"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?

[otseng]

but what I abhor even more is folks like you.

Moderator Comment

There's no place for hatred of other people here on this forum. Please just stick to attacking beliefs, not people.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #125]

So does blasphemy not ever come from people who claim to base their faith on the bible alone? Does blasphemy never come from religion?

What point do you think you are making, Jack?

Whether blasphemy occurs from anyone else has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are guilty of blasphemy. I think you have already agreed that the folks from the NAR are guilty of blasphemy. How do you suppose this protects you from blasphemy? In fact, if you were to determine I was guilty of blasphemy, how would this ensure that you were not guilty? As an example, let us suppose the folks from the NAR are correct. This would mean that you and I are both guilty of blasphemy even though we have disagreements. In other words, I would be guilty of blasphemy because I do not believe we hear directly from Jesus today, while you would be guilty by claiming they are not hearing from Jesus, even though you are claiming to hear from Jesus. So then, the point I am making is, you are claiming to hear from Jesus directly when you are not.

BTW, I listened to that little X video and what she said was "I believe the Lord said to say to you..." This is not the same as "The Lord said to say to you..."

Just fyi.

Are you attempting to defend Paula White?

Regardless, we were warned that false prophets would be in the world, were we not? Does that mean that all prophets are false?

I have never said "all prophets are false." What I am saying is, we can identify a false prophet when they claim to hear from Jesus directly.

Jaheshua, not "Jesus".

I really do not care who you claim to be hearing from. However, the strange thing is, you have shared with us nothing which has been revealed to you that we cannot read in the Bible.

Can I?

Because no matter what I share or say, it seems you will complain. If I share something true - it is too simple and I should be ashamed to show how uneducated or ignorant a Christian I am. Well, I am indeed a foolish thing. If I don't respond at all - that speaks volumes, but if I do respond (and it is true) - well that means nothing. In fact, you will use even a truthful answer against me.

So how exactly can I prove you wrong?

What you continue to do is to prove me to be correct, and you are proving me to be correct by refusing to engage in the interpretation of scripture. What is even more fascinating is the fact that you claim to hear from Jesus directly, while at the same time claiming not to have the ability to interpret scripture, all the while you are using scripture which you claim not to be able to interpret, in order to defend your fantasy that you hear from Jesus directly. I truly understand now why one came up with the saying, "you cannot make this stuff up."

It is abundantly clear that you cannot afford to get involved in the interpretation of scripture, not because you do not possess the ability to understand it, but rather because of the fact that you realize that doing so will indeed reveal you to be a false witness. Over, and over, and over I have asked you to share with us your interpretation of certain passages, to the point that you are now simply ignoring my request. However, it really does not matter because either way you have identified yourself to be a false witness. You see; you understand that if you were to get involved with the interpretation of scripture this would expose you as a false witness. Ergo, you decide to claim not to have the ability, but this demonstrates as well one who is a false witness.

What is confusing about this?

Christ invites people to come to Him. People who are weary and burdened. He will give them rest.

What exactly do you think needs to be interpreted about that?

And here we go. So then, does this passage apply to each and every one of us today?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #0]

I have posted that Christ keeps His promises, I keep my Lord's commands not to judge, but to love, to forgive, to show mercy. (not that I am not a sinner, because of course I am one, and I know that I need my dear Lord and am grateful to Him and to His Father.)

I mean, just look at the above. You claim that you have posted things on this site which you have received directly from Jesus, and none of what you claim to have heard from Jesus directly cannot be read straight out of the Bible. Again, it is like parody. We all know the Bible teaches plainly that "Christ keeps his promises." We all know from the Bible that we are not to judge others but are rather to love, forgive, and to show mercy. We all know from the Bible that we are all sinners. None of what you are claiming to hear directly from Jesus has not already been revealed to us all in the Bible.

But because I bear witness to the truth that He is alive and He speaks - you despise me.

We both agree that "He is alive." I agree that He speaks to us today through the means He has ordained. The problem comes in when you claim to have direct communication with Him by some other means than he has ordained, and what you claim He has revealed to you can be found in the Bible.

You prefer the people whom you claim are liars and who cause harm and who cause wars and who blaspheme. These people are more tolerable to you.

They are not much more tolerable. However, allow me again to explain why they may be a little more tolerable. That is because they do not claim to hear from God and then go on to claim not to have the ability to interpret scripture. No! They cite the scripture which is one of the ways we are able to determine they are false prophets. Moreover, these folks claim to hear from Jesus directly, and they are not simply reciting what is contained in the Bible. Rather, these folks proclaim to us things like, "Jesus has revealed to me that Trump will be elected as president." They also tell us things like, "Jesus revealed to me in a dream that I am to begin a ministry in California." They tell us that Jesus has revealed to them that we as Christians are to take dominion over the seven mountains of culture. You see, these folks are not hiding behind any sort of excuses like, "we really do not have the ability to interpret scripture," and they are not simply reciting scripture when they refer to what Jesus has to say to them. Ergo, we can listen to what they claim to have heard from Jesus, and determine they are false witnesses. On the other hand, we have those who claim to hear from Jesus directly, but there is no substance to what they claim to have heard, which we would not have already known by reading the Bible, which they go on to claim not to have the ability to understand. I do not think I have to say much more in order to understand why the former is more tolerable than the latter. Now, this does not mean the former is tolerable in the least. Rather, it is the fact that they are willing to stand behind what they claim.

The funny thing now is the fact that you are attempting to use this criticism of mine as some sort of persecution against you and that you expect this sort of persecution when you are speaking the truth. This is just another mechanism for you to hide behind. In other words, instead of you having to demonstrate that what you are saying is true, you simply point to the fact that Christians are to expect such things. In this way, you can continue to claim to have a direct line to Jesus, and when there are those who oppose you, this becomes even more evidence.

Well, you know what? I am not hiding behind anything at all and am boldly proclaiming that you do not hear from Jesus directly, and I will go on to proclaim that we have demonstrated this to be the case. PERIOD!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #132]

You can answer all I have said, but I really want to stay focused upon this.

What is confusing about this?

Christ invites people to come to Him. People who are weary and burdened. He will give them rest.

What exactly do you think needs to be interpreted about that?

What did Jesus mean, and does this passage apply to you and me today?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #117]

Exactly! The cognitive dissonance and/or special pleading needed to apply believe/faith to the Gospel accounts is/are absolutely amazing!

Are the scholars who are not Christian applying "cognitive dissonance, special pleading, believe/faith" in order to tell us we can know the resurrection reports were not made up? How did they come to be convinced this was the case? Was it "cognitive dissonance, special pleading, believe/faith?" Or was it the facts and evidence contained in the reports we have of the resurrection?

I really love it when folks appeal to "cognitive dissonance" as if they are free from such a thing. In other words, I understand the possibility of myself being guilty of "cognitive dissonance" which is the reason I would never accuse another of such a thing, because it is a useless argument to make.

[JehovahsWitness]

@ OneJack. The above quotation does not sound like the words of the Almighty, since he consistently identified himself (over 7000 times in the written words of God recorded in scripture ) as YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah), have you ever considered that you may be quoting an imposter? Perhaps Satan or a demon? Compare for yourself

(never identifies himself by the name of the God of Moses)

All of you who are listening, listen carefully! I am your Lord God. Who are you afraid of? I am the Almighty. Who are you intimidated by? Remember, when I am by your side, you have nothing to fear, nothing to worry about, because I will save you from any calamity if you trust in Me and regard Me as your salvation and eternal life. As your Lord, whom you alone will worship and none other, I am the one true God existing in heaven, earth, or universe. I created all things, I gave you life. Where will you go? If not to Me, you have nowhere else to go.

Isaiah 42:8 “I am Yahweh; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.”
Isaiah 43:10–11 “…Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be after me. I, I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no savior.”
Isaiah 45:5 “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; besides me there is no God.”
Isaiah 45:6 “There is none besides me; I am Yahweh, and there is no other.”
Isaiah 45:18 “I am Yahweh, and there is no other.”

Deuteronomy 4:35 “Yahweh is God; there is no other besides him.”
Deuteronomy 4:39 “Yahweh is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.”

Could it be that the spirit with whom you were in communication was NOT the God of Abraham?

[POI]

Are the scholars who are not Christian applying "cognitive dissonance, special pleading, believe/faith" in order to tell us we can know the resurrection reports were not made up? How did they come to be convinced this was the case? Was it "cognitive dissonance, special pleading, believe/faith?" Or was it the facts and evidence contained in the reports we have of the resurrection?

The Gospels were written decades later, by who-knows-who. Hence, we have no idea as to the actual motivation(s), but we can surely speculate. And I attempted to 'go there' with you in the other thread -- in which you 'dipped out' from... When we read the Gospels, it's clear each one has differing agenda(s). Your beloved 'Luke' Gospel, for instance, was written to entice/draw the Roman crowd, and also to perform damage control or provide 'alternative facts', when compared to "Mark".

Further, I DOUBT you would believe countless 'eyewitness' attestations, which are even more credible than the Gospels, when compared to claims to -- alien abductions, ghost appearances, miraculous medical recoveries claimed to have spiritual intervention, and the like; and yet, you harbor special favor for a much more easily dismissed storyline, written many centuries ago by unknown, unvetted, and unverified ancients. And yea, we have Paul, but it could also easily be that Paul was a madman?

Remember RealJack, in a court of law, the witness is deposed. We have NONE of that with the Gospels. I recall you mentioning, many moons ago, that you had a lawyer friend who spoke about eyewitnesses in the court room. Well, we do not have that with this set of beliefs.

So, yea, special pleading and cognitive dissonance is clearly on display here, from you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #137]

Sort of funny here. I mean, you typed out a lot of words here, but you failed to even mention the question I asked. The question again was,

Are the scholars who are not Christian applying "cognitive dissonance, special pleading, believe/faith" in order to tell us we can know the resurrection reports were not made up?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #137]

Sort of funny here. I mean, you typed out a lot of words here, but you failed to even mention the question I asked.

Sort of funny how you dodged all I said, again. Further, I would assume, that by this point, we have 'beaten your horse to death.'

Are the scholars who are not Christian applying "cognitive dissonance, special pleading, believe/faith" in order to tell us we can know the resurrection reports were not made up?

The point of Zzyzx's response was to ask "WHO was actually there"? Meaning, some secular scholars contest that the ones writing the much later Gospels documents were likely not even there to witness these said claims for themselves. But sure, maybe these later writers believed the circulating claims from unfettered/unfiltered decades of oral traditions(s), and then wanted to also convince others, or were maybe instructed by the church to write down their version(s) of THE 'Gospels' to convince other audiences. And what better way for a believing author to convert others than to manipulate the texts accordingly and later make it the official religion. For starters, when we compare to Luke to Mark, we see obvious damage control, alternative facts, and a pandering to the Roman populous.

was it the facts and evidence contained in the reports we have of the resurrection?

WHICH "facts and evidence", being they differ from Gospel to Gospel?

So please, continue to dodge the meat-and-potatoes and stick to the already addressed parsley.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #139]

I am not the one dodging here, that would be you. You still have not answered the question. I intend to answer all of your points. In fact, I look forward to it. However, I am not giving in to the temptation until you answer my question. Because you see, this is a way for you to avoid the question, by getting us off track into all sorts of other questions. So then, and again, are the scholars who are not Christian guilty of cognitive dissonance when they tell us we can know the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) could not have possibly made the reports of the resurrection up?