"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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #42]

All you did was share your interpretation of one line in the bible. Is 'mind control' ever mentioned as a gift of the spirit? Do Christ and God force us to think a certain way, do they force us to be obedient?

I gave you the correct interpretation, and it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt. Now, you can attempt to argue with this, but it is really going to do no good to attempt to argue that we cannot be sure of what is being said, because first of all, we absolutely can, and second if we insist, we cannot be sure, then this would be the case with the rest of scripture, and I really do not believe you want to go down the road of insisting that we really cannot understand what God communicated to us. Ergo, what we are left with is you having an argument with Paul. In other words, I did not author the passage, and we can clearly understand what Paul was communicating to the Corinthians in this passage, and you are accusing Paul of using mind control. But this is not what you are referring to as "mind control." In this same passage Paul reminds the Corinthians of the Christ given authority he has over the Corinthians, and in this passage, he is exercising this Christ given authority. I mean, you are acting as if this is the first time you have read this passage and what I am saying is news to you.

Of course not. If they do not, then what in the world makes you think the apostles could or even should do such a thing?

Well, you say that Paul would never force anyone to be obedient, and I would agree. However, this does not mean that Paul would not use the authority he had been given by Christ to discipline those who were stepping outside the lines. In fact, Paul called to the excommunication of one of the members of the Corinthian Church. Again, if you want to look at this as mind control, then your argument is with Paul.

We - as Christians - are supposed to SERVE one another. Not enslave one another. Not control one another.

Now you are accusing Paul of slavery, on top of the mind control.

We are meant to be FREE, are we not?

Free from what?

Did Christ not come to FREE the captives?

Again, free them from what? Be careful how you answer.

And are we not - as Christians - supposed to follow the example that Christ set?

Correct, but none of us would know a thing in the world about Jesus without what is contained in the Bible.

[Clownboat]

The reason why our conversation has ground to a halt here before we even got out of the gate is because, in you last three replies to me, including this last one, you keep reframing the question under consideration to be whether tales of resurrection were more common in the past compared to today.

Historia, when you agreed with the claim that resurrection tales were not common in the past, to what era were you making that comparison?
You doth protest too much.

That is not the claim that was made, and thus not the question under consideration.

I'm asking you to defend a claim you have made. You actually disagree that tales of resurrections were a fairly common thing. I would ask you to stop protesting so much and defend your claim.

You misunderstood what I was saying here. Here is the context again:
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 doth protest too much.
When you said you don't think that tales of being restored to life were common in the past, what timeframe were you comparing that to? Your clarity on the matter is greatly appreciated.

I bolded the word here in my reply to point out that the bolded sections in this comment of yours are confused. If that was too subtle, my subsequent paragraphs explained further:

You complain a lot!
Since you feel that resurrection claims were not common in the past (compared to some yet to be defined timeframe), I would think you should defend this stance. What we seem to be getting is protesting and complaining while saying I'm causing the debate to grind to a halt.

Nowhere in post #3 is there a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now.

I acknowledge this. Now please clarify, when you said these types of claims were not common in the past, were you comparing that to when dinosaurs walked the earth or to some other time? You know what, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that you don't feel that they were common fairly common claims. I acknowledge, but I must reject this feeling you have until an argument is made.

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.

I acknowledge this. Now please clarify, when you said these types of claims were not common in the past, were you comparing that to when dinosaurs walked the earth or to some other time? You know what, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that you don't feel that they were common fairly common claims. I acknowledge, but I must reject this feeling you have until an argument is made.

Okay, so here you seem to acknowledge that both the original claim that Zzyzx made and my replies are not about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to today.

I honestly have no idea what timeframe you were comparing it to, and I don't really care. You don't feel they were common. I acknowledge your feeling. I understand them to be fairly common and provided examples and reasons as to why that is the case.

And yet, for some reason unknown to man, you went right back to reframing the issue in those terms later in the same post:

Again, what matters is that you don't feel they were common. What timeframe you were comparing that to doesn't matter. Apparently you are not comparing returning to life claims from the past to today and I'm OK with that and understand how it doesn't change your stance you seem unwilling to defend.

Why do you keep changing the issue to be whether tales of resurrection are more or less common in the past when compared to today? That is not the claim we are considering.

Here is another example of you grinding the debate to a halt. You feel that returning to life claims were not common in the past. You don't want to defend this claim, so you whine and protest instead. This is not interesting though.

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."

Yes. Notice how that matches the original claim, and is not a claim about the prevalence of such stories in the past compared to today.

Since you feel that returning to life claims were not common in the past, I beg you to defend such a thing. I already acknowledge how you 'feel' about this.

I need you to stop misrepresenting it, or telling me I've failed to address this other issue that is not the one under consideration.

But you have completely failed to argue for your position. You have complained about comparing it to today, which is odd, because what other timeframe would we be comparing it to if we are to say they were not common?
If you actually think that returning to life claims were not common in the past, you should address the examples provided where that happened and the reasoning that was provided that justifies why returning to life claims were thought to be fairly common.

We can have an interesting debate here -- and, as time permits, I'm going to come back to address the rest of your post. But, in the meantime, can we agree what the question under consideration is and, even more importantly, stick to it?

For the love of all that is holy! When you agreed that resurrection claims were not fairly common in the past, to what timeframe were you referring to in order to make that comparison? I think you were actually comparing it to today's time, but it matters not outside of you using it as a distraction.

[tam]

Peace again,


[Replying to tam in post #0]

I have not argued that I am capable of interpreting the bible.

I have said straight out - more than once - that I need my Lord.

Even the apostles needed Christ to open their minds so they could understand the scriptures.

This is one of the most unreal things I have ever read! You are actually admitting that Christ had to open the minds of the apostles to understand scripture, and you claim to have a direct line to Jesus and going on to claim that you are not capable of interpreting the Scripture?

Not based on my own understanding.

What aren't you getting about that?

The apostles did not interpret based upon their own understanding - Christ opened their minds and explained to them what was written about Him in the scriptures.

You may think that doesn't apply to any other scripture, but tell me - can you correctly interpret Revelation based on your own understanding? If you say yes, how do you know your interpretation is correct?

We are not to imitate Paul. I never once said that we are to "imitate those such as Paul."

Oh really? Well, here is what Paul said, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ."

A - If Paul is imitating Christ, and we are to imitate Paul - then we TOO are to imitate Christ.

B - Paul had just mentioned some specific things to imitate (do all to the glory of God, which is what Christ did, did He not?)

We are to imitate Christ, to follow HIS example. That is HIS command. (John 13:15, Matt 28:20)

This is TOO, TOO FUNNY! Again, you are using scripture which you admit you may not have the ability to interpret correctly, in order to back up what you say, and neither of the passages you use has a thing in the world to do with "imitating Christ" in the way in which you are referring, and they certainly do not back your fantasy that you are hearing from Jesus directly. So, let's take a look at the passages.

In the passage from John, Jesus has just washed the disciples' feet, and Jesus He tells THEM "I have given you an example." Jesus is only talking about the 12 disciples, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

I am sorry, Jack, but this is incorrect. I believe you missed the point in Matt 28:20:

"...and teaching them (all new disciples) to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

My Lord reminded me of these words a long time ago in relation to another group (the WTS/JW religion) that teaches their people something similar as you are teaching. That the words and commands He gave to the apostles were only for some, but not all. Because the religion teaches (erroneously) that only SOME in their group (really almost none) are permitted eat and drink as Christ commanded, but that most are not permitted.

Yet Christ states straight out that the disciples are to obey everything that HE commanded the apostles.

Were the apostles to wash one another's feet, follow the example that Christ gave them, eat and drink the bread and wine that mean His flesh and His blood... YES!

And so are we - if we truly are His disciples and if we truly love HIM.

Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.

The passage I quoted from Hebrews states to the reader to imitate THE FAITH of those who came first. There is NO WAY to imitate their faith without ALSO 'walking by faith, instead of by sight.'

You see, I have already thought about this, in that one can appeal to this passage in Hebrews in order to understand how faith in the life of a Christian operates.

You may have thought about it, but it does not appear as though you understand it.

If someone is walking by faith - how can you imitate that faith without also walking by faith?


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

[historia]

Historia, when you agreed with the claim that resurrection tales were not common in the past, to what era were you making that comparison?

When you said you don't think that tales of being restored to life were common in the past, what timeframe were you comparing that to?

Since you feel that resurrection claims were not common in the past (compared to some yet to be defined timeframe)

Now please clarify, when you said these types of claims were not common in the past, were you comparing that to when dinosaurs walked the earth or to some other time?

I honestly have no idea what timeframe you were comparing it to, and I don't really care.

For the love of all that is holy! When you agreed that resurrection claims were not fairly common in the past, to what timeframe were you referring to in order to make that comparison?

You are simply confused, my friend.

The claim "X was a common theme in Y" is not making a comparison at all!

In order to assess the claim that "tales of resurrection were a common theme in ancient mythology and religion," all we have to do is examine religious texts from the ancient period (c. 3500 BC -- c. 400 AD) to see whether such tales are prevalent there as that is what it means to be 'common'.

If I say it wasn't common, then I'm just saying it wasn't widespread in ancient myths and religions. Period.

Whether such tales are more prevalent (i.e., more common) in ancient religions compared to some other time period (e.g., the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Cretaceous, "today") is irrelevant. That is not the claim that either Zzyzx or I made.

You apparently understood that distinction in your very first reply to me, asking whether I was addressing whether "tales of resurrections were a fairly common thing or are you arguing that they were not common when compared to today?" I indicated the "former," and clarified that this was specifically about tales of resurrection in "ancient mythology and religion" -- so not just "in the past."

You have spent every response since then arguing the latter, up to and including this last response where you are, for some inexplicable reason, insisting that my claim has to entail some kind of comparison to another time period. This is simply confused.

You complain a lot!

I'm merely asking you to be precise. If we start looking at the historical evidence without a clear understanding of what claim or question we are considering, then we're going to end up talking past each other.

I have a 1,500 word (including quotes) reply ready to post here that gets into some of the evidence. I'll post that on Sunday, whether you reply to this post or not. But there is clearly some deep-seated confusion in your framing of the question here that we really ought to dispel first, otherwise we're not debating the same thing.

[tam]

Peace again,


[Replying to tam in post #42]

We - as Christians - are supposed to SERVE one another. Not enslave one another. Not control one another.

Now you are accusing Paul of slavery, on top of the mind control.

To be clear, I am not accusing Paul of either of those things.

I got 'something like mind control' from your words here:

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.

So what gift and ability are you speaking of that would permit them to take captive the thoughts of others and make those thoughts obedient to Christ? How does it work?

We are meant to be FREE, are we not?

Free from what?

As I was pondering your question and listing off individual things (sin, death, fear, 'egypt - religion', etc.)... I received in the spirit "Slavery."

Free from slavery.

Then someone may ask slavery to what - and would that not be to anything that enslaves us, to which we are enslaved: sin, death, fear, 'egypt-religon', etc? Some were set free from the law as well (though the written law would not have applied to me, because I am not physical Israel, and I was never under that law to begin with.)


Peace again.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #53]

Not based on my own understanding.

According to you, you do not have your own understanding, nor do you have an understanding from Jesus whom you claim to have a direct line to.

What aren't you getting about that?

What I am not getting about that is, you acknowledge that the disciples on the road to Damascus had to have their minds opened by Jesus to understand the scripture, and you claim to have a direct line to Jesus and cannot give us any sort of interpretation which Jesus has confirmed to you. In fact, you have refused to even engage in any sort of interpretation of the scripture at all.

The apostles did not interpret based upon their own understanding

You are taking a onetime event, when there were disciples traveling down the road after being devastated from the death of Jesus, and Jesus explaining the scriptures to them, and translating this to mean that no one could ever sit down and read the scripture and understand what it has to say without a direct line to Jesus.

You may think that doesn't apply to any other scripture

What I am saying is, this passage you are using, has nothing whatsoever to do with explaining to us that we cannot understand what is contained in the scripture without Jesus opening our minds to the meaning. As an example, when Paul tells Timothy, "do your best to get here before winter" I do not need some sort of divine revelation to know what Paul was communicating to Timothy.

but tell me - can you correctly interpret Revelation based on your own understanding?

I cannot correctly interpret Revelations on my own, and I do not claim to have a correct interpretation of Revelations, nor do I know of anyone else who has a correct interpretation. Do you know of anyone who has a correct interpretation of Revelations? You see, this is the whole point! I am not claiming to have a correct interpretation of the whole of scripture, because I am not claiming to have a direct line to Jesus. You on the other hand claim to have this direct line to Jesus, which means you should be able to correctly interpret Revelations for us all, but that aint gonna happen. The point is, I can afford to admit that I do not have a correct understanding of the whole of scripture, because I am not claiming to be in direct communication with Jesus. You do not have this luxury.

Let me explain it to you as clearly as I can. I can demonstrate to you beyond a doubt concerning the absolute meaning of certain passages, and I do not have, nor need a direct line to Jesus. I do not claim, nor do I have to claim that I have a correct interpretation of the whole of scripture, because I do not have a direct line to Jesus. You on the other hand, claim to have this direct line to Jesus, and seem to want to refuse to engage in any interpretation at all, and also will not share with us a scripture Jesus has opened your mind to.

Allow me to give you an easy one which is John 3:16. What does it mean that "God so loved the world?"

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #53]

A - If Paul is imitating Christ, and we are to imitate Paul - then we TOO are to imitate Christ.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! Because the thing is you insisted, "We are not to imitate Paul." In fact, you went on to insist, "I never once said that we are to "imitate those such as Paul." Again, is it any wonder why I continue to say, "you cannot make this stuff up?" I mean. on the one hand you insist we are not to "imitate those such as Paul" but when I demonstrate you are incorrect, you continue to insist you are somehow correct. TOO, TOO, FUNNY, but expected.

B - Paul had just mentioned some specific things to imitate (do all to the glory of God, which is what Christ did, did He not?)

The question is, according to the scripture, are we to imitate Paul?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #53]

I am sorry, Jack, but this is incorrect. I believe you missed the point in Matt 28:20:

"...and teaching them (all new disciples) to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

"And teaching THEM" you are correct the "them" would be the "new disciples." However, when it goes on to say, "everything I have commanded YOU", the "YOU" would be the apostles. So then, when we get to the next sentence where is said, "and surely I am with YOU always", who is the "YOU?" Notice, it does not say, I will be with "THEM." It does not say, "I will be with YOU ALL." The point is, if the THEM in the first sentence is the new disciples, and the YOU is the apostles, you cannot go to the next sentence and insist the YOU is anything but the same apostles which were in mind in the first sentence. Do you see how you take liberty in interpreting in the way in which you would rather believe?

Moving on, what exactly does the "end of the age" mean? Below is from the web,

"In biblical eschatology, the phrase “end of the age” (Greek: telos tou aionos) does not always mean the end of the world, but rather the conclusion of a specific era or dispensation in God’s plan for humanity. This is especially relevant when Jesus spoke of it in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:3) and in other parables.

My Lord reminded me of these words a long time ago in relation to another group (the WTS/JW religion) that teaches their people something similar as you are teaching. That the words and commands He gave to the apostles were only for some, but not all.

Well, the fact of the matter is, there are times in which the commands given to the apostles would apply to us all, and then there are times when the commands would only apply to the apostles and would not include us today. As an example, on one occasion Jesus commanded the apostles “Do not leave Jerusalem." Was this command only for the apostles? Or are you under the impression this command would be for us all? Moreover, and something you have not addressed, was the command to the apostles to "go into all the world and preach the gospel" intended only for the apostles? Or was this a command to all of us as Christians? If it was a command to all of us as Christians, then why are the overwhelming majority of Christians not obeying the command? Are you obeying this command? Are you traveling the world preaching the gospel to all nations? You see, it is a fact which cannot be denied, that all the commands to the apostles do not apply to us today, and that is easily demonstrated by the context. Looks like the Lord would have reminded you of this as well when He was reminding you of the other "long ago." Sort of strange how He only reminds you of the things you would rather believe. It is also sort of strange how some of the things He reminds you of turns out to be in error.

Yet Christ states straight out that the disciples are to obey everything that HE commanded the apostles.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! Did Jesus reveal this to you? Or is this from your own understanding? Or is this what you have been taught by others? Let us look at a command Jesus gave to the apostles which would not apply to you, and this would be just one,

"On one occasion, while he (Jesus) was eating with them (the apostles), he (Jesus) gave them this command." Notice how it says this was a "command." What was the command? "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about." Here we have a plain command given to the apostles which could not possibly apply to any of us today. I have never been to Jerusalem, so I certainly could not leave Jerusalem, and I have not heard Jesus speak about anything at all.

What we are doing is to continually demonstrate your error, and you are the one who has a direct line to Jesus.

Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.

You see Tammy, this is why it is so difficult to demonstrate your error, because you simply take one little passage completely out of its context. I do not have the time to go through all that would be involved, but the passage you are referring to has a very large context, even going into the next chapter. At the end of the next chapter, we read this,

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning."

I mean, do you see that? You reach way back to the previous chapter somehow insisting that you are included when Jesus says, "I will reveal myself to him", and I will assume you are not a "him", but when we arrive to the end of this whole conversation, we determine that the ones this promise is made to, are those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of His earthly ministry. Were you with Jesus from the beginning? How is it that you claim this promise for yourself? Again, you continue to insist this direct communication with Jesus, and continue to demonstrate one who cannot even interpret the revealed Word correctly.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #53]

You may have thought about it, but it does not appear as though you understand it.

If someone is walking by faith - how can you imitate that faith without also walking by faith?

As we can see, you not only do not possess the ability to interpret scripture (which you admit yourself) you do not even possess the ability to interpret what I am saying. I have never suggested that we as Christians should walk by sight as opposed to faith. Rather, what I demonstrated was, one cannot use the passage in which Paul says, "we walk by faith and not by sight" and claim that Paul was referring to us as Christians when he said, "we walk by faith and not by sight" because he did not have this in mind at all when he penned the words. Rather, as can be clearly demonstrated, he penned these words to the Corinthians who were "looking at things outwardly" and explaining to these Christians, that he (Paul) and those traveling with him, did "walked by faith and not by sight."

[tam]

Peace again,


[Replying to tam in post #53]

I cannot correctly interpret Revelations on my own, and I do not claim to have a correct interpretation of Revelations, nor do I know of anyone else who has a correct interpretation. Do you know of anyone who has a correct interpretation of Revelations?

Yes.

You see, this is the whole point! I am not claiming to have a correct interpretation of the whole of scripture, because I am not claiming to have a direct line to Jesus.

So you admit that you would need such a 'line' in order to understand all that is written. (even though not all that is written is scripture)

Some passages are straightforward (get here before winter) and some must be revealed. Some passages are straightforward and people still get them wrong because they have added some meaning, looked to someone or something OTHER THAN Christ for understanding. People can also NOT SEE what is right in front of their eyes.

You on the other hand claim to have this direct line to Jesus, which means you should be able to correctly interpret Revelations for us all, but that aint gonna happen.

A - If I share something that my Lord has revealed to me, then it would not be ME interpreting, but rather me sharing the understanding that has been given to me.

B - I can only share that which has been given me. You have made a claim - based on nothing more than what you believe - that if someone can hear Christ, they must know the meaning of every word in scripture. But you fail to consider some facts: 1) Christ does not teach what we cannot (yet) bear. Even to the apostles He said, "I have more to teach you, things you cannot yet bear." 2) Sometimes we need to learn other things first. Like needing to know basic math before moving on to algebra. If you tried to learn algebra without learning basic arithmetic, it would be gibberish.

And why would Christ need to reveal to someone the meaning of every word in scripture if we are in fact looking and listening to Him? I know that He will teach and give His sheep what we need and when we need it.

Peace again.