[jlisenbe]

You can't refer to "our hand-picked proof passages" as you have not had any. The correct pronoun would have been "your".

Please read the post right above your most recent one above. I posted it about the time you posted yours so you might have missed it. You might want to try it.

Good night, all.

[talaniman]

I really don't know if you deserve Kudos for keeping the parameters of this discussion strictly within the confines of the version of the bible you follow, or whether you should be chastised for ignoring the history of your religion and it's evolution. I can see imposing limits for which one to choose responses from, and that certainly weighs the conversation your way, but is that a fair point of reference when there are obviously other ways besides yours to make this rather ridiculous claim about the afterlife and the rules for getting there?

Even Jesus' frame of reference was limited to the language of the people he was speaking to, as were his followers after him, and to the same extent today by modern man. The flaw in the discussion though is while you quote scripture, WG, and Athos examine history, and the men who made it and the obvious difference will always be your narrow focus without the greater context of that history. Maybe you can get away with the painting of the scholars being such dedicated learned men, but in truth they were working for the learned men who were putting together a product for public consumption. The goal was converts followers readers supporters in a competition with other learned men doing the same thing.

So I guess I should be chastising you for trying to lead a very narrowly focused discussion of YOUR bible as you see it, when the conversation is how it was put together. Absent a miracle worker man, both ancient and modern, is left with the only device he has and that's language to make his point fire bad, listen to me good, invoking a deity as the main point. All the religions do that. How else could they shepherd their sheep?

Now you can quote scripture all you want and try to force others to quote it too, likely that's what you have always done, and claim yourself the victor by default on that basis, but you lose the history of man and how those scriptures were put together in the first place and the important who and why. Maybe it's just the politics of it you're trying to ignore, giving you the benefit of a doubt here, but the whole Christian religion, as are other religions to be fair, was all about the politics of the day.

So kudos for trying to quote scripture without history or politics, but you cannot have an honest discussion without them. You end up preaching not discussing.

[Athos]

WG and Tal - Your posts were quite good and informative. It's not easy to discuss a big subject on these internet pages, but you both focused where focus belongs.

I am sorry that JL got so frantic as he screeched against WG with little more than, "IT'S MY BIBLE. AND MY BIBLE IS THE RIGHT BIBLE. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING".

Screeching is the last resort when someone is so angry in losing an argument that spittle becomes his argument. Jl can overcome his reticence simply by researching the issues on the internet. It's all there for the researching and reading.

[jlisenbe]

The flaw in the discussion though is while you quote scripture, WG, and Athos examine history, and the men who made it

I'm glad you see that those two love to discuss the teaching of the Bible without making any reference to the Bible. As to examining history, the examining they do must be taken with the greatest caution. It is frequently wrong.

within the confines of the version of the bible you follow,

That is a vastly overrated issue. I read from several Bible translations. You can get from any one of them what you can get from another. There are some I prefer over others, but it's not like you are reading from a different story when you change from one to another.

Maybe you can get away with the painting of the scholars being such dedicated learned men, but in truth they were working for the learned men who were putting together a product for public consumption. The goal was converts followers readers supporters in a competition with other learned men doing the same thing.

So how do you account for the thousands of Greek manuscripts which, in the vast part of the text, agree with each other? If what you say is true, then after centuries of copying, the NT should have gone off in a myriad of directions. That is not the case. Your statement, while no doubt true in some cases, paints an incorrect picture of the truth.

Now you can quote scripture all you want and try to force others to quote it too, likely that's what you have always done, and claim yourself the victor by default on that basis,

Can you see what a foolish statement that is? What do you want, a discussion of the Bible where the Bible is never referred to??? It is like taking an English Lit course that does not involve any reading or discussion of English literature.

but you lose the history of man and how those scriptures were put together in the first place and the important who and why. Maybe it's just the politics of it you're trying to ignore, giving you the benefit of a doubt here, but the whole Christian religion, as are other religions to be fair, was all about the politics of the day.

No it was not. My goodness what a foolish statement that is! Read the Bible for yourself and see if you can find those places where the NT believers followed "the politics of the day." I'm sorry, but that statement would seem to show that you know but little of the NT. The early Christian church was as counter cultural and non-political as it gets. They suffered greatly because of their non-conformity.

There is very little concern about the reliability of the NT text. If you really would like to know about this, look for yourself. Here is a good place to start.

https://normangeisler.com/a-note-on-...estament-text/

[jlisenbe]

"IT'S MY BIBLE. AND MY BIBLE IS THE RIGHT BIBLE. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING".

Another of the Chicago paraphrases!! That one made me laugh.

Still waiting for you to make any appeal, no matter how small, to scripture to support your views. If the past is a good indicator, I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

Jl can overcome his reticence simply by researching the issues on the internet. It's all there for the researching and reading.

I do that frequently. That's how I easily discovered your dishonest use of the Aquinas quote, a abuse that would have stood if we had waited around for you to be honest and give the full text.

[talaniman]

I'm glad you see that those two love to discuss the teaching of the Bible without making any reference to the Bible. As to examining history, the examining they do must be taken with the greatest caution. It is frequently wrong.

If someone's account of history is WRONG, then part of the discussion is to point that out and correct it. How would we know it's wrong if you bring to facts to the table?

So how do you account for the thousands of Greek manuscripts which, in the vast part of the text, agree with each other? If what you say is true, then after centuries of copying, the NT should have gone off in a myriad of directions. That is not the case. Your statement, while no doubt true in some cases, paints an incorrect picture of the truth.

The ancient scholars were not independent nor could they go in different directions even if they wanted to. Even today we have publishers and editors to guide the process of putting any book together.

Can you see what a foolish statement that is? What do you want, a discussion of the Bible where the Bible is never referred to??? It is like taking an English Lit course that does not involve any reading or discussion of English literature.

Do you realize how foolish your own analogy is? Why does a discussion of the bible in an historical sense preclude the bible itself? That would be crazy, and sounds like an excuse to keep the focus very narrow, on your own comfort zone.

No it was not. My goodness what a foolish statement that is! Read the Bible for yourself and see if you can find those places where the NT believers followed "the politics of the day." I'm sorry, but that statement would seem to show that you know but little of the NT. The early Christian church was as counter cultural and non-political as it gets. They suffered greatly because of their non-conformity.

You sound like a fool yourself denying that the non conformity of this new counter culture wasn't the politics of that day. Bucking the system is always about the politics. Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. Come on man.

There is very little concern about the reliability of the NT text. If you really would like to know about this, look for yourself. Here is a good place to start.

https://normangeisler.com/a-note-on-...estament-text/

Your argument of content has nothing to do with the broader sense of CONTEXT. The discussion of history doesn't question accuracy of words or language, but INTENT of the time, a concept that seems to elude you. Reliability is only established by that intent that you ignore. The basics who, how, why, and what.

So what are you afraid of that you need a narrow discussion as opposed to an broad honest one?

Or is it a matter of you being right, by making everybody else wrong?

[paraclete]

Even Jesus' frame of reference was limited to the language of the people he was speaking to,

Tal I know these discussions can become emotive, but it is your frame of reference that is limited, not Jesus. If anyone was limited it is those who documented Jesus but he left his Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. So, in light of that, endless arguments over the meanings of words and interpretation of the Bible don't serve anyone. Athos is obviously a scholar with a point of view, which seems to be to disprove traditional interpretations so arguing with him or jl is worthless

[jlisenbe]

I find myself in the most absurd discussion a person can imagine. We are supposedly discussing the teachings of the Bible, and yet we are to do so without actually discussing the text of the Bible. We can discuss and, for some, misrepresent the history of the Bible, or the significant individuals in the history of Christianity, or even the meanings of individual words, but it is "verboten" to actually make any reference to the text of the Bible. It is the strangest conversation one can imagine, and is much like a person going to law school and studying everything except the written law. And even worse, it is presented as being the sensible thing to do.

Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. Come on man.

His whole story is about changing the politics of his day? What??? Now I know we are trying to discuss the Bible without actually quoting the Bible, but where on earth did Jesus advocate for political change? "Come on man", tell us about it. You remember where he said this? "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" So in what way do you think he was advocating for a political change in this world?

And I do apologize being so bold as to refer to a passage in the NT. My bad. 8D for the sarcasm impaired.

[talaniman]

You hurt me Clete! 8O I don't argue! I exchange ideas in the discussion! 8(

Okay, I got no life, no friends and nothing better to do! You happy now?

[talaniman]

I find myself in the most absurd discussion a person can imagine. We are supposedly discussing the teachings of the Bible, and yet we are to do so without actually discussing the Bible. We can discuss and misrepresent the history of the Bible, or the significant individuals in the history of Christianity, or even the meanings of individual words, but it is "verboten" to actually make any reference to the text of the Bible. It is the strangest conversation one can imagine, and is much like a person going to law school and studying everything except the written law. And even worse, it is presented as being the sensible thing to do.

Relax dude, nobody is excluding the bible just your demand that only the bible can prove the bible. Now you can assert any misrepresentation you perceive, but back it up like everybody else who asserts stuff! If you cannot then your claim of misrepresentation is a false one.

His whole story is about changing the politics of his day? What??? Now I know we are trying to discuss the Bible without actually quoting the Bible, but where on earth did Jesus advocate for political change? Come on man, tell us about it. You remember where he said this? "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" So in what way do you think he was advocating for a political change in this world? Come on, man!

This is what I actually wrote: "

You sound like a fool yourself denying that the non conformity of this new counter culture wasn't the politics of that day. Bucking the system is always about the politics. Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. Come on man."

You can always just tell me what the conflicts or actions were that lead to his arrest. Pure religious politics.

[jlisenbe]

Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day.

When you say, "...his whole story is about changing te politics of his day," then you reveal you know nothing about what his "whole story" was about. And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence. It is one thing to say that politics led to his arrest. It is quite another to suggest that Jesus came to change politics. That is flatly wrong.

just your demand that only the bible can prove the bible. just your demand that only the bible can prove the bible.

I've made no "demand", but if someone wants to suggest that the Bible teaches something, then it would be the most sensible thing in the world to show where it does that.

[Wondergirl]

When you say, "...his whole story is about changing te politics of his day," then you reveal you know nothing about what his "whole story" was about. And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence. It is one thing to say that politics led to his arrest. It is quite another to suggest that Jesus came to change politics. That is flatly wrong.

Yes, Jesus came to change politics. Here's one Bible passage: John 13:34, "Love one another."
A 180-degree turn to change politics.

[jlisenbe]

Yes, Jesus came to change politics. Here's one Bible passage: John 13:34, "Love one another."
A 180-degree turn to change politics.

So you agree that his "whole story" was about changing politics? Amazing.

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems on this site. You stick together through thick and thin. No statement is too outrageous to cause any one of you to disagree with another. So Jesus' "whole story" was to change politics? Well, it must be true since, after all, a liberal dem said it. And then you quote a scripture where Jesus doesn't even whisper about politics.

[Wondergirl]

So you agree that his "whole story" was about changing politics? Amazing.

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems on this site. You stick together through thick and thin. No statement is too outrageous to cause any one of you to disagree with another. So Jesus' "whole story" was to change politics? Well, it must be true since, after all, a liberal dem said it. And then you quote a scripture where Jesus doesn't even whisper about politics.

YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said "his whole story." I never said that. I do agree with tal's ENTIRE statement.

Love doesn't change politics? -- the politics of a cruel monarchy overruled by dictatorial conquerers to a country without beatings, false judicial rulings, crucifixions?

[talaniman]

[/B]When you say, "...his whole story is about changing te politics of his day," then you reveal you know nothing about what his "whole story" was about. And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence. It is one thing to say that politics led to his arrest. It is quite another to suggest that Jesus came to change politics. That is flatly wrong.

I know nothing of scripture but that's your bailiwick, I was talking about the politics of the times that basically led to the arrest of Jesus which goes back a few years before, and I'm not sure if the bible articulates it other than overturning the money tables. If it does, feel free and if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. So for the sake of discussion why was Jesus arrested?

I've made no "demand", but if someone wants to suggest that the Bible teaches something, then it would be the most sensible thing in the world to show where it does that.

"And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence."

Me silent....!

So you agree that his "whole story" was about changing politics? Amazing.

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems on this site. You stick together through thick and thin. No statement is too outrageous to cause any one of you to disagree with another. So Jesus' "whole story" was to change politics? Well, it must be true since, after all, a liberal dem said it. And then you quote a scripture where Jesus doesn't even whisper about politics.

So you got no real rebuttal? I think the actions of Jesus spoke much louder than his words myself. You don't think those Jewish leaders were happy about his words and actions? Threatened by HIM?

[jlisenbe]

YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said "his whole story." I never said that.

You really have a problem with this quoting business don't you? I stated his words exactly and, I should note, his meaning was unmistakable. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day." Can you come up with any other rational meaning other than the "whole story" of the ministry of Christ was to change politics? Now if your meaning was that politics have changed because of Jesus, then I would agree with that, but I did not misquote or mischaracterize Tal's words.

So for the sake of discussion why was Jesus arrested?

The official charge was blasphemy, but you are completely correct in saying that politics drove much of it as did greed and jealousy. There is a difference between saying that politics have changed because of Jesus versus saying Jesus came to change politics. Jesus came to change the hearts of men and women and to pay the penalty for our sins. "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost." Or as John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world."

[Wondergirl]

You really have a problem with this quoting business don't you? I stated his words exactly and, I should note, his meaning was unmistakable. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day." Can you come up with any other rational meaning other than the "whole story" of the ministry of Christ was to change politics? Good grief. The official charge was blasphemy, but you are completely correct in saying that politics drove much of it as did greed and jealousy. There is a difference between saying that politics have changed because of Jesus versus saying Jesus came to change politics. Jesus came to change the hearts of men and women and to pay the penalty for our sins. "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost." Or as John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world."

You grabbed my response as I was still editing it. My final post was:
"YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said 'his whole story'. I never said that. I do agree with tal's ENTIRE statement."

I then added, "Love doesn't change politics? -- the politics of a cruel monarchy overruled by dictatorial conquerers to a country without beatings, false judicial rulings, crucifixions?"

[talaniman]

You really have a problem with this quoting business don't you? I stated his words exactly and, I should note, his meaning was unmistakable. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day." Can you come up with any other rational meaning other than the "whole story" of the ministry of Christ was to change politics? Now if your meaning was that politics have changed because of Jesus, then I would agree with that, but I did not misquote or mischaracterize Tal's words. The official charge was blasphemy, but you are completely correct in saying that politics drove much of it as did greed and jealousy. There is a difference between saying that politics have changed because of Jesus versus saying Jesus came to change politics. Jesus came to change the hearts of men and women and to pay the penalty for our sins. "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost." Or as John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world."

Ahh, I see your confusion. Quite simply we know Jesus knew he was not making friends of the powers that be, but he acted as he did any way. You sort of did mischaracterize me, but not wholly your fault. I suspect bucking the system was an unintended consequence of doing what he was here to do. Maybe I could have been more nuanced. You don't really believe I'm always 100% right all the time do you? 8D

[jlisenbe]

"YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said 'his whole story'. I never said that. I do agree with tal's ENTIRE statement."

So you don't agree with it being "his whole story", but you do agree with the ENTIRE statement. Yes. That makes perfect sense...on Mars.

I then added, "Love doesn't change politics? -- the politics of a cruel monarchy overruled by dictatorial conquerers to a country without beatings, false judicial rulings, crucifixions?"

Of course it does. Love changes a lot of things, but to say that the "whole story" of Jesus was to change politics is plainly untrue.

Ahh, I see your confusion. Quite simply we know Jesus knew he was not making friends of the powers that be, but he acted as he did any way. You sort of did mischaracterize me, but not wholly your fault. I suspect bucking the system was an unintended consequence of doing what he was here to do. Maybe I could have been more nuanced. You don't really believe I'm always 100% right all the time do you? 8D

My confusion. Well of course that was the problem. When you said that, "his whole story was about changing the politics of his day," I thought you meant that, "his whole story was about changing the politics of his day," which would have meant that his entire purpose, his "whole story", was to change the politics of his day, but of course you meant that...well, I guess you meant something other than the clear, specific, and obvious meaning of what you said.

One thing I have learned here. You 3 Amigos never admit to making a mistake. It is always someone else's problem. You are legends in your own minds. 8D

[Wondergirl]

One thing I have learned here. You 3 Amigos never admit to making a mistake. It is always someone else's problem. You are legends in your own minds. 8D

As long as you're leading the parade of insults, I'll add a marching band that plays the old tune, "JL doesn't read for meaning, No wonder that's why he's leaning."

So you don't agree with it being "his whole story", but you do agree with the ENTIRE statement. Yes. That makes perfect sense...on Mars.

Hope you're over that hissy fit. Now, I dare you to go back and read his ENTIRE statement.