'm not merely "complaining" about the list that Zzyzx plagiarized. I specifically pointed to his use of that list as an example of my overarching point.

Do you think that list is accurate? If not, then you're not addressing my argument.

It is not 100% accurate, but it demonstrates my overall point that returning to life themes were more prevalent in the past. What it doesn't do is to demonstrate that returning to life themes were not more prevalent in the past.

Now, I appreciate the fact that you'd rather change the focus of our discussion to his broader claim that "resurrection was a common theme in ancient mythology and religions." Let's keep that specific wording in mind, though, as some of your subsequent AI-generated examples here are going to miss that mark.

Let's test your claim for accuracy shall we?
Post 3, copy/paste: "Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions. Are they all true? Some but not others? Just a favorite one? HOW to choose which to believe?"
You failed to address this and instead complained about the provided list and then decided to bring up the people often uncritically accept things they read.
What you failed to do was to show that tales of resurrections were not as common of a theme in the past as they are now. You know, from post 3 that you now falsely claim I'm trying to change the focus of pages later.

More precisely, we have a handful of stories in (pre-Christian) Greek and Roman literature of people coming back to life. These kind of folktales crop up in Medieval Europe, too.

I appreciate you for making my argument for me.
Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions. You rightfully acknowledge it in Greek, Roman and Medieval history. Thank you for that. I assume that is why you fail to make a counter argument that resurrection themes were less common in ancient mythology and religions and instead would like to focus on people accepting things uncritically. Something I acknowledge already.

Importantly for our purposes here, though, these are not part of the "religion and mythology" of ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks and Romans found the idea of returning to physical life appalling. So, while the rare tale of someone returning to life crops up in their literature here and there as a morbid story, it did not figure in their religion and mythology.

For the sake of debate, lets grant that Greeks and Romans found the idea of returning to physical life appalling.
Now that we have settled that, can you demonstrate that resurrection themes were less common in ancient history?

Mesopotamia: The Epic of Gilgamesh (2nd millennium BCE) includes the goddess Ishtar threatening to break down underworld portals to let the dead rise and outnumber the living.

Cool. That's one example.

Please provide a counter example or anything you can that would suggest that tales of 'resurrection' were not a common theme in ancient mythology and religions.

According to the form of the myth reported by the Greek author Plutarch, Osiris was slain or drowned by Seth, who tore the corpse into 14 pieces and flung them over Egypt. Eventually, Isis and her sister Nephthys found and buried all the pieces, except the phallus, thereby giving new life to Osiris, who thenceforth remained in the underworld as ruler and judge.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, did Osiris stay dead? Is a person being given new life and and then being deemed a ruler and a judge a resurrection theme or the opposite of that kind of theme?

Again, 'resurrection' denotes a return to physical life here on earth. Osiris being buried so he can then go on to rule the Underworld, the land of the dead, where he remains, is not what we mean by 'resurrection.'

If you will acknowledge that Osiris was given new life, I will acknowledge that it wasn't here on earth where said life was given. Our readers can then decide if this reflect a resurrections theme or not.

This loose use of language plagues your remaining examples as well:

And yet many examples remain. Obviously they don't copy the Jesus resurrection story, but that was never the claim. The claim is that resurrection were a common theme and that seems to remain true.

Religious Myths: Many ancient cultures had "dying-and-rising" deity myths tied to agricultural cycles, such as Tammuz (Babylonian), Attis (Phrygian), and Persephone (Greek).

These, again, are not examples of 'resurrection' in the sense that we mean it. Dumuzid ("Tammuz"), for example, was dragged into the Underworld by demons, and then subsequently travels back and forth from the Underworld twice a year, symbolizing the seasons.

Thank you for acknowledging that numerous myths of dying and rising were tied to agricultural cycles as I claimed just above. This is one of a few reasons that resurrection themes were more prevalent in the past. Do you think that dying-and-rising themes that are tied to agricultural cycles are more common now or in the ancient past?

Again, I acknowledge that you don't think resurrection tales were more prevalent in the past and I trust you understand why I disagree with your thoughts on the matter.

That's not what I said, though. Whether "tales" of people coming back to life were "more prevalent in the past" compared to today is your concern, not mine.

The claim we are discussing was made in post 3, before you entered this discussion and you have supported the truth of post 3's claim in your reply. Therefore it stand currently that tales of 'resurrection' were in fact a common theme in ancient mythology and religions.

What I've challenged is the claim that 'resurrection' as we understand that term was a common theme in ancient religions and mythology. Most ancient religions do not include that idea, let alone claim, as part of their mythology or other sacred texts, that an ancient person or god was actually resurrected.

See post 3. Clearly we are talking about a 'theme'. I acknowledge that you want to only discuss resurrections as you understand the term and not returning to life as a 'theme'.

res·ur·rec·tion
/ˌrezəˈrekSHən/
noun
1.
the action or fact of restoring a dead person to life, or of being restored to life.

"thereby giving new life to Osiris"
Surely our readers will notice if this reflects such a theme or not.
I acknowledge that Osiris's resurrection does not match that of Jesus, but it does reflect the common theme of the day, which is the point.

The list Zzyzx provided above unintentionally demonstrates that, as it includes a wide array of figures from several ancient religions -- including Asian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism -- who were not considered to be resurrected, showing this idea was not common.

I acknowledge this and feel that our readers will see it differently. Returning to life themes were more common in the past then they are now for the reasons supplied. I continue to acknowledge your complaints about the supplied list and how you feel that some of them don't reflect a resurrection to your liking, but I must acknowledge the theme.

Do you know why some societies in the past would place bricks or rocks in the mouths of their dead? Do you know what these societies were worried about and do you acknowledge that it had to do with a returning to life theme, or would you credit some other theme for this pratice?

I usually just ignore questions that aren't relevant to the point I'm making, or are not interesting to me -- that's not "quote mining" -- just as you ignored my question about what historical sources support the above claim that Zoroaster was a "god" who was "resurrected."

What you quote mind out was very relevant.
"Do you find the valid (please ignore any you feel are completely fabricated) ancient resurrection tales to be all true, some true or likely that none of these claims are true? If at least one is true, how do we choose which to believe? Thanks for clarifying."
And here you are, complaining about the ones you feel are fabricated (or more accurately don't reflect a resurrection as you understand the term) and not the theme of returning after being dead.

As I've said countless times on this forum, Christian belief in the Resurrection is a matter of faith. It's not something one can arrive at through an historical analysis. Why some folks here keep pretending that's not the case is a bit beyond me.

I acknowledge that the Christian believe in the Resurrection is a matter of faith. Something that took place during a time in history where such themes were much more common than today.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #34]

Your test seems to be based on the idea that your interpretation is the absolute test of truth. So that if I understood this verse the same as you (even if I did not hear it from Christ but just read it and came to the same conclusion as you), then I must be hearing Christ? And if I don't understand this verse the same as you, then I must not be hearing from Christ?

I have been working on the rest, but when I read this, I thought that this might be the best avenue since we are simply going around in circles. We are dealing with the passage in which Paul tells the Corinthians, "We take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ." I noticed that you avoided giving any sort of interpretation of what Paul was saying in the passage, since this would have been the easiest thing to do, seeing as how Jesus communicates with you. In other words, if you are so in tune with Jesus, then you should have a full understanding of the whole of scripture, which you continue to refer to in defense of this communication with Jesus. So then, it is not that if you do not have the same interpretation as I do, then you are not hearing from Christ. Rather, it is if you do not have the same interpretation as I do then you are simply wrong. This would mean, that it would be the fact that you are wrong concerning the meaning Paul had, which would go on to demonstrate you are not getting direct communication from Jesus.

When I insist that my interpretation of the passage is the only correct interpretation, I am not being arrogant in the least. Rather, it is the fact that it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt, which means there would be no debate, and anyone would have to agree to the meaning Paul had in mind. This is not always the case. As an example, when Jesus tells the thief on the cross, "I tell you today you will be with me in paradise" there are some who insist that Jesus is referring to that very day, while others insist that it would have not been that very day. The thing is the interpretation would depend on where the punctuation would be, and since there was not punctuation in the Greek, it could go either way. If the punctuation would be before the word "today," this would cause the meaning to be that very day. If however, the punctuation was after the word "today," that would mean that Jesus did not have in mind, that very day.

But the thing is, if we have those such as yourself who are having this direct communication with Jesus, then we should be able to know exactly which way Jesus meant this sentence, along with knowing exactly what Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive," along with the fact that we should have no division at all concerning any of the meaning in scripture, since Jesus is communicating to you all, and certainly Jesus knows the exact interpretation, and certainly Jesus would not want us all to be divided over the meanings, on top of the fact that certainly Jesus has the ability to communicate correctly to you.

What I want to stress here is the fact that if you come to the correct interpretation of the passage, this does not at all demonstrate you have direct communication with Jesus. Rather, it could simply mean you have the ability like me, to read and interpret correctly. If, however, you cannot give us the correct interpretation, then this would indeed demonstrate you do not have a direct line to Jesus, since you refer to the scripture so much in order to defend your direct communication with Jesus, and since you continue to refer to the scripture you must have a high regard for the scripture, and certainly someone who has such a high regard for scripture, would understand that this same Jesus would indeed desire for you to have the correct view of scripture, because if it can be demonstrated where you have any incorrect view of what the scripture says, then this may mean you have a faulty view of the scripture you use in defense of your direct line to Jesus.

It's pretty simple. Jesus would not want someone He has found so special as to have direct communication to Him have a faulty view of scripture. The passage is, "we take every thought captive." What do you and Jesus say is the meaning?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #34]

Your test seems to be based on the idea that your interpretation is the absolute test of truth. So that if I understood this verse the same as you (even if I did not hear it from Christ but just read it and came to the same conclusion as you), then I must be hearing Christ? And if I don't understand this verse the same as you, then I must not be hearing from Christ?

I have been working on the rest, but when I read this, I thought that this might be the best avenue since we are simply going around in circles.

I can agree that repetition tends to occur when there is a lack of response on a certain topic. For you, the topic is this 'test' you have designed. For me - it might be the questions I have about how you know the things you claim to know; why you rely upon your own - or other men's - interpretations/deceitful hearts? And why - if scripture is enough - do you accept and promote things that are neither supported by what is written and even contradict it?

To clear up something you have said:

The reason I support the things I share with what is written is so that you and others can see for yourselves what is written. Because although we are called to walk by faith, most people walk by sight until (and unless) they learn to walk by faith... faith, which is heard.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17


Moving on to your test:

What I want to stress here is the fact that if you come to the correct interpretation of the passage, this does not at all demonstrate you have direct communication with Jesus. Rather, it could simply mean you have the ability like me, to read and interpret correctly. If, however, you cannot give us the correct interpretation, then this would indeed demonstrate you do not have a direct line to Jesus,

So your test is not about coming to the truth of a matter; it is not about coming to Christ at all. It is an attempt to disprove that Christ speaks (to me or to anyone else).

A - You know that is not how faith works, right?

But he must ask in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. James 1:6-7.

B - Do you even realize what it is you are asking me to do:

***

“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and they will lift You up in their hands, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ”

[Jesus] replied “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

***

I'm not going to do what you are asking, Realworldjack.


If you want to know the truth of this matter, then you should take the matter to Christ and ask Him. If you need faith to do this, then ask for faith. If you need ears to hear so you can hear the truth of the matter from the One who is the Truth (Christ Jaheshua), then ask for ears to hear. I am just a witness to Christ - I can only point to Him. HE is the One who is the Truth, the Living Word of God, and the One to whom God said to listen.

because if it can be demonstrated where you have any incorrect view of what the scripture says, then this may mean you have a faulty view of the scripture you use in defense of your direct line to Jesus.

Well let's clear this up as well: of course *I* can have an incorrect view on something written. This would prove nothing more than that *I* have an incorrect view on something written (perhaps I did not wait on my Lord and decided to rely upon myself or other men for understanding; perhaps I added my own 'spin' to His words based on my own bias or desire. I try not to do these things - I know it is of great importance to share 'just so' - but no man is without sin, and we can all make mistakes.)

But me being wrong on something written would not change the truth that Christ speaks. It would not change the fact that He meant exactly what He said (that His sheep would hear/listen to His voice). It would not change the fact that what is written shows that He DID speak after His death and resurrection, and His sheep DID hear His voice, and we have multiple examples showing this. From Paul, to Peter, to Ananias, to Phillip, to John.

I know this is true - not because I am relying upon 'my view' of scripture - but because I know His voice (He is my Shepherd.)


Peace again to you,
servant to the household of God and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[historia]

The overarching point that I'm making here is that people often uncritically accept things they read when those things appear to confirm their prior beliefs.

I acknowledge that people often uncritically accept things they read and am fully aware of confirmation bias.

Cool. Do you think it is likely that Zzyzx uncritically accepted the accuracy of that list of supposed "gods" who were thought to be "resurrected" -- which he clearly just grabbed off some random website -- due to confirmation bias?

Do you think that list is accurate? If not, then you're not addressing my argument.

It is not 100% accurate

Okay. In your considered judgement as a long time participant on this forum, is it inappropriate to point out when someone makes inaccurate claims?

For example, when Creationists on this forum make scientific claims that are demonstrably false, should we just ignore those details and only focus on the "vibe" of their overall argument?

Now, I appreciate the fact that you'd rather change the focus of our discussion to his broader claim that "resurrection was a common theme in ancient mythology and religions." Let's keep that specific wording in mind, though, as some of your subsequent AI-generated examples here are going to miss that mark.

Let's test your claim for accuracy shall we?

By all means. As you can readily see, I appreciate accuracy.

Post 3, copy/paste: "Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions. Are they all true? Some but not others? Just a favorite one? HOW to choose which to believe?"
You failed to address this and instead complained about the provided list and then decided to bring up the people often uncritically accept things they read.

Let's back up here a second: In my initial post in this thread (post #25), I was addressing a point made in the OP. I merely quoted a portion of post #3 to illustrate that point.

In making a new point in relation to the OP, it is not incumbent upon me to address every point, or answer every question, made by others in the thread.

What you failed to do was to show that tales of resurrections were not as common of a theme in the past as they are now. You know, from post 3 that you now falsely claim I'm trying to change the focus of pages later.

You are confused here, my friend.

Nowhere in post #3 is there a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now. Nowhere in my original post or subsequent replies to you have I made a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now.

This is something you introduced into the discussion. Go back and search the thread: you're the only person here who has said anything about this being "more common" or "less common" in the past compared to today. When you asked me in your initial reply whether I meant it was "not common when compared to today," I expressly indicated that was not my point (post #28).

Why, then, you keep asking me to defend a claim I have not made is anyone's guess. But, in so far as your last two replies are consumed with this point -- which only you have made assertions about -- I'm afraid you're attacking a straw man argument. That's also why much of your posts don't figure in my replies.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, did Osiris stay dead? Is a person being given new life and and then being deemed a ruler and a judge a resurrection theme or the opposite of that kind of theme?

That poses a false dichotomy. The Osiris myth is a story about life after death, surely. But it is not a story about 'resurrection', as that denotes a return to physical life here on earth.

Let's read the very next paragraph in that Britannica article (emphasis mine):

From about 2000 BCE onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth.

Indeed, many Egyptologists today avoid using the term "resurrection" when discussing Osiris and ancient Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife precisely because that terminology is misleading.

We should avoid it too when talking about these other ancient myths. This isn't just my "preferred" definition of resurrection, as you tried to suggest, this is just being more accurate, more scholarly, in our use of language.

Obviously they don't copy the Jesus resurrection story, but that was never the claim. The claim is that resurrection were a common theme and that seems to remain true.

I'm not saying that a myth or historical account has to "copy" the Christian account of the Resurrection to qualify as a "resurrection story."

The handful of Greek, Roman, and Medieval resurrection accounts we discussed earlier do not conform to the example of Jesus' resurrection in every detail -- far from it. But they do entail returning to physical life here on earth. That's why we can rightly refer to those as being about 'resurrection' in a way that the figures in the original list are not.

If, on the other hand, by "resurrection" you just mean any life after death -- including, to go back to the second name on the original list, the Buddha, who passed into final Nirvana where there is no more personal existence -- then I think that poses several problems:

First, this is just imprecise and unclear.

People in the past, as today, had many different and conflicting ideas about life after death, with 'resurrection' just being one of several beliefs. Ask yourself this: Why are you not referring to Jesus and these other figures as examples of 'reincarnation'?

Second, this poses a specific problem for the claim you are eager to discuss -- even though apparently no one else is -- about whether these "themes" or "stories" were more or less prevalent in the past when compared to today.

If "resurrection" just means any kind of continued life after death, then it's actually not clear to me that this is, in fact, less prevalent today compared to the ancient world. There are a lot more people today than in antiquity. And accounts of people experiencing the presence of a departed loved one, a saint, or the spirit of someone else, are not uncommon in the modern world. Moreover, given our technology, these accounts are more likely to be written down and preserved compared to the past, so we might actually have more of these kinds of accounts today.

But, again, only if we are using the term 'resurrection' loosely. You can't have it both ways.

I acknowledge that Osiris's resurrection does not match that of Jesus, but it does reflect the common theme of the day, which is the point.

What theme? The immortality of the soul? Reincarnation? Apotheosis? Underworld existence? Being absorbed into Ultimate Reality? The story of Osiris fits several of those ideas better than 'resurrection'. To even speak of "the common theme of the day," as if there was only one, is historically inaccurate.

[Clownboat]

Cool. Do you think it is likely that Zzyzx uncritically accepted the accuracy of that list of supposed "gods" who were thought to be "resurrected" -- which he clearly just grabbed off some random website -- due to confirmation bias?

Much of the list does show a propensity for the theme of returning to life in ancient times (some don't and should be rejected). I would assume that is why Zzyzx supplied it. I acknowledge your complaints about some of them and how they for example don't all represent a God being resurrected back to life here on earth, but those stipulations are your additions and are not contained in the claim from post #3.

The claim was:
"Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions."

- Sure, Osiris was not returned to life here on earth, but he was return to life. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Did Odin not die only to be reborn/resurrected as more powerful being? I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Zoroastrian tradition teaches that the souls of the good will be resurrected. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- The title Indra isn't about a resurrection itself, but about cycle of death and rebirth. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Bali of Afghanistan would seem to be another figure associated with symbolic seasonal rebirth. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Did Tammuz/Dumuzid not die on a yearly basis? I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Attis was also a Phrygian vegetation deity. His self-mutilation, death, and resurrection represents the fruits of the earth (wiki). I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Alcides/Hercules ascended to Mount Olympus and attained immortality after his death. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Psyche was revived from a death like sleep and was then granted immortality. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Thor's goats that pulled his chariots were resurrected. I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- In Euripides's The Bacchae, Cadmus is given a prophecy by Dionysus whereby both he and his wife will be turned into snakes for a period before eventually being brought to live among the blessed (wiki). I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Quetzalcōātl was known as the inventor of books and the calendar, the giver of maize (corn) to mankind, and sometimes as a symbol of death and resurrection (wiki). I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Adonis died, but was eventually restored to life after Aphrodite begged Zeus (wiki). I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.
- Was Quirinus not believed to have ascended to heaven to become the god Quirinus? I would argue that this falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme.

On top of this, reasons were supplied as to why I felt you were mistaken and reasons were supplied as to why such beliefs were more prevalent when compared to today (post #31).

This is why I say that I believe our readers will decide for themselves if resurrection type claims were more common in the past when compared to today and why the claim made in post #3 remains accurate.

Okay. In your considered judgement as a long time participant on this forum, is it inappropriate to point out when someone makes inaccurate claims?

Yes, in a debate setting, claims should be expected to be challenged.

For example, when Creationists on this forum make scientific claims that are demonstrably false, should we just ignore those details and only focus on the "vibe" of their overall argument?

No, in a debate setting, claims should be expected to be challenged.

You are confused here, my friend.

I don't believe I am confused. If you truly believe that I am confused, please attempt to demonstrate that resurrection/returning to life claims were not common in the past so I can amend my thinking. Perhaps you can supply your reasoning as to why resurrection claims were not very common in the past like I did for why I feel they are? You, I and the readers could then examine the supplied reasoning to arrive at a determination we feel is the most justified. I have done my part already, so you would be up.

Nowhere in post #3 is there a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now. Nowhere in my original post or subsequent replies to you have I made a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now.

Acknowledged!
But what you did say: "What I've challenged is the claim that 'resurrection' as we understand that term was a common theme in ancient religions and mythology."

res·ur·rec·tion
/ˌrezəˈrekSHən/
noun
1.
the action or fact of restoring a dead person to life, or of being restored to life.

Which brought me to my very first response to you: "Me thinks you doth protest too much."

Why, then, you keep asking me to defend a claim I have not made is anyone's guess.

Allow me to clarify.
When I asked you this questions: "Do you actually disagree that tales of resurrections were a fairly common thing or are you arguing that they were not common when compared to today?"
You replied with this: "The former." Therefore, since you think that tales of 'being restored to life' were fairly uncommon in the past, I would think you would be ready to defend such a thing. Seems reasonable to me anyway.

That poses a false dichotomy. The Osiris myth is a story about life after death, surely. But it is not a story about 'resurrection', as that denotes a return to physical life here on earth.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.
noun
1.
the action or fact of restoring a dead person to life, or of being restored to life.
I would argue that the Osiris myth falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme. Why do you disagree?

From about 2000 BCE onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth.

Let me attempt to steel man your position:
When Osiris had his life renewed, that doesn't go along with a theme of being restored to life, because you would argue that a resurrection is not an act of being restored to life. Only when stories include beings being restored to life, physically and only on earth would it fit the definition.

So I say again, me thinks you doth protest too much.

The handful of Greek, Roman, and Medieval resurrection accounts we discussed earlier do not conform to the example of Jesus' resurrection in every detail -- far from it.

Why would you expect ancient examples of beings returning to life to conform to the examples of Jesus's resurrection in every detail?
They don't match the Jesus returning to life story, but they do reflect what seems to be a fairly common theme for the day. That of beings returning to life.

But they do entail returning to physical life here on earth. That's why we can rightly refer to those as being about 'resurrection' in a way that the figures in the original list are not.

I acknowledge the story that when Jesus was returned to life, it happened here on earth. Can you acknowledge the stories where we have a theme of returning to life, sometimes here on earth and other times elsewhere? Would those stories suggest that returning to life was a common theme or would the suggest that returning to life was not a common theme of the day?

If, on the other hand, by "resurrection" you just mean any life after death -- including, to go back to the second name on the original list, the Buddha, who passed into final Nirvana where there is no more personal existence -- then I think that poses several problems:

Since I am referring to dictionaries, what you think I might mean is irrelevant.
Here is another to show how the term can be understood:
resurrection
American

[rez-uh-rek-shuhn]
/ ˌrɛz əˈrɛk ʃən /
noun
the act of rising from the dead.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/resurrection

People in the past, as today, had many different and conflicting ideas about life after death, with 'resurrection' just being one of several beliefs.

I agree that people in the past had many different and conflicting ideas about life after death. These many ideas were a fairly common theme in fact. Again, you help to evidence my claim.

Ask yourself this: Why are you not referring to Jesus and these other figures as examples of 'reincarnation'?

Reincarnation in fact does fit the theme of being restored to life.
Therefore, Jesus is an example of returning to life in the ancient past and so are concepts involving reincarnation. This is further evidence that the claims is true that these type of stories were a fairly common themes. You yourself have identified two just above.

If "resurrection" just means any kind of continued life after death, then it's actually not clear to me that this is, in fact, less prevalent today compared to the ancient world.

I acknowledge that this isn't clear to you and that you didn't offer counters to these points:
- Many ancient cultures believed that dead bodies could reanimate if not properly buried or if they had unfinished business.
- Stories of gods dying and returning to life (like Osiris or Inanna) were used to explain the seasonal death and rebirth of crops and vegetation.
- In a world without modern medicine, cases where people appeared dead (coma, severe shock) and later woke up were interpreted as supernatural resurrections.

This is me arguing my position. Are you able to argue for yours, one where you think that returning to life stories were in fact less common then today.

There are a lot more people today than in antiquity. And accounts of people experiencing the presence of a departed loved one, a saint, or the spirit of someone else, are not uncommon in the modern world. Moreover, given our technology, these accounts are more likely to be written down and preserved compared to the past, so we might actually have more of these kinds of accounts today.

But, again, only if we are using the term 'resurrection' loosely. You can't have it both ways.

Resurrections are the act of rising from the dead. Resurrections must not be physical, nor only on earth, although they can be both. For that exact theme from history, something I see as fairly common for the day, see the Jesus story specifically.

What theme? The immortality of the soul? Reincarnation? Apotheosis? Underworld existence? Being absorbed into Ultimate Reality? The story of Osiris fits several of those ideas better than 'resurrection'. To even speak of "the common theme of the day," as if there was only one, is historically inaccurate.

Thanks for asking!
Osiris was murdered by his brother. His wife restored his body. He then had a son (Horus) after being dead and then restored.

Readers, ask yourself is someone being restored to life reflect a theme involving being restored to life.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #37]

Yeah, I think we are pretty much demonstrating that you are not receiving any sort of direct communication with Jesus. I mean, the simplest thing to do would be to give your interpretation of what Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive." We all know you have an interpretation, but you are not willing to give us your interpretation because you are afraid it will show your lack of knowledge, understanding, and error when it comes to the revealed Word to us all. You also know that if it can be demonstrated that you are in error concerning a passage of scripture, this would demonstrate that you may well be in error concerning the passages you are using to justify your personal communication with Jesus.

Well, allow me to go ahead and give you the correct, and only interpretation of what Paul meant when he said "we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ," just in case you somehow stumble across the correct interpretation and attempt to give credit to your personal communication with Jesus. Paul was addressing the Corinthians, and when he said to the Corinthians, "we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ" this was a warning to the Corinthians, that if they (the Corinthians) did not straighten up their act, they (the Corinthians) would discover that Paul & company (those traveling with Paul) had the ability to "take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ."

As you can clearly see, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with Paul commanding us to "take every thought captive" and it does not tell us how in the world we could possibly "take every thought captive", nor does it tell us we even have the ability to "take every thought captive" (which btw the way we do not have such an ability). So then, what we can see from this passage alone is the fact that Paul & company possessed gifts and abilities which the Christians in Corinth did not possess, along with the fact that Paul & company possessed authority which the Christians in Corinth did not possess. In other words, it is clear from this passage that Paul & company, along with the rest of the Apostles possessed certain gifts, abilities, and authority which the average Christian did not possess. Certainly, those who have the ability, along with the authority to take captive the thoughts of others, and make the thoughts of others obedient to Christ, has some sort of direct communication with Jesus. You claim to have a direct line to Jesus. So then, do you have the ability, and authority to take captive the thoughts of others and make the thoughts of others obedient to Christ? Since you have direct communication with Jesus, do you even know what it would mean to "take every thought captive?" I believe what we are discovering is, the Apostles, along with others the Apostles commissioned at the time, had certain gifts, abilities, and authority that the average Christian at the time did not possess. When the Apostolic age ended, so did those gifts, abilities, and authority cease to exist, and yet you are claiming the same gifts, and abilities, and direct communication with Jesus that the Apostles, and those the Apostles commissioned at the time, and whether you would like to admit it or not, you are claiming the same authority as the Apostles, since you are claiming direct communication with Jesus they possessed, and so you can say with the Apostles when you have this direct communication, "thus saith the Lord."

How in the world can it be possible that I can demonstrate beyond any doubt what is being communicated in the passage, while you cannot, when you claim to have direct communication to Jesus, while I do not?

I can agree that repetition tends to occur when there is a lack of response on a certain topic.

And you certainly demonstrate one with a lack of response.

For you, the topic is this 'test' you have designed.

.

Because, as we are seeing, this will "tell the tale."

For me - it might be the questions I have about how you know the things you claim to know; why you rely upon your own - or other men's - interpretations/deceitful hearts?

Does it not seem strange to you that your question is always ever, how others claim to know, and you never seem to question as to how you claim to know? Moreover, if there are those who are opposed to you, you accuse them of "relying on their own interpretation," while you can insist that you are not relying on your own interpretation, but are rather relying upon your direct communication with Jesus. Then, you seem to want to accuse others of relying on the interpretation of others, as if your interpretations are your own, in no reliance whatsoever upon those who may have had any sort of influence upon you, other than your direct communication with Jesus, whom you would have never known apart from others communicating to you concerning Jesus. Next, it is always, ever others who have to be the ones with the "deceitful hearts" because that could never be you, since you are hearing directly from Jesus. If you cannot see the problem here, I do not know how to help you out.

And why - if scripture is enough - do you accept and promote things that are neither supported by what is written and even contradict it?

My friend, I have just demonstrated to you from the scripture that the Apostles, and prophets had different gifts, abilities, and authority over the average Christian, and one of the reasons these folks had this sort of authority over the average Christian is because of their direct communication with Jesus. You are now claiming to have this same direct communication from Jesus which the Apostles possessed, which would mean you have the same authority the Apostles possessed. You see, you continue to point to all these folk who had some sort of direct communication with Jesus in the scripture as if this is some sort of evidence this applies to you as well, when this sort of communication with Jesus was rare, and certainly was not the norm for any and all Christians even at the time, and it is also abundantly clear that all Christians at the time scripture was being recorded did not possess this sort of direct communication with Jesus, and you insist you indeed have this direct communication with Jesus, and it can, and should be the norm for every Christian, when it is clear it was not the norm for every Christian during the Apostolic age. Again, allow me to stress the fact that it is abundantly clear from the scripture that all Christians did not possess the same direct communication with Jesus, and had to rely upon others who had such an ability, and it is also clear that those who did have such communication with Jesus at the time, possessed authority over those who did not have such an ability, and here you are claiming to have such an ability.

You claim these special abilities, all the while insisting that it is others who are opposed to you who must and have to be relying on their own interpretation, the interpretation of others, or their own deceitful heart, and none of these things could ever apply to you since you are not in any way depending upon your own interpretation, nor the interpretation of others, and it cannot be your deceitful heart since you are getting this direct, divine interpretation, and yet you cannot even tell us the correct interpretation of the written scripture revealed to us all. You cannot on the one hand insist you are on a different plane than the rest of us, and then on the other insist you are on the same plane as the rest of us in that you could be in error as far as your interpretation of the revealed things. Because you see, you cannot admit to the possibility of error on your part as far as your interpretation of the revealed Word, because this would demonstrate the possibility that you may be in error in the use of the revealed Word in order to come to your conclusion that you possess a direct line to Jesus. Moreover, it would demonstrate that even if you had such a direct line, you may not have the skills needed to interpret such divine revelations. I can tell you this, it is the height of arrogance to insist it has to be others who are opposed to you who must and have to have the deceitful heart, without acknowledging the fact that this direct communication with Jesus one is claiming could actually be your own deceitful heart which is communicating with you instead.

Allow us to keep in mind that, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever." In other words, God has revealed all we need to know in what He has revealed to us all, and what he has revealed is sufficient to "love God and enjoy Him forever." But again, there are those who are not satisfied with what God has revealed and want to know the secrets of God. Can you imagine why Luther referred to such folks as wanting to "see God in the nude?"

The reason I support the things I share with what is written is so that you and others can see for yourselves what is written. Because although we are called to walk by faith, most people walk by sight until (and unless) they learn to walk by faith... faith, which is heard.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

All you are doing is to continue to demonstrate one who does not even possess the ability to interpret the revealed Word to us all correctly. I mean, did you even bother to look and see what came before this small little verse you are insisting backs your idea that you are receiving this direct communication? Let's go back the verses just before this.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?

GOOD GRIEF! You continue to show a complete ignorance of the Word revealed to us all, and insist you have a direct line to Jesus. The passage does say, "faith comes by hearing," but this hearing is not referring to hearing from Jesus directly like you would have us believe. Rather, it is clear that this hearing you are talking about comes from those outside of us who are preaching. This passage you are referring to actually works against you insisting that you here from Jesus directly, since this passage is clearly saying that it is impossible to believe unless there are those outside of us who preach. "Faith comes by hearing." How do we hear? Well, it is not some sort of internal voice. Rather, it is the Word preach to us externally which causes the faith you are referring too.

So your test is not about coming to the truth of a matter; it is not about coming to Christ at all.

It is about demonstrating whether you have the ability to interpret the revealed Word to us all correctly, and you continue to demonstrate one who does not possess such an ability, and you would have us to believe you are on a different plane than the rest of us in that you have a direct line to Jesus, and have the ability to interpret what Jesus is saying to you directly when you cannot even interpret correctly the revealed Word to us all.

It is an attempt to disprove that Christ speaks (to me or to anyone else).

And I believe we have determined this to be the case

A - You know that is not how faith works, right?

.

So now, when we come to a place where we cannot explain what it is we believe, nor why we believe as we do, we appeal to faith, and in this way, we do not have to defend what it is we are claiming, since we can insist it must be taken by faith. Allow me to explain to you what faith actually is. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus had a following. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus got Himself in trouble with the religious authorities and the Roman government. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified, and I do not need an ounce of faith in order to believe that Jesus was resurrected.

I do not need faith in order to believe any of the things listed above, because my belief is built upon the facts and evidence, and I can look at, study, weigh, and analyze this evidence in order to come to a conclusion. What I would need faith in order to believe, is that these events somehow atone for my sin. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest. What you are doing is to admit that you do not have any facts and evidence to demonstrate that you are hearing directly from Jesus, and you cannot explain it, so you simply accept it by faith, and you are attempting to scold me for not taking your word for it by faith. This is indeed how faith does not work.

But he must ask in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. James 1:6-7.

How exactly does the passage above back your claim that you are hearing directly from Jesus?

B - Do you even realize what it is you are asking me to do:

Yeah, I think I am asking you to tell us what you believe Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive" and you are attempting to suggest that if you were to give us an interpretation of what Paul had in mind, this would somehow be working against what you refer to as faith. How you can make this make sense in your mind is beyond me? However, it is too late now since I have given you the correct interpretation, which sort of demonstrates one who cannot even engage in talking about the revealed Word to us all, in fear that this will demonstrate they do not even possess the ability to interpret correctly what has been revealed to us all, who wants to convince us that they have a direct line to Jesus, who now wants to insist that we all take it by faith, and if we do not take it by faith, then we somehow lack faith.

“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and they will lift You up in their hands, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ”

[Jesus] replied “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

How in the world did I know you were going to refer to "testing God?" How in the world can you imagine that my asking you to tell us what you believe Paul meant by "we take every thought captive" would be testing God, when you can simply tell us your own interpretation, or what Jesus has revealed to you? I was not insisting that you give us what Jesus revealed to you directly. Rather, you could have given us your own interpretation, but you refused to do even that, because you realized the fact that if your interpretation was in error, this would demonstrate that you do not even possess the ability to interpret what has been revealed to us all, which would go on to demonstrate the possibility that you may be interpreting the passages you refer to which convinces you that you are hearing directly from God incorrectly, on top of the fact that you certainly could not refer to your direct communication to Jesus and afford to be incorrect. This my friend is speaking volumes! You then want to go on and insist that all of this is something that must be taken by faith, and if I do not accept it by faith, this somehow demonstrates my lack of faith.

Next, and the most unreal thing here is the fact that you are now comparing me to Satan, and yourself to Jesus. In other words, I am somehow Satan by asking you to give us your interpretation of what Paul meant by "we take every thought captive," and you are comparing this to when Satan tempted Jesus, and you are Jesus.

I'm not going to do what you are asking, Realworldjack.

Isn't it strange to you that I already knew you would not do what I was asking? This is the whole reason I ask for your interpretation, because I knew you could not afford to even attempt to give us an answer. This is because of the fact that you realized, you had no idea what Paul meant. But it is now too late to do what I was asking since I have already given you the only correct interpretation of the passage, and I do not have a direct line to Jesus. I mean, anyone who may read this is going to realize how pathetic this is. I as a Christian am asking you as another Christian to simply tell me what Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive" which Christians do all the time. You could have told us what you believed Paul to be saying, or you could have shared with us what Jesus revealed to you personally, or you could have simply admitted to the fact that you were not sure. There is no harm at all in admitting to the fact that you are not sure or maybe have no idea. I can tell you that there are passages of scripture where I would have to respond in such a way as I am not sure, and or, I have no idea. Because you see, those of us who do not claim to be hearing directly from Jesus can afford to be honest in saying "I do not know." However, when one claims a direct line to Jesus, such a person cannot afford to say, "I do not know." You understand this to be the case, which is the reason you refused to even attempt to give us an interpretation, or to simply tell us, you were not sure. You then go on to use a passage of scripture in your defense, which you seem to be certain of the interpretation, in which you compare me to Satan for simply asking you for an interpretation of a passage of scripture, on top of the fact that you want to insist that my problem is I do not have enough faith.

I am not even sure you know what faith is. You used a passage earlier which states, "we walk by faith and not by sight." Do you have any idea who Paul was referring to when he said, "we walk by faith and not by sight?" I can tell you for certain, he was not referring to us as Christians, and it is absolutely clear this is the case by simply reading the passage. Paul is addressing the Corinthians, and he is defending himself, and those traveling with him from the Corinthians, and he tells the Corinthians, "We (meaning Paul and those traveling with him) walk by faith, and not by sight. So then, when Paul says, "we walk by faith and not by sight" he is not referring to us as Christians. Rather, he is referring to himself, those traveling with him, and the other Apostles.

This becomes clear when we arrive to verse 11 where Paul says, "What we (Paul & company) are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your (the Corinthians) conscience." Paul goes on in verse 12 to say, "We (Paul & company) are not trying to commend ourselves to you (the Corinthians) again, but are giving you (the Corinthians) an opportunity to take pride in us (Paul & company)". If this is not clear enough for you when we get to chapter 6 it becomes even more clear.

"As God’s co-workers (Paul & company) we urge you (the Corinthians) not to receive God’s grace in vain."

Now we are really going to get to where the rubber meets the road. In chapter 6 starting in verse 3 Paul has this to say,

We (Paul & company) put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our (Paul and company) ministry will not be discredited. Rather, as servants of God we (Paul & company) commend ourselves (Paul & company) in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

You see, you want to include yourself when Paul says, "we walk by faith and not by sight" when you were clearly not included, but I wonder if you include yourself in the "we" when Paul talks about the beatings, imprisonments, riots, sleepless nights, and hunger?" Continuing on Paul says in chapter 6, "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians." Do you see that? I did not even have to place the word Corinthians in there this time because Paul supplied it. Paul goes on,

"and opened wide our (Paul & company) hearts to you (Corinthians). We (Paul & company) are not withholding our (Paul & company) affection from you (Corinthians), but you (Corinthians) are withholding yours (Corinthians) from us (Paul & company). As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your (Corinthians) hearts also.

As you can see, it is clear, and beyond doubt, that when Paul said, "we walk by faith and not by sight" he had only himself, and those traveling with him in mind as he wrote, and he did not include the Corinthians, nor you. Again, and again, and again, we are demonstrating your lack of ability to even interpret the revealed Word of God to us all, and you would have us believe you have a direct line to Jesus.

I want to stress this again. When Paul penned the words, "we walk by faith and not by sight", it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that Paul was only referring to himself, those traveling with him, and the other Apostles. There is absolutely no doubt about it. He did not include the Corinthians, and he did not include you, and here you are using a passage of scripture which has nothing whatsoever to do with you and including yourself in with Paul and the other Apostles. I mean, there is no way one can come to see the magnitude of the error you are making here and still convince yourself you have a direct line to Jesus. Seriously! If you have a direct line to Jesus, then why would Jesus not have told you that you were not included when Paul said, "we walk by faith and not by sight?" I am sorry, but it has to be embarrassing to have believed all this time that Paul was referring to us as Christians "walking by faith and not by sight" only to come to realize how you have been using this verse for so long, only to come to know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with you. I really do not know what there would be left for us to debate, because we have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, that you cannot possibly be hearing directly from Jesus. I have no doubt you may be hearing something, and this brings us back to my initial response on this thread in that one who is hearing these sorts of things, may need to seek some sort of help.

If you want to know the truth of this matter, then you should take the matter to Christ and ask Him.

I have demonstrated that I know the truth of the matter, and I do not have direct communication with Jesus. We have also established the fact that you were not included when Paul said, "we walk by faith and not by sight" which firmly establishes the fact that you ain't hearing from Jesus directly.

If you need faith to do this, then ask for faith.

I indeed have faith in the fact that the life of Jesus, His crucifixion, death, and resurrection atoned for my sin. I do not have faith in you are hearing directly from Jesus, because I believe we have established the fact that you could not possibly be hearing from Jesus. Otherwise, you would surely have a far better understanding of what has been revealed to us.

If you need ears to hear so you can hear the truth of the matter from the One who is the Truth (Christ Jaheshua), then ask for ears to hear.

At this point, all I need is eyes in order to read what you have to say, which is demonstrating beyond any doubt that you do not even possess the ability to interpret the Word of God revealed in the scripture, and yet you want to convince us that you hear directly from Jesus, and somehow have the ability to interpret that correctly.

I am just a witness to Christ - I can only point to Him.

Where exactly do you point, when you claim to be pointing to Jesus?

HE is the One who is the Truth, the Living Word of God, and the One to whom God said to listen.

The question is, where do we listen to Jesus? Would this be internally inside our own heads? Or do we listen to the Word of Jesus which has been revealed outside of us?

Well let's clear this up as well: of course *I* can have an incorrect view on something written. This would prove nothing more than that *I* have an incorrect view on something written (perhaps I did not wait on my Lord and decided to rely upon myself or other men for understanding; perhaps I added my own 'spin' to His words based on my own bias or desire. I try not to do these things - I know it is of great importance to share 'just so' - but no man is without sin, and we can all make mistakes.)

And perhaps, as we have demonstrated in that you have been incorrect when placing yourself in scripture where you do not belong, that you have misunderstood the passages which convince you that you hear from Jesus directly. I believe what we have discovered is, it is not a "perhaps" but rather a fact, that you ain't hearing directly from Jesus.