JumpinJive

An interesting discussion/debate on the subject from The Last Trumpet website: http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/debate3.html I have no real position on the subject but did mull around The Last Trumpet for a while after leaving TWI. The site did convince me to reconsider my position on the rapture and pre-trib views of the future. Its kind of fun reading even if every discussion about the end times, here, there or anywhere, is pure speculation. -JJ

I think sky illustrates another relevant point to this discussion. Not so much the fate of Mr. Hefner's appendage but the seeming illogic of some biblical/religious concepts. Why is it that God has such a hard time creating beings who want to listen to Him? He got dumped in the garden, dumped coming out of Egypt, dumped by the northern kingdom, dumped by the southern kingdom, dumped by every other race inhabiting the area... And the answer is what, beat them into submission? His design was so bad that at least once He had to wipe the race out. Well, all but what, eight? And He promises to do it again. There are factors beyond the scientific aspects of the discussion that figure into the thought process of becoming an athiest or agnostic. I certainly don't have all the answers, if the answers are even knowable, but I just don't understand how an all-powerful being with a view into the future could be, well, that short-sighted. -JJ

Cute, Dan.

Yeah, we don't have that, do we? I don't think George would classify himself as an athiest. If you asked, I think he'd say he's agnostic, i.e., he just doesn't know. I'm in the same boat. There just isn't any evidence that points to the existence of a God. He may very well be there, but we can't, as a race, know it by our normal means of knowing. Why don't we have a God sense? Shouldn't be too hard for a God who supposedly wants loving children. Re ceasing to exist, who cares? Life is what it is and will be what it will be. If that's how its meant to be, so be it. There's certainly nothing I can do about it and have never felt the need to 'deal' with it. What has God to do with the other concepts you mentioned? Is it that much of a stretch to believe that humanity has the capacity to see the consequences of actions and learn from the experience? Its not really that hard to figure out good and bad. Its only when you interject undefineable, unverifiable and invisible 'spiritual' concepts into the mix that you run into problems. Like agape. Try defining that with any meaning. -JJ

Not for nothing, but we're all heretics to someone. If you're going to make doctrinal statements and claim the bible tells you so, well, there are just too many other people out there making the same claim but with different doctrine. And they usually aren't shy in telling you about how short-sighted and stupid you are. As for the book, I certainly didn't find it heretical. In fact, I found it rather Wayish. You argue from the same rhetorical positions, just come to different conclusions. If I still believed in an inerrant bible, I probably would have liked it more. -JJ

I would agree templelady. In fact, I think it might have raised more questions for me than it provided answers. This book was the first time I've heard of significant stories being fabrications. I was a bit surprised when he said he didn't believe the woman taken in adultery was part of the original text. Jeesh, I still remember Loy 'expounding' on that story endlessly. I was also surprised by the sheer number of writings that were circulating among the churches in the early centuries. I would think the odds astronomical that those in charge actually picked the God-breathed words for inclusion in the bible. -JJ

Got room for a 5th? -JJ

Hmmm, a powerful way to say it but is he wrong? Ehrman also notes that the majority of these differences are inconsequential. He seems very honest in his research, at least to me. What does Mark Roberts' statement really mean? I don't see the significance of just having the words. I would also add that 'vast majority' negates God-breathed, no? What words are missing? How significant are they? How would we know? If some are missing, could some have been added? The questions are endless... Maybe his confusion comes from the discrepancy between the facts he has discovered and what Christians et al. claim regarding their holy books. Seems to me his claim that we don't have the original words matches even what Mark Roberts is saying. We don't! I'm not sure I see 'poorly reasoned' in that. -JJ

As pointed out by Thomas Paine I think, writing isn't necessarily a good way to communicate eternal truths. It is entirely one-sided unless the writer is still around when the reader reads it, the meanings of words and phrases are subject to change over time, its very hard to understand the nuances of different cultures, especially those that don't exist anymore, its incredibly easy to change, etc. Given the multitude of denominations we see around us, I'd say he was on to something. -JJ

One of the points of the book is that yes, when that happened, the texts became significantly more consistent. But a formal methodology for copying texts didn't exist for quite some time after the 1st century. Back then, they were mostly just guys writing letters and some of them even complained about people who copied their writings inaccurately, whether intentionally or not. -JJ (Edited for typos)

And heretics on someone else's list... :) -JJ

Thanks for the link, George. His writings display the typical deist scorn towards religion, but his questions are powerful and penetrating. Well, I think its pretty obvious what he's defining as impossible. It is, as Oakspear noted, the ability to come up with an "original" text. Plain and simple, we don't have the original 'God-breathed' word, nor a reliable way to get to it. You have to make a lot of leaps of faith to get to the point of believing the bible is the unerring word and will of God. Ehrman's book is showing me there are many more leaps needed than I had ever imagined. -JJ

"You scored as Monarchianism. You are a Monarchian. You seek to retain monotheistic belief but in doing so abandon the idea of a triune God. God exists as the Father only, though he can reveal himself in other ways in a manner similar to modalism. Jesus is a man who is adopted into the Godhead and given divine status. Jehovah's Witnesses still hold to this belief." I'm a little perturbed at being compared to a JW. I'm more heretical than that! -JJ

I'm wondering if anyone has read this book. I'm just beginning it and I have to say it has hit me hard. I haven't been a fits-like-a-hand-in-a-glove guy on the Bible for quite some time, but wow, I had no idea how the NT canon was actually derived nor just how many contradictions actually exist in the manuscripts used to create the New Testament. It has been an eye-opener for sure. Any opinions out there? Any thoughts on the NT canon? -JJ ----------------------- Here's the full info. It's online at Amazon with 283 reviews. "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman

Isn't this a little scary, Wolf? For all the time and brain power expended on this and other threads, in correspondence, conversations, teachings, presentations, lectures, books, preachings, magazines, movies and TV, now and throughout the past two+ millennia, wouldn't you think we'd have some kind of fairly certain idea of who the God we worship is? Or who His son, the savior of the whole dang world, might be? Why do we have such trouble getting past even the basics of faith? Note that that was a rhetorical question, the last one. I'm not looking to derail the thread, just reiterate the futility I feel when discussing points of doctrine, especially the trinity. -JJ

Forgive me, but is there a point to this? Sure, its old, but does it add anything to our knowledge? Isn't it just another copy of Luke's writings like so many others, or is there something more to it? Or maybe the concept of sacred texts being bought and sold at market is a statement in and of itself? -JJ

And sadly, they all defend their positions the same way. It makes discerning truth, ummm, difficult. -JJ

Probably in the long term. But I guess there's not much profit in worrying about it! According to one of our resident authors, Stephen Spencer, the unforgivable sin is rejecting the new birth. He has a whole chapter on it in his book, "The Genesis Pursuit." I'm not sure I agree as I tend to think the new birth will actually happen at the resurrection. Note that a Google search returns about a half-million hits, so I'm not confident we'll ever get to the truth of it. -JJ

An interesting list, cman. Thanks! -JJ

It would be a pretty big study, but don't the OT laws have different levels of punishment associated with non-compliance? I mean, you didn't get stoned for everything, right? -JJ

This is one of the reasons we have such difficulty getting to the source of these issues. Any open discussion of the obvious problems associated with homosexual life is labeled 'gay bashing.' Vegan, if you think the sexual abuse of young boys by priests (or anyone else) couldn't possibly have anything to do with homosexuality, you're sadly and dangerously mistaken. That kind of attitude limits discussion and does more to support the abuse than prevent it. -JJ

Mark, you have to be one of the most honest men I've ever encountered on an online board, or any where else for that matter. -JJ

Well, the single best way is to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain places on your body. The second best way is to avoid intravenous drug use. The rest is a crap shoot. -JJ

Interesting, Mark! Thanks for the reply. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I hadn't thought of it quite that amount of detail. -JJ

I've heard folks from TWI teach that 'sin-is-sin' doctrine. That's kind of how they justified the totality of grace over works and once-saved-always saved, to the point they believed that even murders can't be kept out of heaven if they are truly born again. (I'm not sure I believe that, but that's another thread.) I've mostly understood forgiveness (as well as confession) as something more of benefit to believers than to God. Getting wrapped up in someone else's past offenses against you can lead to a host of negative emotional baggage. Better to let it go than be sucked into it. As for the perpetrator, I can't see my forgiveness meaning very much to them unless they are truly repentant. In that case, forgiveness might be able to relieve some guilt and shame and that makes everybody's life a little better. But I see that as mostly involving emotional hurts. How God's forgiveness works in more serious matters is quite beyond me. I don't give a lot of thought to the plight of captured serial killers but it seems to me the only forgiveness that should really matter to them is God's. God's decision is the one that might allow them life after their current walk on earth, not mine. -JJ