The Minimal Facts for the Resurrection of Christ.

[Fruiteloop]

Like I said communication is difficult.

I do not believe anyone in this thread who became Jewish who left Christianity can be said to have a hard heart but it may have been implied.

 

[QuickTwist]

Like I said communication is difficult.

I do not believe anyone in this thread who became Jewish who left Christianity can be said to have a hard heart but it may have been implied.

If you believe that if someone apostatizes they are still saved, IDK what to tell you...

 

[QuickTwist]

I didn't have a any grudge against Quick until it became clear that he was prejudging me based on Paul's writings rather than getting to know me. At that point it became clear that his hostility was not do to any poor wording on my account, but directly from his own imagination. I had nothing against him for the longest time.

Disagreeing with someone, even passionately, is NOT evidence that you "have a grudge."

I don't put up with people informing me what I "really feel/think/experience." Something to consider before you respond.

Okay, it's super clear from this post what is going on...

I invoked Paul and he didn't like that. Why would that be such a big deal? Because Paul was a Jewish believer in Jesus who used to be a Pharisee. Given that meowzician pretty much hates Messianic Jews calling them deceivers and such, this is not hard to see. his problem is not really with me, per se, it's with Jews who follow Jesus because that idea is just too offensive for him to recon with.

But, let's go over the infamous Paul thing...

No. The Gospels are not copies of what Paul wrote/thought. They are described as "independent sources."

You are right that the letters of Paul (1 Thessalonians was the first), many of them were the first things people wrote about Jesus.

However, there was already in circulation, little pithy saying about Jesus that predate anything Paul wrote down (in fact, many think before Paul's conversion at +2-3 years after Christ) that are called the creeds of the NT.

In other words, all the teaching about Jesus being God pre-dates Paul's conversion.

First instance where I invoke Paul.

The earliest beliefs about Jesus predate anything written in the NT. When Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians (the fist NT book written), he talks about Jesus being the "Son of God" and all these other titles that make Jesus out to be God... He doesn't unpack these titles. He just assumes they knew what they were and what they meant. Why? Because Paul already told them what they meant when he visited with them.

Liberal theology ≠ enlightened or whatever.

It just means you have a presupposition against certain things. It doesn't mean you are smarter, wiser, more enlightened or whatever. It's just a presupposition.

The second instance.

I'd never say you were mocking God by being a Jew. I think it is wrong, and I think this exact thing is talked about in the Bible in many places in different ways. But, Paul says of the Jews, "They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." The knowledge he is talking about is not intellectual knowledge. Their zeal is based on intellectual knowledge. Their lack of knowledge is a lack of experience of God. The Bible says elsewhere that some people, "holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people."

This is the post that is causing all the problems... It's highly ironic that I was using a post to actually DEFEND Brian that this is the post that is so offensive to them...

Is "they" an "their" referring to Jews? Please don't judge me by what others say about me. Please do me the courtesy of asking *me* what I think, what I feel, and what I experience. I'm sure you want the same for yourself. It's a basic application of the Golden Rule. If I've misunderstood you, and "their" is not referring to Jews, just toss out this entire reply. LOL

So, it is clearly offensive to Brian that I am using Paul's view of Jews at all here. In other words, Brian has a problem with Paul, not me.

I'm just quoting the part of the Bible you reject. From Paul, speaking of the religious leaders.

And frankly, me and my experiences don't matter much. What matters is what is true. I go by the Bible: "Let God be true and every man a liar."

I could literally quote tons of stuff from the Talmud about how evil the Gentiles are. But I don't because I understand that the Talmud is a huge document that isn't anti-Gentile... Just as the NT is not anti-Jewish... How could it be? Like virtually all the authors of the NT WERE JEWISH.

And when I invoke Paul, I am not saying I know everything there is to know about Brian, which is the huge assumption (or worse) that Brian is making about me. I've literally never said that I don't need to engage with Brian cuz I know everything about them through Paul. That's the assumption that Brian is making. That I don't need to talk to Brian at all. Now, I handled it poorly because I felt that Brian was attacking the Bible, not me and I clarified that I prioritize the Bible over whatever experience I have is. Paul made a GENERAL STATEMENT about Jews. There are certain things that Paul discusses about Jews that are according to followers of Jesus. This does not make the NT antisemitic. How could it when Paul, the same Jew that Brian hates says, "All Israel will be saved." Now, that alone is offensive to Jews because it means that Jews will see Jesus as the Messiah and that is deeply offensive to many Jews who do not believe in Jesus. But to followers of Jesus, it is the least antisemitic thing you could possibly believe. So, Brian says they have nothing against Christianity and all that, but when the NT says Jews "Have a zeal for God but without knowledge," that is where the line gets drawn and it goes from not having a problem with Christianity to blocking someone for invoking Paul.

 

[Akar]

Look, @QuickTwist , I’m going to be completely honest with you,as someone else has rightly pointed out, the issue isn't so much the message you're bringing, but how you express it. This excessive passion of yours can cast doubt on your good faith. Remember that to validate a thesis, you should always use sources that include opposing views; otherwise, you leave yourself open to accusations of bias, which, honestly, comes across a bit.

Of course, it’s frustrating to see you accused of the very behavior that your accusers are using against you, but that’s a separate matter.

Regardless of theology, keep in mind that there is historiographical evidence,not explaining the dogma, but the history,showing that after Christ's death, there was a seismic shift in the Roman Empire that shook its foundations to the point that, shortly after, the Emperor transitioned from pagan to Christian. These are indisputable facts. 2,000 years ago, the most powerful empire in history began its conversion to Christianity. That is an undeniable historical reality

-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

Look, @QuickTwist , I’m going to be completely honest with you,as someone else has rightly pointed out, the issue isn't so much the message you're bringing, but how you express it. This excessive passion of yours can cast doubt on your good faith. Remember that to validate a thesis, you should always use sources that include opposing views; otherwise, you leave yourself open to accusations of bias, which, honestly, comes across a bit.

I'm aware my delivery is "off." Not sure how to change that atm.

When I am using a source that primarily uses enemy attestation (the Minimal Facts), I am not sure what other sources I need to be considering in all honesty.

Of course, it’s frustrating to see you accused of the very behavior that your accusers are using against you, but that’s a separate matter.

I'm constantly wondering how I was wrong. When someone leaves Christianity, it is most often that they reject God or Jesus for some reason. Sin, in a word. With Brian, I was simply trying to get to the bottom of that. Brian thought that was offensive of me to do. I literally don't care how I am treated 95% of the time. I care if I feel the truth is rejected, but I don't care much about how people treat me bad. Again, I say that is expected for Christians. "All those who desire to live a godly life WILL be persecuted."

Regardless of theology, keep in mind that there is historiographical evidence,not explaining the dogma, but the history,showing that after Christ's death, there was a seismic shift in the Roman Empire that shook its foundations to the point that, shortly after, the Emperor transitioned from pagan to Christian. These are indisputable facts. 2,000 years ago, the most powerful empire in history began its conversion to Christianity. That is an undeniable historical reality

Thanks for that. I am aware of that. I am also aware that legalizing Christianity also had the negative effect of introducing paganism into the religion.

 

[Akar]

I'm aware my delivery is "off." Not sure how to change that atm.

When I am using a source that primarily uses enemy attestation (the Minimal Facts), I am not sure what other sources I need to be considering in all honesty.

History. Dogmas can't be explained. It's faith, or you have or you don't have it

I'm constantly wondering how I was wrong. When someone leaves Christianity, it is most often that they reject God or Jesus for some reason. With Brian, I was simply trying to get to the bottom of that. Brian thought that was offensive of me to do. I literally don't care how I am treated 95% of the time. I care if I feel the truth is rejected, but I don't care much about how people treat me bad. Again, I say that is expected for Christians. "All those who desire to live a godly life WILL be persecuted."

This is their decision, and honestly who are we to blame others choise's? Remember the sin and sinner? Look it with these lens. The sin is a thing, the sinner is a human like us. We al deserve dignity, no? <3

Thanks for that. I am aware of that. I am also aware that legalizing Christianity also had the negative effect of introducing paganism into the religion.

exactly !!!


-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

History. Dogmas can't be explained. It's faith, or you have or you don't have it

It's not dogma for the sake of dogma. The Apostles believed they saw Christ resurrected. They all went to their deaths believing it. They didn't have "faith." Some of them died for what they SAW with their eyes. Based on what I have experienced, I went from having an incredible paranoia at night to being willing to die for my faith without fear. And I didn't even see Christ resurrected. Image if you were to tell the Apostles that their "dogma" can't be explained. How do you think they would handle that?

This is their decision, and honestly who are we to blame others choise's? Remember the sin and sinner? Look it with these lens. The sin is a thing, the sinner is a human like us. We al deserve dignity, no? <3

How some people read their Bible...

 

[Akar]

It's not dogma for the sake of dogma. The Apostles believed they saw Christ resurrected. They all went to their deaths believing it. They didn't have "faith." Some of them died for what they SAW with their eyes. Based on what I have experienced, I went from having an incredible paranoia at night to being willing to die for my faith without fear. And I didn't even see Christ resurrected. Image if you were to tell the Apostles that their "dogma" can't be explained. How do you think they would handle that?



How some people read their Bible...

View attachment 102173

You are absolutely right about the importance of following Christian precepts. What I meant to say is: try to distinguish between your faith and the convictions of others; and, as you told me once, we are all sinners.
Remember that where Christians were once killed, today there is the Cross of Christ. Think about how powerful the message that man delivered must have been. People died with a smile on their faces, torn apart by lions, for the Son of God. There are Latin historiographical data that explain this, even from hostile sources
Just think about the way he tried to talk to others


-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

What I meant to say is: try to distinguish between your faith and the convictions of others; and, as you told me once, we are all sinners.

WDYM?

 

[Akar]

WDYM?

that there is only one who can judge, (besides the rules of civil life).
You can't help someone that doesn't wan't help.
I'm trying to say this.
This applies to every aspect of life

-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

that there is only one who can judge, (besides the rules of civil life).
You can't help someone that doesn't wan't help.
I'm trying to say this.
This applies to every aspect of life

-Giammarco

I'm really not sure where you get that in the Bible. Could you please tell me which verse says not to judge others?

 

[Akar]

I'm really not sure where you get that in the Bible. Could you please tell me which verse says not to judge others?

Knowing the verse is useless if you don't learn how to apply it in the way you speak to people on this forum

Matthew 7:1-5 or James 4:12

-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

Knowing the verse is useless if you don't learn how to apply it in the way you speak to people on this forum

Matthew 7:1-5 or James 4:12

-Giammarco

I've actually written an article about Matthew 7:1 on my website. Here is a link...

“Judge not, that you be not judged."

Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. "

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

(James 4:11-12 ESV)
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Does this mean we cannot judge other people? Is that really what this is saying? I don't think it is... I think it is talking about judging other Christians unfairly. The Bible is FULL of judgments against others. Does not Paul say,

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?
(Galatians 3:1 ESV)

So, how do you personally reconcile these passages about judging and how people judged others rightly in the Bible?

 

[Akar]

I've actually written an article about Matthew 7:1 on my website. Here is a link...

“Judge not, that you be not judged."

Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. "

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

(James 4:11-12 ESV)
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Does this mean we cannot judge other people? Is that really what this is saying? I don't think it is... I think it is talking about judging other Christians unfairly. The Bible is FULL of judgments against others. Does not Paul say,

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?
(Galatians 3:1 ESV)

So, how do you personally reconcile these passages about judging and how people judged others rightly in the Bible?

I really appreciate your perspective, Quick, and your interpretation; I must say it follows a logical thread. However, I read those passages with a slightly less 'sharp' edge regarding the act of 'judging.' In my view, judging others on an earthly plane is simply not our responsibility. Defending ourselves is one thing, but offending others is another.

Remember: Christianity took control of the Roman Empire through martyrdom, not through violence of any kind. Saint Peter himself told the Romans to crucify him upside down because he felt unworthy to die in the same way as Christ. So, who are we to act differently?



-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

I really appreciate your perspective, Quick, and your interpretation; I must say it follows a logical thread. However, I read those passages with a slightly less 'sharp' edge regarding the act of 'judging.' In my view, judging others on an earthly plane is simply not our responsibility. Defending ourselves is one thing, but offending others is another.

Remember: Christianity took control of the Roman Empire through martyrdom, not through violence of any kind. Saint Peter himself told the Romans to crucify him upside down because he felt unworthy to die in the same way as Christ. So, who are we to act differently?



-Giammarco

That's fine. You can disagree on the strength of judging or not. But you didn't really answer my question, sir. I asked how you reconcile the fact that the Bible says not to judge (from your perspective) and that in MANY places in the Bible, the WRITERS of the Bible DID in fact judge people, and sometimes extremely harshly. Jesus basically judges the Pharisees to hell... I am not sure what judgment could be stronger than that... So, how do you reconcile these two things the Bible says?

 

[Akar]

That's fine. You can disagree on the strength of judging or not. But you didn't really answer my question, sir. I asked how you reconcile the fact that the Bible says not to judge (from your perspective) and that in MANY places in the Bible, the WRITERS of the Bible DID in fact judge people, and sometimes extremely harshly. Jesus basically judges the Pharisees to hell... I am not sure what judgment could be stronger than that... So, how do you reconcile these two things the Bible says?

ask yourself, who did they judge?



-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

ask yourself, who did they judge?

All kinds of people. The prophet's judged Israel. Paul judged the Galatians. Jesus judged the Pharisees. An easier question to answer is who did they NOT judge?

 

[Akar]

All kinds of people. The prophet's judged Israel. Paul judged the Galatians. Jesus judged the Pharisees. An easier question to answer is who did they NOT judge?

what they had in common?

-Giammarco

 

[QuickTwist]

what they had in common?

Sin. That's literally all they had in common.

 

[Akar]

Sin. That's literally all they had in common.

what type of sin ?

-Giammarco