bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

I believe I have already answered you. I am not concerned with those questions.

However, let's review. You are more interested in finding out if I am an apostate or heretic than telling me how to love God?

Jesus commanded us to love God. You are concerned the love I talk about is not from God. So...how do you love God? I am not trying to trick you. I am genuinely curious.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

bearhouse said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

---

Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

I believe I have already answered you. I am not concerned with those questions.

However, let's review. You are more interested in finding out if I am an apostate or heretic than telling me how to love God?

Jesus commanded us to love God. You are concerned the love I talk about is not from God. So...how do you love God? I am not trying to trick you. I am genuinely curious.

---

You aren't concerned about whether God is the Creator God or not? Or whether or not Jesus was raised bodily, as the gospels proclaim?

No Christian would ever say that. None would ever shirk or disregard as unimportant the acknowledgement of God as the Creator. It is a fundamental, defining element to who He is. Nor would they ever disregard as unimportant the question of Jesus being raised in body. Oh, no, that's not important. It's just the central, foundational belief in Christianity. These are not things a Christian can be indifferent about. You are withholding the praise, glory, and honor that is due God and Jesus. If you want to know how NOT to love God with all your heart, that's exactly how.

It leads me to have to ask- what do you believe about God as the Creator and Jesus being raised bodily? Are you just holding back, in order to accomodate the beliefs of people like Waco47, out of "love"? If you are, then this is what I mean by loving others before loving God.

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
I Corinthians 1
Jesus nor Paul ask you about the historicity of the events of the gospel. They ask you for faith. We walk by faith.

Waco1947 said:

---

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
I Corinthians 1
Jesus nor Paul ask you about the historicity of the events of the gospel. They ask you for faith. We walk by faith.

---

Correct, Paul preaches the crucifixion of Christ, a historical event. This is made even more clear in chapter 15, where he talks about "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

Paul is saying that these events actually happened, and here are people who saw it, so you can go ask them. Not some ethereal appeal to faith or "just believe me and me alone."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

It's a matter of fact vs. fiction. You have no credible facts or evidence to support your views. I haven't changed my argument. As I recall, you're the one who jumped over to Paul. We were talking about the Gospels. The fact is, they were not written by anyone who was a first or even second hand witness, and they conflict with each other, and with known history. The Bible is a compilation of separate theological stories, with internal contradictions and conflicts with known history. The claims of Paul and his message is different (from what Paul says) from the what presumably was the message of Peter and the early Jewish Christians who, presumably, hung out with Jesus. Why do to think Paul's testimony is any more reliable than Joseph Smith's testimony? Paul's version happened to win out over other early versions in the early church, because Rome eventually adopted it as the state religion. Who knows, a thousand years from now, the Mormon Church may be the mainstream or the dominant Christian denomination.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
I Corinthians 1
Jesus nor Paul ask you about the historicity of the events of the gospel. They ask you for faith. We walk by faith.

---

Correct, Paul preaches the crucifixion of Christ, a historical event.
This is made even more clear in chapter 15, where he talks about "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

Paul is saying that these events actually happened, and here are people who saw it, so you can go ask them. Not some ethereal appeal to faith or "just believe me and me alone."

---

I never claimed the resurrection was "ethereal." That's your straw man. Of course to Paul and to me the crucifixion is a historical event.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

It's a matter of fact vs. fiction. You have no credible facts or evidence to support your views. I haven't changed my argument. As I recall, you're the one who jumped over to Paul. We were talking about the Gospels. The fact is, they were not written by anyone who was a first or even second hand witness, and they conflict with each other, and with known history. The Bible is a compilation of separate theological stories, with internal contradictions and conflicts with known history. The claims of Paul and his message is different (from what Paul says) from the what presumably was the message of Peter and the early Jewish Christians who, presumably, hung out with Jesus. Why do to think Paul's testimony is any more reliable than Joseph Smith's testimony? Paul's version happened to win out over other early versions in the early church, because Rome eventually adopted it as the state religion. Who knows, a thousand years from now, the Mormon Church may be the mainstream or the dominant Christian denomination.

---

In Paul, we have a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who directly met and communicated with those disciples, who is the indisputable author of texts which corroborate the central claim of Christianity as proclaimed in the Gospels, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, being a witness of the raised Jesus himself.

You can flail, squirm, shout at the sky, appeal to authority, etc all you want. You can choose not to believe Paul's testimony. But what you can't do, and can't ever do, is debunk the above.

And that hurts you deeply. Because you know that Christians have real, valid, and reliable reasons to believe, despite all your desperate attempts to nullify them.

---

No, not really. Paul may have been a contemporary but that means nothing. He never met Jesus before he was crucified. His claim is to a vision, or hallucinations. He claims to have met with James and others in Jerusalem. There is no other evidence beyond his claims. His version of Christianity is different from that of Peter and the other Christian Jews living in Jerusalem.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.

Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

It's a matter of fact vs. fiction. You have no credible facts or evidence to support your views. I haven't changed my argument. As I recall, you're the one who jumped over to Paul. We were talking about the Gospels. The fact is, they were not written by anyone who was a first or even second hand witness, and they conflict with each other, and with known history. The Bible is a compilation of separate theological stories, with internal contradictions and conflicts with known history. The claims of Paul and his message is different (from what Paul says) from the what presumably was the message of Peter and the early Jewish Christians who, presumably, hung out with Jesus. Why do to think Paul's testimony is any more reliable than Joseph Smith's testimony? Paul's version happened to win out over other early versions in the early church, because Rome eventually adopted it as the state religion. Who knows, a thousand years from now, the Mormon Church may be the mainstream or the dominant Christian denomination.

---

In Paul, we have a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who directly met and communicated with those disciples, who is the indisputable author of texts which corroborate the central claim of Christianity as proclaimed in the Gospels, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, being a witness of the raised Jesus himself.

You can flail, squirm, shout at the sky, appeal to authority, etc all you want. You can choose not to believe Paul's testimony. But what you can't do, and can't ever do, is debunk the above.

And that hurts you deeply. Because you know that Christians have real, valid, and reliable reasons to believe, despite all your desperate attempts to nullify them.

---

No, not really. Paul may have been a contemporary but that means nothing. He never met Jesus before he was crucified. His claim is to a vision, or hallucinations. He claims to have met with James and others in Jerusalem. There is no other evidence beyond his claims. His version of Christianity is different from that of Peter and the other Christian Jews living in Jerusalem.

---

Yep, see how you went from "unknown authors" and "embellished story", to "well, yeah there was a known author and it wasn't embellished...but...but.. he was unreliable..."?

'Cause we do. Everyone here does.

Credibility (whatever's left of it) - gone. Desperation noted.

Give it up, hack.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.

Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?

---

TS has a field ?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

It's a matter of fact vs. fiction. You have no credible facts or evidence to support your views. I haven't changed my argument. As I recall, you're the one who jumped over to Paul. We were talking about the Gospels. The fact is, they were not written by anyone who was a first or even second hand witness, and they conflict with each other, and with known history. The Bible is a compilation of separate theological stories, with internal contradictions and conflicts with known history. The claims of Paul and his message is different (from what Paul says) from the what presumably was the message of Peter and the early Jewish Christians who, presumably, hung out with Jesus. Why do to think Paul's testimony is any more reliable than Joseph Smith's testimony? Paul's version happened to win out over other early versions in the early church, because Rome eventually adopted it as the state religion. Who knows, a thousand years from now, the Mormon Church may be the mainstream or the dominant Christian denomination.

---

In Paul, we have a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who directly met and communicated with those disciples, who is the indisputable author of texts which corroborate the central claim of Christianity as proclaimed in the Gospels, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, being a witness of the raised Jesus himself.

You can flail, squirm, shout at the sky, appeal to authority, etc all you want. You can choose not to believe Paul's testimony. But what you can't do, and can't ever do, is debunk the above.

And that hurts you deeply. Because you know that Christians have real, valid, and reliable reasons to believe, despite all your desperate attempts to nullify them.

---

No, not really. Paul may have been a contemporary but that means nothing. He never met Jesus before he was crucified. His claim is to a vision, or hallucinations. He claims to have met with James and others in Jerusalem. There is no other evidence beyond his claims. His version of Christianity is different from that of Peter and the other Christian Jews living in Jerusalem.

---

Yep, see how you went from "unknown authors" and "embellished story", to "well, yeah there was a known author and it wasn't embellished...but...but.. he was unreliable..."?

'Cause we do. Everyone here does.

Credibility (whatever's left of it) - gone. Desperation noted.

Give it up, hack.

---

We're talking about Paul now, not the Gospels (unknown authors). I've always acknowledged Paul wrote some of his letters. Others he did not. But for discussing with you, I haven't challenged the letters most believe Paul did not right. For the sake of discussion with you, I gave you the benefit of what is not so doubtful.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.

Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?

---

No, but how you approach reading the separate and distinct Gospels has everything to do with objectivity in accepting them for what they say, each standing on their own. Harmonizing is not objectivity. It is looking for a way to confirm what you already want to believe. The differences are stark when you read them objectively.

When I was an evangelical fundamentalist, I used to try and interpret, rationalize, and harmonize various passages so that they conformed in my reasoning to what I was taught to believe. Once I stopped that, and read each one for what it says, on its own merits, and accepted them for what they are, the contradictions, errors, and conflicts are more than obvious.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.

---

Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.

Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?

---

No, but how you approach reading the separate and distinct Gospels has everything to do with objectivity in accepting them for what they say, each standing on their own. Harmonizing is not objectivity. It is looking for a way to confirm what you already want to believe. The differences are stark when you read them objectively.

When I was an evangelical fundamentalist

---

Yeah…….there is an interesting piece of the puzzle

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.

---

Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?

---

1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.

2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

I believe I have already answered you. I am not concerned with those questions.

However, let's review. You are more interested in finding out if I am an apostate or heretic than telling me how to love God?

Jesus commanded us to love God. You are concerned the love I talk about is not from God. So...how do you love God? I am not trying to trick you. I am genuinely curious.

---

You aren't concerned about whether God is the Creator God or not? Or whether or not Jesus was raised bodily, as the gospels proclaim?

No Christian would ever say that. None would ever shirk or disregard as unimportant the acknowledgement of God as the Creator. It is a fundamental, defining element to who He is. Nor would they ever disregard as unimportant the question of Jesus being raised in body. Oh, no, that's not important. It's just the central, foundational belief in Christianity. These are not things a Christian can be indifferent about. You are withholding the praise, glory, and honor that is due God and Jesus. If you want to know how NOT to love God with all your heart, that's exactly how.

It leads me to have to ask- what do you believe about God as the Creator and Jesus being raised bodily? Are you just holding back, in order to accomodate the beliefs of people like Waco47, out of "love"? If you are, then this is what I mean by loving others before loving God.

---

Honestly, I think you just like to argue.

I like to challenge, especially that which is false. If you think I'm wrong about what is false, then engage and state your case. Or, you can just keep avoiding answering questions, thus bolstering my case.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?

---

Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.

And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).

So give it up. You lose.

---

It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.

---

If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.

Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.

But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.

---

Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.

---

Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.

---

Others who are not objective in their approach.

---

Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.

---

Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?

---

The problem is your objectivity or lack thereof.

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

---

Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.

---

I liked that part where Jesus called them "blind guides" and "white washed tombs." No, it was not just that they were hypocrites. They did not know God. They knew rules (that they did not follow). But they had no idea what the rules pointed to. It was not just that they were hypocrites. They were doctrinally wrong. There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding.

Now, applying that love to various life situations and people? That is hard.

bearhouse said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

---

Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.

---

I liked that part where Jesus called them "blind guides" and "white washed tombs." No, it was not just that they were hypocrites. They did not know God. They knew rules (that they did not follow). But they had no idea what the rules pointed to. It was not just that they were hypocrites. They were doctrinally wrong. There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding.

Now, applying that love to various life situations and people? That is hard.

---

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."


Matthew 23:1-3

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

---

Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.

---

I liked that part where Jesus called them "blind guides" and "white washed tombs." No, it was not just that they were hypocrites. They did not know God. They knew rules (that they did not follow). But they had no idea what the rules pointed to. It was not just that they were hypocrites. They were doctrinally wrong. There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding.

Now, applying that love to various life situations and people? That is hard.

---

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."


Matthew 23:1-3

---

Yes. You proof texted from a few verses. We can do this back and forth all day. If your reading of the gospels is that the pharisee's had sound doctrine, I don't know what to tell you.

bearhouse said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

---

Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.

---

I liked that part where Jesus called them "blind guides" and "white washed tombs." No, it was not just that they were hypocrites. They did not know God. They knew rules (that they did not follow). But they had no idea what the rules pointed to. It was not just that they were hypocrites. They were doctrinally wrong. There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding.

Now, applying that love to various life situations and people? That is hard.

---

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."


Matthew 23:1-3

---

Yes. You proof texted from a few verses. We can do this back and forth all day. If your reading of the gospels is that the pharisee's had sound doctrine, I don't know what to tell you.

---

can you have sound doctrine between your ears but not in your heart, not living it?

bearhouse said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Love people. That's what He commanded.

Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?

---

are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?

---

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.

Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.

I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.

---

I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent

---

I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.

People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.

I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.

---

Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.

He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.

Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.

---

Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.

I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.

Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.

---

Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?

If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.

And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.

---

And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?

---

Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.

---

Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?

---

Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?

---

You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.

---

Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?

---

This is a great question!

And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"

Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!

I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.

Of course, I could be wrong...

---

Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.

---

I liked that part where Jesus called them "blind guides" and "white washed tombs." No, it was not just that they were hypocrites. They did not know God. They knew rules (that they did not follow). But they had no idea what the rules pointed to. It was not just that they were hypocrites. They were doctrinally wrong. There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding.

Now, applying that love to various life situations and people? That is hard.

---

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."


Matthew 23:1-3

---

Yes. You proof texted from a few verses. We can do this back and forth all day. If your reading of the gospels is that the pharisee's had sound doctrine, I don't know what to tell you.

---

You could start by telling me how I've misrepresented the context of the verses, if that's what you're implying. But if the way to loving God isn't through correct theology or unimportant arguments, why is it so important to argue that the Pharisees were theologically incorrect?