LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

"brood of vipers"

"Go tell that fox…"

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces"

"It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

"…you hypocrites!"

"…it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

As evidenced by the above quotes, it seems to me you are wrong…. again.

---

Those are all behavioral admonitions from Jesus. They are not derogatory remarks made at individuals. Show me where he taught you to resort to insults, and ad hominem attacks on someone's character. But I would agree that a lot of what is taught in the Bible conflicts with Jesus' teaching of the Golden Rule.

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

Explain Manifest Destiny to the natives that were wiped out. The Japanese followed their Emporer because he was devine. Gunbarrel conversions are pretty common. Religion hss been corrupted and used to justify atrocities many times.

---

You're mixing faith and religion with politics and human nature again.

---

That's when you get January 6th.

---

Only if your religion is hating Trump

---

Poor attempt at deflection. January 6th had anything to do with hating Trump. It had everything to do with trying to overturn an election by extra-constitutional means. People should hate what happened on January 6th, and hold those responsible accountable. To do otherwise does not bode well for democracy.

---

All this post proves, is that you are a Trump hater.

---

So you choose fealty to Trump over the Constitution. Using your logic, you would be a hater of democracy and the Constitution.

---

My logic depends on facts. What Trump did was not 'extra-Constitutional', it was a challenge based on an interpretation of text in the Constitution.

Also, for all your spite and spittle, there remains zero evidence to support the claim that the people who broke the law on January 6 did so at Trump's plan or direction.

In both contentions, you rely on your assumption, not logic.

Also, your incessant virtue-signaling implies you know you cannot prove your case on the facts, so you fall back on emotion.

Not very much like a Scientist, your behavior ...

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

A fool can call himself a Christian or a "deconstructionist" or any other disingenuous and asinine label they think will hoodwink an equally undiscerning fool.

I'm not interested in your non Christian interpretation of what is "Christ like" given you don't even know who He is.

---

I think I know him as well or better than you.

---

I pray not, I don't want to go to the Hell your tongue is from and soul appears bound for. And seeming your god is yourself, I suspect you do know him better.

Next time just tell me to go to Hell rather than posturing you're Christian.

Depart from me for I never knew you awaits your present impenitent condition.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Safe to say objectivity is another concept and definition that defies you.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

"brood of vipers"

"Go tell that fox…"

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces"

"It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

"…you hypocrites!"

"…it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

As evidenced by the above quotes, it seems to me you are wrong…. again.

---

Those are all behavioral admonitions from Jesus. They are not derogatory remarks made at individuals. Show me where he taught you to resort to insults, and ad hominem attacks on someone's character. But I would agree that a lot of what is taught in the Bible conflicts with Jesus' teaching of the Golden Rule.

---

Someone that claims themselves to be wise once said "I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them." When it was shown to them that even Christ called people names, they moved the goalposts by calling this type of name-calling "behavioral admonitions".

Using your research skills as a scientist, did Christ call anyone a "fox" or maybe a "hypocrite"?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

Explain Manifest Destiny to the natives that were wiped out. The Japanese followed their Emporer because he was devine. Gunbarrel conversions are pretty common. Religion hss been corrupted and used to justify atrocities many times.

---

You're mixing faith and religion with politics and human nature again.

---

That's when you get January 6th.

---

Only if your religion is hating Trump

---

Poor attempt at deflection. January 6th had anything to do with hating Trump. It had everything to do with trying to overturn an election by extra-constitutional means. People should hate what happened on January 6th, and hold those responsible accountable. To do otherwise does not bode well for democracy.

---

All this post proves, is that you are a Trump hater.

---

So you choose fealty to Trump over the Constitution. Using your logic, you would be a hater of democracy and the Constitution.

---

My logic depends on facts. What Trump did was not 'extra-Constitutional', it was a challenge based on an interpretation of text in the Constitution.

Also, for all your spite and spittle, there remains zero evidence to support the claim that the people who broke the law on January 6 did so at Trump's plan or direction.

In both contentions, you rely on your assumption, not logic.

Also, your incessant virtue-signaling implies you know you cannot prove your case on the facts, so you fall back on emotion.

Not very much like a Scientist, your behavior ...

---

Facts?? Let's see:
Trump, Roger Stone and Bannon come up with "stop the steal" as an excuse for losing the election they thought they were going to lose in 2016 to HRC. When they eked out the electoral college, Trump, to back up his claim, continued with the assertion of wide spread fraud, two million votes, that he pulled out of the air. His blue ribbon panel, that he formed to cover his A, couldn't find any fraud and just faded away.

Then he started "Stop the Steal" all over again in 2020 as an excuse for losing, because malignant narcicists can't admit to losing, claiming the only way he could lose the election, would be if it was rigged. When he lost, he claimed it was stolen, yet every court that heard his absurd complaints, many by his own appointed judges, and Supreme Court Justices, poured him out. Even his own attorney Rudy Giuliani, said they had no evidence, just some theories on how it was stolen. Even Trump's "Ninja" vote counters couldn't find any fraud or extra votes. Then like a third world dictator, he tried to rig the election himself, putting pressure on states to change the vote count, going so far as asking the Georgia Secretry of State to find him enough votes to win in Georgia. Two weeks before the election, he implored AG Bar to arrest Biden, just like a dictator would do in a third world country. He tested the water to see if he could get the military to seize voting machines, just like a dictator. He, Stone, Banon, and Alex Jones summoned Trump's followers to DC on January 6th, promising something big was going to happen. Trump et al whipped up the crowd, told them to go the Capitol and fight, promising he would go with them. He tried to create fake and competing slates of electors. He embraced every crackpot Constitutional loopehole theory proffered, that would allow him to overturn an election - which if successfull, every candidate after him would use, and would have set him up to becoming a dictator. He pressured and harassed Pence to reject the state certifications, asserting that a VP had the authority to reject certifications. He sat idly by in glee as his fired up crowd stormed the Capitol. He told officials at DOJ to just say there was fraud and leave the rest to him and Repubulicans, just like a wanna be dictator. They're still uncovering his antics leading up to, on, and after January 6th. Trump is antithetical to democracy and destructive to the Republican Party. Now I've been a conservative Republican all my life, but at least I have the ability to admit when some in the Party, through zeal and fervor, have been blinded and coopted into embracing autocracy at the expense of democracy, and the expense of the ideals of conservatism and the Republican Party. Many in the Republican Party, by that same zeal and fervor, are embracing and being lead down an autocratic path away from democratic principles. It's time for Republicans to abandon the conspiracy theories, perceived grievances, and vitriol, roll up their sleeves, and beat the democrats at the ballot box with better candidates and ideas. That's how it works in a democracy.

Hating, demonizing, and making enemies of someone who has a different view is counterproductive to a cohesive, ordered and peaceful society. Persuading them with better ideas, working with them for common solutions, and on those areas you can't agree upon, leave to the ballot box and the democratic process. If you lose, try harder the next time. You're not going to find a better system, as imperfect as it may be, than what we have now under our Constitution.

I follow the evidence of reality, just like any good scientist.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

A fool can call himself a Christian or a "deconstructionist" or any other disingenuous and asinine label they think will hoodwink an equally undiscerning fool.

I'm not interested in your non Christian interpretation of what is "Christ like" given you don't even know who He is.

---

I think I know him as well or better than you.

---

I pray not, I don't want to go to the Hell your tongue is from and soul appears bound for. And seeming your god is yourself, I suspect you do know him better.

Next time just tell me to go to Hell rather than posturing you're Christian.

Depart from me for I never knew you awaits your present impenitent condition.

---

I haven't promoted any hell from my tongue. All I've said, is that I used to be a devout, "saved", fundamentalist, evangelical, and that after taking an objective look at the evidence of reality, being honest with myself, I realized it was far better to accept reality, embrace it for what it is, and live my life to the fullest extent possible.

Of course, if you believe in the fundamentalist, evangelical concept of 'once saved, always saved', you'll get to observe and participate in my 'impenitent condition' first hand. But don't bet money on it. The evidence of reality tells us we'll exit this life into the same condition that we entered it from.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

"brood of vipers"

"Go tell that fox…"

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces"

"It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

"…you hypocrites!"

"…it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

As evidenced by the above quotes, it seems to me you are wrong…. again.

---

Those are all behavioral admonitions from Jesus. They are not derogatory remarks made at individuals. Show me where he taught you to resort to insults, and ad hominem attacks on someone's character. But I would agree that a lot of what is taught in the Bible conflicts with Jesus' teaching of the Golden Rule.

---

Someone that claims themselves to be wise once said "I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them." When it was shown to them that even Christ called people names, they moved the goalposts by calling this type of name-calling "behavioral admonitions".

Using your research skills as a scientist, did Christ call anyone a "fox" or maybe a "hypocrite"?

---

Although there are many views and ideas of what it means to be a Christian, do you believe, based upon what most Christian pastors preach from the pulpit, that Jesus taught his followers to insult, and to call individuals, one on one, deragotory names as part of their witness to them?

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

A fool can call himself a Christian or a "deconstructionist" or any other disingenuous and asinine label they think will hoodwink an equally undiscerning fool.

I'm not interested in your non Christian interpretation of what is "Christ like" given you don't even know who He is.

---

I think I know him as well or better than you.

---

I pray not, I don't want to go to the Hell your tongue is from and soul appears bound for. And seeming your god is yourself, I suspect you do know him better.

Next time just tell me to go to Hell rather than posturing you're Christian.

Depart from me for I never knew you awaits your present impenitent condition.

---

I haven't promoted any hell from my tongue. All I've said, is that I used to be a devout, "saved", fundamentalist, evangelical, and that after taking an objective look at the evidence of reality, being honest with myself, I realized it was far better to accept reality, embrace it for what it is, and live my life to the fullest extent possible.

Of course, if you believe in the fundamentalist, evangelical concept of 'once saved, always saved', you'll get to observe and participate in my 'impenitent condition' first hand. But don't bet money on it. The evidence of reality tells us we'll exit this life into the same condition that we entered it from.

---

I'm not reading the diatribe of an arrogant apostate snake. Promote the hell you came from and will return to on your own time.

I'm sure you're thoroughly and smugly self satisfied living your life as a satanic lackey and that you thoroughly resemble the liar that is your spiritual father.

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

Have any recommended sources on some things Ehrman says but has been proven to be inaccurate? Interested in the new archeology findings.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

Have any recommended sources on some things Ehrman says but has been proven to be inaccurate? Interested in the new archeology findings.

---

Have you ever opened a Bible? It's a good start.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

"brood of vipers"

"Go tell that fox…"

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces"

"It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

"…you hypocrites!"

"…it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

As evidenced by the above quotes, it seems to me you are wrong…. again.

---

Those are all behavioral admonitions from Jesus. They are not derogatory remarks made at individuals. Show me where he taught you to resort to insults, and ad hominem attacks on someone's character. But I would agree that a lot of what is taught in the Bible conflicts with Jesus' teaching of the Golden Rule.

---

Someone that claims themselves to be wise once said "I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them." When it was shown to them that even Christ called people names, they moved the goalposts by calling this type of name-calling "behavioral admonitions".

Using your research skills as a scientist, did Christ call anyone a "fox" or maybe a "hypocrite"?

---

Although there are many views and ideas of what it means to be a Christian, do you believe, based upon what most Christian pastors preach from the pulpit, that Jesus taught his followers to insult, and to call individuals, one on one, deragotory names as part of their witness to them?

---

Once again, you are moving the goalposts. The original post I responded to was

" One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity."

I never addressed the insult portion but directly addressed the name calling. "Brood of vipers " is a cutting remark. It's harsh. It delivers a point. It's not meant as a compliment in any way.

If you lie and I call you a liar, did I call you a name, insult you or both?

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

Have any recommended sources on some things Ehrman says but has been proven to be inaccurate? Interested in the new archeology findings.

---

Have you ever opened a Bible? It's a good start.

---

The Bible? Never heard of her.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

Have any recommended sources on some things Ehrman says but has been proven to be inaccurate? Interested in the new archeology findings.

---

Have you ever opened a Bible? It's a good start.

---

The Bible? Never heard of her.

---

We know.

This is a thread about Christianity, but TS defaults to a rant about Trump.

Take a step back, son, it's not always about Trump.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

Have any recommended sources on some things Ehrman says but has been proven to be inaccurate? Interested in the new archeology findings.

---

Can't find the book in my library. Here's a downpayment


https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/bible-contradictions-a-response-to-bart-ehrman/

"Bart Ehrman puts forward some difficult passages … But a moment or two of thinking erased many of the contradictions."

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

Have any recommended sources on some things Ehrman says but has been proven to be inaccurate? Interested in the new archeology findings.

---

Can't find the book in my library. Here's a downpayment


https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/bible-contradictions-a-response-to-bart-ehrman/

"Bart Ehrman puts forward some difficult passages … But a moment or two of thinking erased many of the contradictions."

---

Thank you for the reply, will give the article a read!

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

I don't think I'm familiar with what you are referring to, so I have no specific answer. I would caution you to be careful of blindly following an apologist with an agenda. I've found they have a tendency to misrepresent a view or position and evidence.

Are you talking about the Hobbly Lobby scandal?

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

A fool can call himself a Christian or a "deconstructionist" or any other disingenuous and asinine label they think will hoodwink an equally undiscerning fool.

I'm not interested in your non Christian interpretation of what is "Christ like" given you don't even know who He is.

---

I think I know him as well or better than you.

---

I pray not, I don't want to go to the Hell your tongue is from and soul appears bound for. And seeming your god is yourself, I suspect you do know him better.

Next time just tell me to go to Hell rather than posturing you're Christian.

Depart from me for I never knew you awaits your present impenitent condition.

---

I haven't promoted any hell from my tongue. All I've said, is that I used to be a devout, "saved", fundamentalist, evangelical, and that after taking an objective look at the evidence of reality, being honest with myself, I realized it was far better to accept reality, embrace it for what it is, and live my life to the fullest extent possible.

Of course, if you believe in the fundamentalist, evangelical concept of 'once saved, always saved', you'll get to observe and participate in my 'impenitent condition' first hand. But don't bet money on it. The evidence of reality tells us we'll exit this life into the same condition that we entered it from.

---

I'm not reading the diatribe of an arrogant apostate snake. Promote the hell you came from and will return to on your own time.

I'm sure you're thoroughly and smugly self satisfied living your life as a satanic lackey and that you thoroughly resemble the liar that is your spiritual father.

---

Careful. Intolerance and ignorance may betray your claim to be a Christian.

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

A fool can call himself a Christian or a "deconstructionist" or any other disingenuous and asinine label they think will hoodwink an equally undiscerning fool.

I'm not interested in your non Christian interpretation of what is "Christ like" given you don't even know who He is.

---

I think I know him as well or better than you.

---

I pray not, I don't want to go to the Hell your tongue is from and soul appears bound for. And seeming your god is yourself, I suspect you do know him better.

Next time just tell me to go to Hell rather than posturing you're Christian.

Depart from me for I never knew you awaits your present impenitent condition.

---

I haven't promoted any hell from my tongue. All I've said, is that I used to be a devout, "saved", fundamentalist, evangelical, and that after taking an objective look at the evidence of reality, being honest with myself, I realized it was far better to accept reality, embrace it for what it is, and live my life to the fullest extent possible.

Of course, if you believe in the fundamentalist, evangelical concept of 'once saved, always saved', you'll get to observe and participate in my 'impenitent condition' first hand. But don't bet money on it. The evidence of reality tells us we'll exit this life into the same condition that we entered it from.

---

I'm not reading the diatribe of an arrogant apostate snake. Promote the hell you came from and will return to on your own time.

I'm sure you're thoroughly and smugly self satisfied living your life as a satanic lackey and that you thoroughly resemble the liar that is your spiritual father.

---

Careful. Intolerance and ignorance may betray your claim to be a Christian.

---

That's amusing posturing coming from someone with a worldview more akin with a eugenicist such as Margaret Sanger and Josef Mangele than Christ.

Again, I'm not interested in a satanist's perspective of what they think a Christian should be.

Your lips are an asp's from the pit of hell.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

How do you define "deity?" A supernatural being?

---

If such basic concepts about the cosmos defy you then you aren't a Christian.

I ask because you use the words. What are the meaning of those words for you in that sentence? I am simply asking for clarity.

---

---

If you need clarity then you don't know what the words mean and you are not a Christian.

Jesus is God, that is Christianity, there is no other interpretation that is Biblical.

---

There's a great book on this topic "Jesus Becoming God" by Bart Ehrman if you are interested in how early Christians interpreted Jesus' divinity.

---

There is a great book in response to Bart Ehrman called "Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" You can get a copy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/MISREPRESENTING-JESUS-Debunking-Ehrmans-Misquoting/dp/1949586952/ref=asc_df_1949586952/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=525354630215&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16325647688311116044&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9026945&hvtargid=pla-944355780125&psc=1

---

Thank you for the recommendation! It's always good to get a balanced perspective - I'll add this one to my list

---

Be careful. I don't think Ehrman is fair and balanced

---

Ehrman is objective, which produces fairness. Balanced gives equal weight to error. Ehrman was once a fundamentalist evangelical.

---

Bart Ehrman is certainly not objective. His book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about his adherence to the theories of Westcott and Hort, but his list of textual scholars of the 19th Century completely omits John William Burgon (the leading textual scholar of his day), who demolished Westcott and Hort's textual theories.

---

Ehrman is far more objective than any apologist, who cannot defend mythology with objectivity. Distortion and harmonization doesn't demolish or objectively disprove anything. Textural criticism stands on its own. You can believe the evidence and accept it for what it is, or you can create scenarios for justification so that you can `choose to believe what you want to believe.

---

Ehrman isn't fair and balanced

---

His views are based upon objectivity and textual criticism. How is that unfair?

---

Volumes have been written refuting his interpretations. His earlier works have been proven false (new archeology) but he repeats the falsehoods.
Why do you care about scriptural interpretation? If you accept Ehrman's interpretation (and I don't believe for a moment you actually read it) you should care about the evidence refuting Ehrman

---

I don't think I'm familiar with what you are referring to, so I have no specific answer. I would caution you to be careful of blindly following an apologist with an agenda. I've found they have a tendency to misrepresent a view or position and evidence.

Are you talking about the Hobbly Lobby scandal?

---

I'm not sure about the archaeology - maybe p75? - but you could get a rousing debate going between Bart Ehrman and Bart Ehrman:

https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhman-refutes-ehrman/

Oldbear83 said:

---

This is a thread about Christianity, but TS defaults to a rant about Trump.

Take a step back, son, it's not always about Trump.

---

If you go back in the thread, you'll find that I made an observation about your comment on mixing, faith, politics, and religion. Following my observation, you're the one who first inserted Tump's name into the thread.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

all any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.

---

Thank you for your post! Seems like you have a very interesting path to get where you are haha.

I actually have been researching the topic of Jesus qualities in historical gods, and I agree with you: the virgin birth was taken from other stories/cultures:
HORUS
An Egyptian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

---

This list is completely wrong. None of the deities listed were traditionally born on December 25, and I don't know of any who were said to have been born of virgins.

A few examples of the blatant errors in the list: Buddha waa not considered a "god," was born into a wealthy family but no tradition ever says he was born of a virgin, and his birthday is celebrated in April or May (depending on the country).

Krishna was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva, of the Yadava clan in Mathura, but no tradition says Devaki was a virgin. His birthday is celebrated in August.

Zarathustra also is not a god but the founder of Zoroastrianism, which worships Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom. No tradition places his birthdate as December 25 or says he was born of a virgin - in fact, he had two older brothers.

---

Now now, don't let facts get in the way of his whimsical apostasy journey that he decided he needs an audience for.

And what is an apostate without their false equivalency and straw man claims?

---

Ursus Americanus, my favorite brother in Christ, that is too kind of you to say. You have brought an incredibly insightful perspective to this conversation - thank you.

---

Jacket, my cliche bore of a heretic, you're not fooling anyone.

The apostate playbook is a predictable yawn, the attempt to rebrand it as deconstruction isn't anymore inspiring than the more honest approach.

---

By your logic you have an apostate as your profile picture lol. Dave Aranda is an active reader of Richard Rohr, who teaches the Cosmic/Universal Christ theory - something that is about as progressive Christianity as you can get before hitting agnosticism.

Side note, Richard Rohr's Universal Christ is a great read.

---

Weak deflection from a weak mind.

Rooting for Aranda as a football coach has nothing to do with his reading list.

And yes, Richard Rohr is a pantheist heretic that denies the divinity of Christ or the existence of sin, little surprise you find him compelling.

He's along with Rachel Hollis and Jen Hatmaker are the chief purveyors of the Enneagram fad that dupes people looking for a mystic excuse to take a goofy personality test and pretend it means something.

---

Resulting to personal attacks on my mind? You radiate the love of Christ lol (plus dissing my intelligence is also a knock on Baylor… we need to find some common ground and keep that green & gold untarnished)

You sound like an intelligent and well spoken guy who is confident in your religious beliefs. I genuinely mean it when I say that's awesome.

---

You're defaming Christ and being called out as a heretic, if that's a personal affront to you then don't be a heretic.

Everything alleged about your cliche apostasy has been demonstrated by you in spades.

Apostates are such self important bores.

I'll root for Baylor sports with you but I won't pretend you're a compelling theologian with edifying perspectives on Christendom.

---

One "Christian's" heretic is another "Christian's" sage. It depends on what you believe about Christianity. I don't recall, in any version of Christianity, that it is Christlike to call someone names or otherwise insult them. Seems to me it call's into question such self professed adherent's authenticity.

---

A fool can call himself a Christian or a "deconstructionist" or any other disingenuous and asinine label they think will hoodwink an equally undiscerning fool.

I'm not interested in your non Christian interpretation of what is "Christ like" given you don't even know who He is.

---

I think I know him as well or better than you.

---

I pray not, I don't want to go to the Hell your tongue is from and soul appears bound for. And seeming your god is yourself, I suspect you do know him better.

Next time just tell me to go to Hell rather than posturing you're Christian.

Depart from me for I never knew you awaits your present impenitent condition.

---

I haven't promoted any hell from my tongue. All I've said, is that I used to be a devout, "saved", fundamentalist, evangelical, and that after taking an objective look at the evidence of reality, being honest with myself, I realized it was far better to accept reality, embrace it for what it is, and live my life to the fullest extent possible.

Of course, if you believe in the fundamentalist, evangelical concept of 'once saved, always saved', you'll get to observe and participate in my 'impenitent condition' first hand. But don't bet money on it. The evidence of reality tells us we'll exit this life into the same condition that we entered it from.

---

I'm not reading the diatribe of an arrogant apostate snake. Promote the hell you came from and will return to on your own time.

I'm sure you're thoroughly and smugly self satisfied living your life as a satanic lackey and that you thoroughly resemble the liar that is your spiritual father.

---

Careful. Intolerance and ignorance may betray your claim to be a Christian.

---

That's amusing posturing coming from someone with a worldview more akin with a eugenicist such as Margaret Sanger and Josef Mangele than Christ.

Again, I'm not interested in a satanist's perspective of what they think a Christian should be.

Your lips are are an asp's from the pit of hell.

---

Like I said….

You know, adherents to Islam share your same types of views. Have you ever considered the effects of being raised and living in a particualr culture on one's psyche and views of reality?

TexasScientist said:

---

Like I said….

You know, adherents to Islam share your same types of views. Have you ever considered the effects of being raised and living in a particualr culture on one's psyche and views of reality?

---

You do love the sound go your own voice, this is true. But it doesn't change the fact you're an apostate eugenicist that mistakes an asinine arrogance for intelligence and curiosity and consider yourself a "sage" for it.

And it is you who share much in common with Islam, since you think you can redefine Christ on your own terms as they do and be comfortable with that.

You're a really insipid cliche.

At least be a compelling troll and heretic, right now you're just a bore.

Have you considered that you're not a compelling and thoughtful scholar or anthropologist as you posture on the internet to be?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This is a thread about Christianity, but TS defaults to a rant about Trump.

Take a step back, son, it's not always about Trump.

---

If you go back in the thread, you'll find that I made an observation about your comment on mixing, faith, politics, and religion. Following my observation, you're the one who first inserted Tump's name into the thread.

---

I don't believe I made that error, but if I did, you did worse by deliberately repeating the move when you knew it was out of place.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure about the archaeology - maybe p75? - but you could get a rousing debate going between Bart Ehrman and Bart Ehrman:

https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhman-refutes-ehrman/

---

I'm somewhat familiar with this. As I recall. There was an attempt to misread/misinterpret Ehrman's views in an attempt to manufacture/create an erroneous conflict or controversy. Ehrman later made a lengthy explanation to address the misrepresentation. Basically, it centers around whether essential Christian beliefs are affected by textual variants. Metzger and Ehrman say no. Not because there are no contradictions, or questions, but because there is enough vagueness, ability to read into or to interpret implications into other text in order to argue for the point. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity. It's apparent that reference is not original in the text. If you exclude it, does that mean you can't find or combine other NT text in order to infer or argue a trinity? Ehrman says no. You can always read into something what may or may not be there. Ehrman poses the question, are there significant textual variants that call into question Christian doctrine? He says absolutely. If you threw those out, would that change any Christian doctrine. He says probably not, because of what I described above.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Like I said….

You know, adherents to Islam share your same types of views. Have you ever considered the effects of being raised and living in a particualr culture on one's psyche and views of reality?

---

You do love the sound go your own voice, this is true. But it doesn't change the fact you're an apostate eugenicist that mistakes an asinine arrogance for intelligence and curiosity and consider yourself a "sage" for it.

And it is you who share much in common with Islam, since you think you can redefine Christ on your own terms as they do and be comfortable with that.

You're a really insipid cliche.

At least be a compelling troll and heretic, right now you're just a bore.

Have you considered that you're not a compelling and thoughtful scholar or anthropologist as you posture on the internet to be?

---

First of all, you are misrepresenting what I believe and are bearing false witness against me. Something a real Christian is admonished not to do. I'm not a eugenicist, never have I endorsed the concept, and I don't believe in its merits. Maybe you should consider if Satan is directing your thoughts.

I haven't redefined Christ on any terms. Christians regularly do that. Ergo all of the various Christian sects and beliefs now and in the past, and the historic evolution of Christianity and various Christian beliefs.

I don't think there is a reliably consistent definition of who he was, or what he taught, outside of broad general statements. I just point out the obvious flaws and antilogy. Those are more than objectively compelling on their own.

Unquestionably following a cultural belief, or cult should be a concern for any society.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This is a thread about Christianity, but TS defaults to a rant about Trump.

Take a step back, son, it's not always about Trump.

---

If you go back in the thread, you'll find that I made an observation about your comment on mixing, faith, politics, and religion. Following my observation, you're the one who first inserted Tump's name into the thread.

---

I don't believe I made that error, but if I did, you did worse by deliberately repeating the move when you knew it was out of place.

---

Sigh.....

TexasScientist said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Like I said….

You know, adherents to Islam share your same types of views. Have you ever considered the effects of being raised and living in a particualr culture on one's psyche and views of reality?

---

You do love the sound go your own voice, this is true. But it doesn't change the fact you're an apostate eugenicist that mistakes an asinine arrogance for intelligence and curiosity and consider yourself a "sage" for it.

And it is you who share much in common with Islam, since you think you can redefine Christ on your own terms as they do and be comfortable with that.

You're a really insipid cliche.

At least be a compelling troll and heretic, right now you're just a bore.

Have you considered that you're not a compelling and thoughtful scholar or anthropologist as you posture on the internet to be?

---

First of all, you are misrepresenting what I believe and are bearing false witness against me. Something a real Christian is admonished not to do. I'm not a eugenicist, never have I endorsed the concept, and I don't believe in its merits. Maybe you should consider if Satan is directing your thoughts.

I haven't redefined Christ on any terms. Christians regularly do that. Ergo all of the various Christian sects and beliefs now and in the past, and the historic evolution of Christianity and various Christian beliefs.

I don't think there is a reliably consistent definition of who he was, or what he taught, outside of broad general statements. I just point out the obvious flaws and antilogy. Those are more than objectively compelling on their own.

Unquestionably following a cultural belief, or cult should be a concern for any society.

---

First of all you're a disingenuous hack, no amount of repeating yourself redeems the fact you're not just incorrect, but arrogantly stupid.

Second of all, I do not care what you have to say about much of anything as your presuppositional understanding of the world is eugenicist and satanic.

The fact you think you're an authority about any of the topics at hand proves you're anything but scientific, just a mindless ideologue with an internet connection.