|
Post by snow on Nov 15, 2017 15:37:15 GMT -5
When you only have one book you can quote to prove someone's existence, that is more what comes into question. All the other people you have mentioned are mentioned in more than one book, have more than one source. The bible is self contained mentioning characters that aren't mentioned anywhere else. You can't prove something using the same book you got it from as proof. That's one reason why I am skeptical. There is a large amount of evidence for the bible other than just the bible. For instance there are those who like to claim that the new testament wasn't written until long after the lifetimes of those purported to have written its various accounts and that those accounts weren't considered authoritative until a couple centuries later - neither of which holds up under examination - skepticism if you will - and during the century following paul we have the works of writers apart from apocryphal literature - some of who were alive during the time of the apostles - who back up the bible accounts and show them to have been authoritative from early on and the new testament books were in existence even then and are quoted by them. Its not even just a few that have come down to us - the volumes can take up whole shelves in your local library and they make interesting reading as they respond to many questions raised from the start that folks today tend to think are new problems or discoveries or ideas. Theres nothing wrong with skepticism and questioning. On the other hand atheism is a faith-based denial of even the possibility that there is a god or gods just as much as any other - no matter the attempts of its evangelists to blur the lines to meaning mere lack of belief - which is properly agnosticism and not atheism. There are several parts to this post. First I would like to state that I am not saying these guys didn't exist, but I am skeptical about the reality of what is written. We have very different versions of the stories based on who was telling it in the gospels that made the bible and those that didn't make the bible. The Nag Hammadi Library is very interesting and enlightening when it comes to understanding just how different some of the beliefs about the same events were. We do know that none of the gospels except for possibly John were not written by the apostles. That's known. There are events that they say happened that should have effected everyone in Jerusalem at the time, yet there is no hint of it from any writer in that day that wasn't considered a follower of Jesus. Like the people raising up out of their graves and walking around. If that happened why would no writer mention it. I would think it would be quite a sight and you'd think anyone that saw it happen because Jesus was crucified, would tend to want to convert. But you don't hear anything about it anywhere. You also don't hear of anyone believing in him because of it. The only thing we here about is a few words added about a couple of soldiers that proclaim he was Jesus, but again, not because the dead were walking around. As far as there being a god or no god, I see no evidence of any in existence. For me, atheists don't say there is absolutely no possibility that there is a god or gods, but rather that there is absolutely no evidence that proves the existence of a god or gods. That is different and allows for a change of mind if evidence of existence does show itself. But another problem I have is I wouldn't know which God to believe in either, as there are thousands. You don't believe in Thor and you are quite sure about that. I would say that you are an atheist, not an agnostic when it comes to believing if there is any evidence for the existence of Thor. Well, that's how it is for me with your definition of God. I totally believe there is zero evidence that the Christian God exists. If he does want me to know he exists, he can let me know and I raise the same request to Thor. I have never been able to figure out how people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is their god that is the true god. Belief is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I don't have a problem with you believing and I would hope you have no problem with me not believing.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 15, 2017 15:43:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 15, 2017 15:52:04 GMT -5
An example from Edgar Lowe's preaching in Co Armagh 2011: I hope as you look at our lives that you can see two people [the two workers] spending their lives in exactly the same way that Jesus spent his life and that those early apostles spent their lives. I hope you don’t see any different and that can be nothing that can confuse you. That as you can read our hearts, read our lives, that you can see an epistle clearly spoken that tells you what Jesus established many, many years ago still works today.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 16:08:28 GMT -5
Here are some verses in the Bible where it says Paul, Silas and Timothy were the apostles of Christ I Thess 1:1 Paul, and Silas, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I Thess 2:6-7 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:
~~ Timothy and Silas were NOT eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection and NOT authority or sent by Jesus in person, but Paul wrote Timothy and Silas as the apostles of Christ. You are correct that they may not have been eyewitnesses and at least timothy wasn't sent out by jesus in person - tho theres the possibility that silas was one of the 70 as he was early on a believer with some rank. The language of the verses you quote do not actually say that timothy and silas were apostles of jesus. Paul occasionally use the 'majestic plural' in his position as speaking for churches and the presbytery and groups of people and sometimes even for him+the readers so its not valid to suppose that the 'apostles of christ' actually refers to timothy or silas or timothy+silas so thats not a solid support for claiming that folks other than those jesus personally commissioned were considered his apostles.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 16:45:17 GMT -5
Here are some verses in the Bible where it says Paul, Silas and Timothy were the apostles of Christ I Thess 1:1 Paul, and Silas, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I Thess 2:6-7 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:
~~ Timothy and Silas were NOT eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection and NOT authority or sent by Jesus in person, but Paul wrote Timothy and Silas as the apostles of Christ. You are correct that they may not have been eyewitnesses and at least timothy wasn't sent out by jesus in person - tho theres the possibility that silas was one of the 70 as he was early on a believer with some rank. The language of the verses you quote do not actually say that timothy and silas were apostles of jesus. Paul occasionally use the 'majestic plural' in his position as speaking for churches and the presbytery and groups of people and sometimes even for him+the readers so its not valid to suppose that the 'apostles of christ' actually refers to timothy or silas or timothy+silas so thats not a solid support for claiming that folks other than those jesus personally commissioned were considered his apostles. *** O.K. just say Silas one of the 70 who sent by Jesus and saw his resurrection but Paul and Timothy were not sent by Jesus or seen his resurrection but ALL were called apostles of Christ. To me the qualifications for All apostles to come must sent by Jesus and saw his resurrection are IMPOSSIBLE and FALSE teachings.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 16:52:16 GMT -5
There are several parts to this post. First I would like to state that I am not saying these guys didn't exist, but I am skeptical about the reality of what is written. We have very different versions of the stories based on who was telling it in the gospels that made the bible and those that didn't make the bible. The Nag Hammadi Library is very interesting and enlightening when it comes to understanding just how different some of the beliefs about the same events were. We do know that none of the gospels except for possibly John were not written by the apostles. That's known. There are events that they say happened that should have effected everyone in Jerusalem at the time, yet there is no hint of it from any writer in that day that wasn't considered a follower of Jesus. Like the people raising up out of their graves and walking around. If that happened why would no writer mention it. I would think it would be quite a sight and you'd think anyone that saw it happen because Jesus was crucified, would tend to want to convert. But you don't hear anything about it anywhere. You also don't hear of anyone believing in him because of it. The only thing we here about is a few words added about a couple of soldiers that proclaim he was Jesus, but again, not because the dead were walking around. As far as there being a god or no god, I see no evidence of any in existence. For me, atheists don't say there is absolutely no possibility that there is a god or gods, but rather that there is absolutely no evidence that proves the existence of a god or gods. That is different and allows for a change of mind if evidence of existence does show itself. But another problem I have is I wouldn't know which God to believe in either, as there are thousands. You don't believe in Thor and you are quite sure about that. I would say that you are an atheist, not an agnostic when it comes to believing if there is any evidence for the existence of Thor. Well, that's how it is for me with your definition of God. I totally believe there is zero evidence that the Christian God exists. If he does want me to know he exists, he can let me know and I raise the same request to Thor. I have never been able to figure out how people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is their god that is the true god. Belief is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I don't have a problem with you believing and I would hope you have no problem with me not believing. I have no problem with your lack of belief - whatever you may believe or I may believe does not affect in the slightest what is. As the old paraphrase of the so-called fallacy of ignorance put it - 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' I'm willing to consider any new evidence supporting thor or the olympians - tho asgard isn't found in the several locations it was said to be and once the prohibition from climbing olympus expired it wasn't there either - so anything more will have to await new data. Having myself read both fragments of nag hammadi apocrapha and not a few of the papers on them I do disagree with the conclusions you seem to have accepted. They do show that there were currents - especially in egypt - that were considered aberrant which is something the bible itself reports. Thats more illustrative of how the late classical world handled new ideas and movements than it shows much about early christian teachings or history. They do show that christianity quickly became a huge movement and that there were early attempts to make christianity more palatable to gentile audiences and that what paul and the early church warned against as to false scriptures existed - and this happened to more than just christianity during that period and that problem was answered early on. Although I know about the soldiers who witnessed the crucifixion and maybe a few others that might have been there at the resurrection but said nothing there were lots of folks who served as witnesses to the resurrected jesus - the 2 marys and the 11 and cleopas and another fellow on the road to emamaus and james the brother of jesus and lastly paul in addition to some 500 others - and those would have been available to ask at the time. Maybe not enough for you to believe but it was enough for the thousands who willingly stood up for that belief and were killed for it over the next 40 years. Like others have said the bible is multiple sources and not a single source and there are outside sources too despite the mental acrobatics used by bible minimalists to discount them.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 16:53:32 GMT -5
*** O.K. just say Silas one of the 70 who sent by Jesus and saw his resurrection but Paul and Timothy were not sent by Jesus or seen his resurrection but ALL were called apostles of Christ. To me the qualifications for All apostles to come must sent by Jesus and saw his resurrection are IMPOSSIBLE and FALSE teachings. Paul said he was directly sent as an apostle by jesus - so do reject that?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 15, 2017 16:53:47 GMT -5
Where do I start ? Where did I apply a "double standard" to any historical figures, -biblical or other wise?
How can I have used a "twisted" version of 'science' -when that is precisely what I do use, -the 'natural laws' and 'the laws of physics?" - which is also what science use on which to base their work
Definition of Science:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
But "science" as 'agnostic? How can you find that as a way science works?
Definition of agnostic
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
Yes, some things which were considered "impossible or miraculous" years ago weren't "miracles" after all.
They either didn't happen at all or now we understand their cause, -either way they weren't "miracles."
Such as the dead rising from the dead!
Those truly dead do NOT rise again! They do NOT now and they never DID.
BECAUSE THAT WAS AND STILL IS IMPOSSIBLE!
PS:
YOUR quote:
'"Its fine to examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible which is something you haven't shown the slightest willingness to do - its irrelevant to you because your mind is firmly made up on the existence of god and religion and the bible.
You are apparently unaware that is exactly what I DID do, -"examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible " And It definitely WAS NOT " irrelevant to me!" It was very important to me.
How do you think that I, - as a firm 2x2believer came to where I am now? Yes, after studying ALL religions, my mind is firmly made up.
There is no more evidence for the god of the bible than there is for all the other god & goddesses present or past.
Your science seems to be stuck in the blackstocking era. Concepts such as 'laws of physics' and 'natural law' and such are blandishments that carry NO weight in science and haven't for a century. You don't admit to the possibility of any existence or god or force beyond your ken so I'm not going to beat my head against your wall. God has proved himself to me - I don't expect that to carry any weight with you or anyone else and it shouldn't - period. Your response shows more about a dogmatic mindset - just like some of the heartier friends - than it does about science and historical studies and basic logic. Are you really so inflated in your own mind that you actually believe that you have studied 'ALL religions'? And yes your mind is 'firmly made up' so why bother you with facts that you've ignored or flatly rejected on your say-so - thats bias and a firmly closed mind - not anything to do with science or history. Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of those who have no valid information to add to the discussion at hand. The insistence that one's belief has validity because it is their experience, -as your "God has proved himself to me," - indicates the lack of any scientific endeavour.
If every "personal" experience of everyone in the world had to be evaluated as a reliable truth, - the world would be awash with such varying ideas that it would be impossible know that ANYTHING is true!!
That is not to say that people shouldn't have the right to own their "experiences" as real to them and that their belief is true. Of course they should have that right!
But to believe that everyone else in the world should have to consider those "experiences" as representing "truth," -is not only unreasonable but impossible because many of those experiences would be at odds with each other!
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 18:06:57 GMT -5
*** O.K. just say Silas one of the 70 who sent by Jesus and saw his resurrection but Paul and Timothy were not sent by Jesus or seen his resurrection but ALL were called apostles of Christ. To me the qualifications for All apostles to come must sent by Jesus and saw his resurrection are IMPOSSIBLE and FALSE teachings.Paul said he was directly sent as an apostle by jesus - so do reject that? The resurrected Jesus sent Paul as a chosen vessel an apostle preaching to the Gentiles... The Old Jesus did NOT sent or commission Paul as an apostle and he did NOT witnessed Jesus bodily resurrection but he was still an apostle of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 18:12:56 GMT -5
Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of those who have no valid information to add to the discussion at hand. The insistence that one's belief has validity because it is their experience, -as your "God has proved himself to me," - indicates the lack of any scientific endeavour.
If every "personal" experience of everyone in the world had to be evaluated as a reliable truth, - the world would be awash with such varying ideas that it would be impossible know that ANYTHING is true!!
That is not to say that people shouldn't have the right to own their "experiences" as real to them and that their belief is true. Of course they should have that right!
But to believe that everyone else in the world should have to consider those "experiences" as representing "truth," -is not only unreasonable but impossible because many of those experiences would be at odds with each other! Like a certain politician you have a relativistic way of derailing subjects and making everything about you. I'm putting you on my 'Blocked' list as there seems to be no way of engaging you on topic and having a bunch of half baked claims thrown into the bargain. Thanks for the reminder of experiences with worker dogmatism.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 18:19:21 GMT -5
The resurrected Jesus sent Paul as a chosen vessel an apostle preaching to the Gentiles... The Old Jesus did NOT sent or commission Paul as an apostle and he did NOT witnessed Jesus bodily resurrection but he was still an apostle of Jesus Christ. Indeed paul was sent by the resurrected jesus just as were the 11 - thats if you believe paul. He didn't get his commission from some feeling or falsely claiming that a commission from some overseer equated to a valid apostling from jesus. Reread what cheriekropp and I and others said on the pages before - the ONLY way person A is an apostle of person B is IF that person B directly empowered person A as his representative.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 18:24:57 GMT -5
The resurrected Jesus sent Paul as a chosen vessel an apostle preaching to the Gentiles... The Old Jesus did NOT sent or commission Paul as an apostle and he did NOT witnessed Jesus bodily resurrection but he was still an apostle of Jesus Christ. Indeed paul was sent by the resurrected jesus just as were the 11 - thats if you believe paul. He didn't get his commission from some feeling or falsely claiming that a commission from some overseer equated to a valid apostling from jesus. Reread what cheriekropp and I and others said on the pages before - the ONLY way person A is an apostle of person B is IF that person B directly empowered person A as his representative. Like I wrote in many posts the workers today are sent or commission by the Holy Spirit NOT by the resurrected Jesus. There is no need to prove their apostleship with miracles, healing just like we read of Timothy, Titus, Apollo, Ephraphatus, and the apostles to come in every generation until Jesus returns.
This is Jesus gospel of Salvation! It's He who SAVES sinners. The Holy Spirit has been sent by Jesus to continue the gospel work for Him, by sending and commission men and women to carry on missions to ALL nations until He comes again. (Acts 2:16-21)
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
~~ Acts 2 was the beginning of the gospel went to ALL nations! Jews came from 17 different nations to attend the Pentecostal feast, and the Holy Spirit with mighty power, cloven tongues appears on the apostles and disciples, speaking in languages they had never learned, and those who heard in their native languages were astonished, and 5000 Jews were converted, and after the feast they brought the gospel back to their countries, which they came from... That was the beginning and is still going on today! the same message and pattern of the apostolic ministry.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Nov 15, 2017 18:47:41 GMT -5
Indeed paul was sent by the resurrected jesus just as were the 11 - thats if you believe paul. He didn't get his commission from some feeling or falsely claiming that a commission from some overseer equated to a valid apostling from jesus. Reread what cheriekropp and I and others said on the pages before - the ONLY way person A is an apostle of person B is IF that person B directly empowered person A as his representative. The conclusion is unavoidable that blandie does not believe the Holy Spirit works in people today.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 18:57:09 GMT -5
Indeed paul was sent by the resurrected jesus just as were the 11 - thats if you believe paul. He didn't get his commission from some feeling or falsely claiming that a commission from some overseer equated to a valid apostling from jesus. Reread what cheriekropp and I and others said on the pages before - the ONLY way person A is an apostle of person B is IF that person B directly empowered person A as his representative. The conclusion is unavoidable that blandie does not believe the Holy Spirit works in people today. Blandie, believes there are ONLY 12, 70 apostles, Matthias, and Paul THAT is ALL... So, if the workers claim to be the apostles then they are false! because they did NOT sent out by Jesus, they had NOT seen Jesus bodily resurrection, and did NOT fulfill Mark 16....
Those are INCORRECT belief and teachings of the apostles qualifications for ALL ages of the apostles.... Because it's impossible to fulfill.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 19:11:19 GMT -5
The conclusion is unavoidable that blandie does not believe the Holy Spirit works in people today. I said no such thing as you very well know. In your church it matters not what that people think the holy spirit is prompting them to preach - they are only able to preach if commissioned by an overseer. I suspect there are some here that have been certain that the holy spirit was prompting them to give their lives to preaching only to be told 'no' by the overseers.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 19:15:13 GMT -5
Blandie, believes there are ONLY 12, 70 apostles, Matthias, and Paul THAT is ALL... So, if the workers claim to be the apostles then they are false! because they did NOT sent out by Jesus, they had NOT seen Jesus bodily resurrection, and did NOT fulfill Mark 16....
Those are INCORRECT belief and teachings of the apostles qualifications for ALL ages of the apostles.... Because it's impossible to fulfill. No it was not impossible to fulfill because those who were indeed commissioned as apostles by jesus did fulfill them. The bible says those apostles are the very foundation of the church and like what was said it IS ridiculous and impossible to build a building by constantly re-laying the FOUNDATION.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 15, 2017 19:25:43 GMT -5
There is a large amount of evidence for the bible other than just the bible. For instance there are those who like to claim that the new testament wasn't written until long after the lifetimes of those purported to have written its various account and that those accounts weren't considered authoritative until a couple centuries later - neither of which holds up under examination - skepticism if you will - and during the century following Paul we have the works of writers apart from apocryphal literature - some of who were alive during the time of the apostles - who back up the bible accounts and show them to have been authoritative from early on and the new testament books were in existence even then and are quoted by them. Its not even just a few that have come down to us - the volumes can take up whole shelves in your local library and they make interesting reading as they respond to many questions raised from the start that folks today tend to think are new problems or discoveries or ideas. Theres nothing wrong with skepticism and questioning On the other hand atheism is a faith-based denial of even the possibility that there is a god or gods just as much as any other - no matter the attempts of its evangelists to blur the lines to meaning mere lack of belief - which is properly agnosticism and not atheism. There are several parts to this post. First I would like to state that I am not saying these guys didn't exist, but I am skeptical about the reality of what is written. We have very different versions of the stories based on who was telling it in the gospels that made the bible and those that didn't make the bible. The Nag Hammadi Library is very interesting and enlightening when it comes to understanding just how different some of the beliefs about the same events were. We do know that none of the gospels except for possibly John were not written by the apostles. That's known. There are events that they say happened that should have effected everyone in Jerusalem at the time, yet there is no hint of it from any writer in that day that wasn't considered a follower of Jesus. Like the people raising up out of their graves and walking around. If that happened why would no writer mention it. I would think it would be quite a sight and you'd think anyone that saw it happen because Jesus was crucified, would tend to want to convert. You also don't hear of anyone believing in him because of it. The only thing we here about is a few words added about a couple of soldiers that proclaim he was Jesus, but again, not because the dead were walking around. As far as there being a god or no god, I see no evidence of any in existence. For me, atheists don't say there is absolutely no possibility that there is a god or gods, but rather that there is absolutely no evidence that proves the existence of a god or gods. That is different and allows for a change of mind if evidence of existence does show itself. But another problem I have is I wouldn't know which God to believe in either, as there are thousands. You don't believe in Thor and you are quite sure about that. I would say that you are an atheist, not an agnostic when it comes to believing if there is any evidence for the existence of Thor. Well, that's how it is for me with your definition of God. I totally believe there is zero evidence that the Christian God exists. If he does want me to know he exists, he can let me know and I raise the same request to Thor. I have never been able to figure out how people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is their god that is the true god. Belief is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I don't have a problem with you believing and I would hope you have no problem with me not believing. Thank you, Snow.
You have expressed my own thoughts very well.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 15, 2017 19:31:28 GMT -5
Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of those who have no valid information to add to the discussion at hand. The insistence that one's belief has validity because it is their experience, -as your "God has proved himself to me," - indicates the lack of any scientific endeavour.
If every "personal" experience of everyone in the world had to be evaluated as a reliable truth, - the world would be awash with such varying ideas that it would be impossible know that ANYTHING is true!!
That is not to say that people shouldn't have the right to own their "experiences" as real to them and that their belief is true. Of course they should have that right!
But to believe that everyone else in the world should have to consider those "experiences" as representing "truth," -is not only unreasonable but impossible because many of those experiences would be at odds with each other! Like a certain politician you have a relativistic way of derailing subjects and making everything about you. I'm putting you on my 'Blocked' list as there seems to be no way of engaging you on topic and having a bunch of half baked claims thrown into the bargain. Thanks for the reminder of experiences with worker dogmatism. ,Well, -as it said before, -Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of those who have no valid information to add to the discussion at hand.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 19:32:15 GMT -5
Blandie, believes there are ONLY 12, 70 apostles, Matthias, and Paul THAT is ALL... So, if the workers claim to be the apostles then they are false! because they did NOT sent out by Jesus, they had NOT seen Jesus bodily resurrection, and did NOT fulfill Mark 16....
Those are INCORRECT belief and teachings of the apostles qualifications for ALL ages of the apostles.... Because it's impossible to fulfill. No it was not impossible to fulfill because those who were indeed commissioned as apostles by jesus did fulfill them. The bible says those apostles are the very foundation of the church and like what was said it IS ridiculous and impossible to build a building by constantly re-laying the FOUNDATION. It's IMPOSSIBLE to fulfill after Jesus HAD ascended back to the Father in Heaven! and by asking people like Timothy, Titus, Apollo, and the last 2000 years men and women to fill are IMPOSSIBLE, your reasoning are unreasonable, if you were to THINK about it.
Trying to do away with the apostleship today! you came up with impossible and unreasonable qualifications to be apostles.
I heard your apostles qualifications of sending by Jesus, and saw Jesus bodily resurrection from my Pentecostal preacher 40 years ago! when I told him I met two apostles (Leo Stancliff and Larry Taylor) who were having Bible studies at the University.... He gave me verses like you are presenting, there are NO more apostles today! God have me understanding about apostleship of Christ, and I realized my preacher did NOT understand at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 19:40:58 GMT -5
i'm not saying that the workers are apostles but what everyone is suggesting is that God left the church in the wind with the death of the last apostle John and all that he had setup just disappears into the cold dark night i find that quite ridiculus if your a true believer....
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Nov 15, 2017 19:41:00 GMT -5
The conclusion is unavoidable that blandie does not believe the Holy Spirit works in people today. I said no such thing as you very well know. In your church it matters not what that people think the holy spirit is prompting them to preach - they are only able to preach if commissioned by an overseer. I suspect there are some here that have been certain that the holy spirit was prompting them to give their lives to preaching only to be told 'no' by the overseers. You didn't say it outright in those words, but your words point to that conclusion and you haven't said otherwise. If the Holy Spirit can work in God's people today, then He can send them out to preach. Actually, in my church all members are free to speak as led by the Holy Spirit. We do not need any commission by men, ritual ordination process, or seminary certificate to do so. Though we do not have would typically be called 'preaching a sermon' in church. Rather we mutually minister to one another. If you want to talk about preaching, that is outside the scope of church, because preaching happens in other meetings rather than in church. And for those, it matters very much that they believe the Holy Spirit is prompting them. Very many of those preachers have made it very clear that it mattered to their decision and their continuation.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 15, 2017 20:03:51 GMT -5
When you only have one book you can quote to prove someone's existence, that is more what comes into question. All the other people you have mentioned are mentioned in more than one book, have more than one source. The bible is self contained mentioning characters that aren't mentioned anywhere else. You can't prove something using the same book you got it from as proof. That's one reason why I am skeptical. There is a large amount of evidence for the bible other than just the bible. For instance there are those who like to claim that the new testament wasn't written until long after the lifetimes of those purported to have written its various accounts and that those accounts weren't considered authoritative until a couple centuries later - neither of which holds up under examination -skepticism if you will - and during the century following Paul we have the works of writers apart from apocryphal literature - some of who were alive during the time of the apostles - who back up the bible accounts and show them to have been authoritative from early on and the new testament books were in existence even then and are quoted by them. Its not even just a few that have come down to us - the volumes can take up whole shelves in your local library and they make interesting reading as they respond to many questions raised from the start that folks today tend to think are new problems or discoveries or ideas. Theres nothing wrong with skepticism and questioning. On the other hand atheism is a faith-based denial of even the possibility that there is a god or gods just as much as any other - no matter the attempts of its evangelists to blur the lines to meaning mere lack of belief - which is properly agnosticism and not atheism. Would you give us a link to where we can find that "large amount of evidence for the bible other than just the bible?"
Since you say that the "volumes" are so many that they "can take up whole shelves in your local library," I would like to add the to my reading list.
|
|
|
Post by jetmech on Nov 15, 2017 21:53:22 GMT -5
It's scary to me how men who did so much for GOD died - I mean the ways they died. Look at tbe terrible suffering Jesus endured and look how John and Paul died. That's something that scares me about GOD ... it's like the more a person does for God the more violent their death. It seems like the men who are commissioed as GOD'S Apostles die the most violent deaths. I just can't understand GOD'S reasoning sometimes. If a person supports GOD Satan is right there to test and try a person out again and again.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 22:30:33 GMT -5
It's scary to me how men who did so much for GOD died - I mean the ways they died. Look at tbe terrible suffering Jesus endured and look how John and Paul died. That's something that acares me about GOD ... it's like the more a person does for God the more violent their death. It seems like the men who are commissioed as GOD'S Apostles die the most violent deaths. I just can't understand GOD'S reasoning sometimes. If a person supports GOD Satan is right there to test and try a person out again and again. Yes, it seemed Satan tested and put those early apostles and followers of Jesus through HELL by the horrible way they died.... Some of the Old Testament prophets died by being saw in half, eaten alive by the wild beasts. Nero time, he burned the Christians alive using them as torches at nights, using them as preys eaten by the lions for games.
Over 1000 years, the RCC tortured the heretics (Vaudois, Waldensians, Albigense, Cathars and others) with all kinds machines to cause the most pains before they died..... It showed God that they love him and stay true even unto DEATH. Death is going home for the Christians.
Satan wants to put the fear of death in us so we will give up on God.
|
|
|
Post by jetmech on Nov 16, 2017 12:52:00 GMT -5
Nathan that's something to think about for sure ... how Satan puts the fear of death into us. I learned something else from you on this post too ... all those other horrible ways GOD believing and Christian people died.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 16, 2017 13:14:53 GMT -5
There are several parts to this post. First I would like to state that I am not saying these guys didn't exist, but I am skeptical about the reality of what is written. We have very different versions of the stories based on who was telling it in the gospels that made the bible and those that didn't make the bible. The Nag Hammadi Library is very interesting and enlightening when it comes to understanding just how different some of the beliefs about the same events were. We do know that none of the gospels except for possibly John were not written by the apostles. That's known. There are events that they say happened that should have effected everyone in Jerusalem at the time, yet there is no hint of it from any writer in that day that wasn't considered a follower of Jesus. Like the people raising up out of their graves and walking around. If that happened why would no writer mention it. I would think it would be quite a sight and you'd think anyone that saw it happen because Jesus was crucified, would tend to want to convert. But you don't hear anything about it anywhere. You also don't hear of anyone believing in him because of it. The only thing we here about is a few words added about a couple of soldiers that proclaim he was Jesus, but again, not because the dead were walking around. As far as there being a god or no god, I see no evidence of any in existence. For me, atheists don't say there is absolutely no possibility that there is a god or gods, but rather that there is absolutely no evidence that proves the existence of a god or gods. That is different and allows for a change of mind if evidence of existence does show itself. But another problem I have is I wouldn't know which God to believe in either, as there are thousands. You don't believe in Thor and you are quite sure about that. I would say that you are an atheist, not an agnostic when it comes to believing if there is any evidence for the existence of Thor. Well, that's how it is for me with your definition of God. I totally believe there is zero evidence that the Christian God exists. If he does want me to know he exists, he can let me know and I raise the same request to Thor. I have never been able to figure out how people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is their god that is the true god. Belief is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I don't have a problem with you believing and I would hope you have no problem with me not believing. I have no problem with your lack of belief - whatever you may believe or I may believe does not affect in the slightest what is. As the old paraphrase of the so-called fallacy of ignorance put it - 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' I'm willing to consider any new evidence supporting thor or the olympians - tho asgard isn't found in the several locations it was said to be and once the prohibition from climbing olympus expired it wasn't there either - so anything more will have to await new data. Having myself read both fragments of nag hammadi apocrapha and not a few of the papers on them I do disagree with the conclusions you seem to have accepted. They do show that there were currents - especially in egypt - that were considered aberrant which is something the bible itself reports. Thats more illustrative of how the late classical world handled new ideas and movements than it shows much about early christian teachings or history. They do show that christianity quickly became a huge movement and that there were early attempts to make christianity more palatable to gentile audiences and that what paul and the early church warned against as to false scriptures existed - and this happened to more than just christianity during that period and that problem was answered early on. Although I know about the soldiers who witnessed the crucifixion and maybe a few others that might have been there at the resurrection but said nothing there were lots of folks who served as witnesses to the resurrected jesus - the 2 marys and the 11 and cleopas and another fellow on the road to emamaus and james the brother of jesus and lastly paul in addition to some 500 others - and those would have been available to ask at the time. Maybe not enough for you to believe but it was enough for the thousands who willingly stood up for that belief and were killed for it over the next 40 years. Like others have said the bible is multiple sources and not a single source and there are outside sources too despite the mental acrobatics used by bible minimalists to discount them. I wasn't referring to Jesus or the resurrection when I talked of the dead walking the streets. That happened during the crucifixion. If the dead left their graves and walked around why does no one but future Christians notice it? There are things that should have been witnessed by everyone and you'd think someone other than a Jesus follower would report what they'd seen. But they are silent on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 16, 2017 15:33:58 GMT -5
I wasn't referring to Jesus or the resurrection when I talked of the dead walking the streets. That happened during the crucifixion. If the dead left their graves and walked around why does no one but future Christians notice it? There are things that should have been witnessed by everyone and you'd think someone other than a Jesus follower would report what they'd seen. But they are silent on the subject. Thanks for clarifying. You are correct that they would have noticed that but that doesn't necessarily mean that a record of something happening in jerusalem would have survived down to the present. We actually have only fragmentary info from 1st century israel because jerusalem and most of jewish habitation in the levant was wiped out only 40 years after the crucifixion - anything burnable was burned and anything left was leveled and romans were very good at this both in carthage and israel and any other places that revolted against them. It was damnatio memoriae on a national scale. A miracle wouldn't be the only 'remarkable' event that somehow never got written down and passed along to us and history has lots of examples of events that either never got written down or the accounts didn't survive down to us at all.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 16, 2017 15:45:30 GMT -5
I wasn't referring to Jesus or the resurrection when I talked of the dead walking the streets. That happened during the crucifixion. If the dead left their graves and walked around why does no one but future Christians notice it? There are things that should have been witnessed by everyone and you'd think someone other than a Jesus follower would report what they'd seen. But they are silent on the subject. Thanks for clarifying. You are correct that they would have noticed that but that doesn't necessarily mean that a record of something happening in jerusalem would have survived down to the present. We actually have only fragmentary info from 1st century israel because jerusalem and most of jewish habitation in the levant was wiped out only 40 years after the crucifixion - anything burnable was burned and anything left was leveled and romans were very good at this both in carthage and israel and any other places that revolted against them. It was damnatio memoriae on a national scale. A miracle wouldn't be the only 'remarkable' event that somehow never got written down and passed along to us and history has lots of examples of events that either never got written down or the accounts didn't survive down to us at all. Somehow only the bible accounts could have survived? After all I'm pretty sure the Romans would have taken note of a bunch of dead people walking around their domain and we know they were quite prolific record keepers. Surely some would have survived the destruction of Jerusalem if the bible reports made it through. If not written by Jews, Romans reporting the event, which I'm sure would be quite frightening even for hardened soldiers?
|
|