pokemaughan

I think the issue, if any, that is had with you Lord Voldemort could be this- The name, Lord Voldemort is a fictional character that more or less represents Satan Your signature is stuffed with Harry Potter quotes, while the rest of us have Scripture and theological quotes from real people... God much rather prefers His word to man's words You came in boasting of yourself, rather than Christ and God's work in your life, which is a sin, don't make excuses for it So if theres any problem we have, I would imagine it's those... they all make us raise a brow

Good to have wise godly men around here.

Romans 9. Also, arguing out of English words is a mistake, seeing as well, they're not Greek. I'd challenge you to be careful with that sort of research, make sure it's founded on literally rock-solid Words, rather than man's interpretation of those Words. ...and the dead horse may sleep again

In the end the goal is that God is right, correct? Not man? I feel that sometimes these 'discussions' become more of a means to stroke our own pride.

Kinda on the same track, but I was in Barnes and Nobles today and Muslim books were in the Christian section.

I think someone didn't get enough blood today On another note, I've really enjoyed your challenging posts, Wolf. Keep it up.

You said a lot with a little, well done. Definitely, good stuff

Thank you Rhonda for your loving consideration and time in responding to me. Indeed, our God is a mysterious God, and at times I believe it's best left that way. I will chew on what you've said for awhile and see what I get out of it in a broader sense.

However, in addition to what was already said, we're all married to Christ, so...

When someone walks away from God, are they still considered, "His own"? If you want to use the analogy of parents and children, I can show you news article after news article where parents abused, butchered, and abandoned their children. God uses analogy of parents and children. He calls Himself our Father. The difference between His love and earthly father love is that His love is not corrupted by the human aspect. I would love to agree with you because it sounds nice- but God is not just a father. He is a whole mess of things... King, shepard, guide, judge... The truth is you could reason about these things all day, but when it comes down to it reason carries the least weight... it's Scripture that makes the call, not reasoning. So lets focus on the titles of King and Judge for a moment. Would it be fair and just that one who accepted Christ's atonement and then later walked away from it (i.e. became an atheist, backslid, etc.) and 'trampled underfoot the Son of God' was given the same 'reward', so to speak, as an honest Christ-follower who died with a heart after God? If a heart, whom only God can judge, honestly hates God and loves itself, yet earlier in life was 'saved' is accepted into the kingdom along with a heart that yearns after God and hates ungodliness, would that be just? There are passages that firmly assert that once you are saved you are always saved... if!... you continue to follow God. If! you continue in faithfulness. If! you work at and honestly pursue godliness over your own lusts. And there are passages that warn believers against ungodliness and unfaithfulness and backsliding and lukewarmth... not because you'll get a slap on the wrist when you get to heaven, but because our God is a just God. He did not spare the unfaithful and will not spare you, so continue in His kindness... Do not be proud, but fear... God is powerful and will not be mocked... He is to be feared first.

Excellent observation... you might catch some flak but at least the elementary idea of it makes sense.

I'm just curious how you explain verses like these: Romans 11:11-24 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. Hebrews 10:28-29 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? Friends, theres a difference between isogesis and exegesis. Coming to the Word of God with your own preconceptions and ideas will not do- you must read the Word with an open heart and let IT change YOU, not the other way around.

Completely understandable. I guess my stance is based on the tenor of the apostles- stand firm... hold fast... the big idea always seemed to be "be confident in the hope of Jesus Christ". But at the same time humility isn't to be forgotten.

Ya definitely brother... we can't judge the hearts. I guess I just felt it necessary to clarify that there is a difference between oral confession (that passage you share) and genuine repentance. I remember the first time you shared that verse with me I was very afraid because these things weren't clarified. The way you said it made it sound that even you and I, genuine followers of Christ, could still be denied.

Does a lukewarm 'non-religious' sinner's prayer Christian think he's saved? Uh ya, I've spoke with them myself. Most unspiritual person I've met, but what do ya know, he believes in Jesus, so he's all good, right?

That's not what Scripture teaches... Romans 11:11-24 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God

I guess the thing that rings out to me is God's overwhelming grace. Genuine repentance is met with redemption and salvation to all that accept it, correct? It's hard for me to imagine as a mere man that genuine repentance could be denied if you screwed up one too many times, so to speak. At that point it would pointless to live for God if He had already rejected you here on earth. Like I said, I think those who fall away are really the ones who forsake the Gospel for good. Just outright quit believing forevermore and don't bother coming back. But again, these passages are tough to call.

Mmm, challenging question. The most important thing to establish first is the definition or character of the phrases- once enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, fall away, and renew... again to repentence. It's a tough call, and there's a lot of things to take into account, namely the context of the letter, and of course the context of how this applies to God in the Big Picture. I think the key phrase here is fall away. To what degree must one backslide to 'fall away'? The first thing that comes to mind is a proclaimed 'ex-Christian' who now holds onto Islam or atheism or what-have-you instead of proclaiming Christ as God and their savior. I would call that falling away- to which this passage would make sense. I imagine there is no heart harder than that of a proclaimed 'ex-Christian'.

"Yes, I'd like a Bible that is a little on the sweet side... no conviction please- oh and I don't want to feel uncomfortable reading it, either. Oh and one more thing, if you could change those verses about sexual immorality and serving Jesus, that would be great." I can unfortunately imagining something like this happening in the USA or England, even if only a satire/pot-shot at believers. A website in which you can 'customize' your Bible to fit your tastes. Blech. I love you Butero, my brother.

Oh geeze.

What he said

I like the ESV... not a fan of the NIV... As with any translation, I believe homework and research is required and encouraged before trusting in it, just as you have done. This is something a lot of people do not do. However, the one issue I know of the KJV is the use of Easter. My mother, a Christian nearly her whole life, uses the KJV regularly and was flabbergasted when I pointed out that verse in Acts. "Say what?" It is pretty silly... and it's even sillier how KJVO folks will go great lengths to explain that Easter is the correct translation or that God moved them to use that word instead of passover.

Yes, Mr. Ehrman is quite the comedian. Here is a little essay I wrote on the issue, if it's any consolation: Keep in mind this is a very informal essay/letter and I'm by no means a biblical scholar (yet)- but the information is relevant and should be heard whether you're a Christian or not. The information comes from James White (Alpha and Omega Apologetic Ministries), Dr. Bob Martin (Reasons to Believe class at Faith), Bart Ehrman (atheist skeptic), and whatever research these three gentleman have put forth. If you seek truth, look no further than the Bible, m'friends. Revelations 3:20 (Jesus speaking) 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.' Psalms 12:6 'And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.' Mark 13:31 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.' Isaiah 40:8 'The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.' The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by pokemaughan Thank you Dr. Martin and James White for your diligent research on God's faithfulness in preserving His Word The commonly accepted view of the Christian's New Testament is that it is under at least one of these categories: 1. It was written too far after the actual events to be reliable 2. It has been altered or changed in some way, and thus is not reliable 3. All we have is copies of copies of copies (and so on), so therefore it is probably unreliable 4. It is a work of fiction created by some drunk monks who wanted power Unfortunately, this is widely accepted on little basis in fact because of partial bias against the belief in Christianity. I'm writing this to give factual reasons as to why these views on the NT are not only false, but absolutely ridiculous when put under the light of real, tangible, evidence. According to studies by textual critics of the New Testament, there are 400,000 variants in the manuscripts and copies we have today. “This is 3 variants per word!” they'll say. And they're right- with these numbers. But what kind of 'variants' are we talking about? Let me give you an example of what 99% of these 'variants' and 'errors' are- YOU HAVE WON ONE MILLION DOLLARS! YOU HAV WONE ONE MILLION DOLLARS YOU HAVE WON ONE MILLION DOLLAS. YOU HAVE WON ONE-MILLION DOLERS! 99% of these 'errors' are no more than mistakes in spelling, grammar, and word order. Tell me, can you still understand what is being said by the above example? So after this 99%, we're left with 4,000 (1% of the 400,000) meaningful variants. This is 2.9% of the 138,162 words in the Greek NT. This is one meaningful variant every 3 pages. But here's an even bigger point- the amount of manuscripts is very important to the credibility of any given ancient text. If we only had one, the Christian faith wouldn't be well-founded, would it? But if we have many, many manuscripts, all saying the same basic things, there's a much larger base for belief. We currently have roughly 5700 catalogued Greek NT manuscripts, the average of which contains 200 pages. This is approximately 1.2 million HAND-WRITTEN and copied pages of text. 4,000 meaningful variants in 1.2 million pages? Doesn't seem so crazy as the critics want it to seem. This is a period of 1500 years of copying, with only 4,000 variants. On top of that, we've got over 15,000 translations of the NT into Coptic, Latin, and various other languages, coupled with quotations in letters from early church fathers that ALL confirm the Gospel. On top of THAT, there are many secular sources outside of the NT that confirm this 'Jesus' person and the events that happened in his life. So what about these meaningful variants? One common example is scribal error. These are the kinds of errors we still make to today. To put it into perspective, even today to copy an entire book perfectly, by hand, is implausible. Our minds naturally tend to wander from fatigue and the monotony of repetition. This results is words and phrases sometimes being forgotten, suffixes and prefixes being mixed, and sometimes even entire trains of thought being jumbled. And this is in the comfort of our air-conditioned homes with nice pens that don't require dipping, and paper that is very smooth and easy to write on. These scribes, often untrained, were tasked with the duty of copying entire books of Greek under candlelight or daylight, oftentimes risking their lives just to copy the text. Christians of the NT also were not rich by any means- they were in fact quite poor. They had to write on papyrus instead of smoother, more efficient velum. Keep in mind now that papyrus is not much more than a leaf- meaning it has veins and various formations on its surfaces that could be very difficult to write on! Imagine trying to write careful, accurate, precise symbols on a piece of leather, with all it's veins and grain. Simple Greek symbols that could alter words entirely, some even as simple as a dash above a letter, could not be properly written due to these veins. And yet another thing to consider is the fact that these manuscripts they were copying were written in uncial text; that is, all capital-letters with NO SPACES IN BETWEEN. Here's an example of how tedious this could be: GODISNOWHERE This uncial phrase could be rendered GOD IS NOW HERE, or GOD IS NOWHERE! Now, concerning the manuscripts themselves- the majority of the NT Greek manuscripts originate from after 1000 AD. These are called the Majority Text. The remaining earlier manuscripts are called the Papyri Texts. The earliest text we have is a fragment of a manuscript written in 125 AD; Papyri Manuscript p52, containing verses from the Gospel of John. Papyri Manuscript p72 is dated to 200 AD, containing 1st Peter, Jude, and 2nd Peter. Keep in mind that these are very conservative dates; some would push them even earlier. Manuscript p75, a copy of the Gospels of Luke and John, was written between 175 and 225 AD. Manuscript p66, containing Paul's letters, is dated around 200 AD. This puts the earliest surviving manuscript within 200 years, most likely earlier, of the actual events of Christ! The actual Gospels would have been written between 60 to 80 years after the actual events. To compare, most ancient manuscripts of other works of antiquity were written at least 900 years after the originals, and had NOWHERE near the amount of manuscripts the NT has. To say that we can't know what the NT originally said is to throw out every major ancient document before Gutenberg and printing! This of course brings the thought in your mind, 'Wow, that's a long time. I doubt the written story is similar to what actually happened.' Well here's another thing you need to consider- at the time of Christ, people of the day were not dependent on technology and convenience like we are today. Memory was a weapon that was sharpened as soon as a child was brought up. Everything had to memorized, because most were illiterate! These NT peoples, the Jews in particular, had amazing capacity for memory. A Pharisee, for example, was raised to memorize the Torah in its entirety! This is the Old Testament books of Moses. The actual events were not recorded until at least 30-100 years after the ministry of Christ. Now to address the idea, that in this period of time myth and legend were inserted at whim- there simply was not enough time for myth to form! Myth needs many generations and separation from the original testimonies to flourish. And should have someone started teaching things contrary to what was originally seen, they would have been corrected by the witnesses themselves! The NT claims that there were at least 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Christ and thousands more that witnessed his ministry while still on earth- and this doesn't even count the thousands and thousands more that were taught the Gospel afterwards. If anyone DARED to put their own 'spin' on it, they would have been corrected right off the bat. I want to give you a small example to the reliability of memory- When I was around 6, I vividly remember riding my bike down a dirt road hill, flipping over, and getting a pebble stuck in my forehead. I remember my brothers, Aaron and J.D., laughing at me. I remember screaming and running home. I remember blood gushing out of my head after my mother grabbed a rag and pulled the rock out. I vividly remember asking, “Am I gonna die?” I remember getting the stitches, and I remember the day my parents said it was time to get rid of them. The reason this memory stuck was because of the influential nature of the experience- it had a large impact in my life at the time. Keep in mind that my memory is nowhere near as polished as a man of the NT era. I could ask my brothers and my parents to record the account of the 'Gospel of the Pebble', so to speak, and they would come to the same conclusions concerning facts. They may have a different perspective, notice different things, focus on different things, but we would all ultimately agree. The Gospels of the NT are strangely similar! If these copyists and scribes applied even half of their capacity for memory on the reiteration of the Gospels, it's reasonable to believe that they were transmitted correctly. Now concerning the Biblical canon and Constantine- for Constantine to somehow not only silence every believer that had heard the un-altered truth and simultaneously alter the NT Gospels to his own desire for power is laughable. This is something that we couldn't even accomplish today! This require him to find EVERY manuscript and change them to his will. This is power that not a single person has ever had, nonetheless Constantine! Not only this, but there wasn't even a centralized system to direct this kind of movement. Christians of the time were lower-class citizens under persecution by Rome. This, and considering the dates of the 124 Papyri Texts that were written BEFORE Constantine and the Council at Nicaea, there should be at least some evidence of alteration or controversy on what we have now, right? This is not so! Again, according to textual critics, what we have is 99.5% pure in transmission compared with the oldest manuscripts. So what is it that holds people back? Unbelief in the promise that God would preserve His Word!! To summarize- The NT is 95%+ accurate when compared to our oldest manuscripts, even those before Constantine. The NT is the most thoroughly documented work of antiquity. The NT was spread very quickly to many regions, and there was no controlling authority that successfully altered it. (any alterations would stick out like a SORE THUMB when compared to our ancient manuscripts) This is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. You haven't even entered the world of prophecies of the Old Testament and other confirmations of the Gospels of Christ.

Is it the Nestle-Aland text? I love his chocolate I wonder if they make a chocolate Bible?