aChristian

Contact Jews for Jesus. There are lots of them. Of course the Jews who have reject the Messiah don't believe in the Trinity, but they haven't risen from the dead like Jesus did. He is more credible when discussing God.

johntheapostate

I knew it was only a matter of time before the free will defense would come up.

Show me the chapter and verse were the trinity is hinted to and then tell me why god would have decided to confuse the Jews and make it difficult for them to accept it. You keep protesting that the evidence for Christianity is compelling. I have 2000 years that say that your book and your savior are based on a delusion. Why don't you face the truth.

johntheapostate

aChristian writes about free will as if it is some unchallenged biblical fact. In fact predestination has better textual support than absolute free will.
In the book of Romans, Paul expresses the concept that human will is not the determining factor in their fate.

Romans 9:16 ' It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

It is interesting that Paul immediately follows his message of god's mercy with an illustration from scripture that depicts god's lack of mercy in the case of Pharaoh and his people

In Paul's mind it is it is critical that he convey to his readers that god was responsible for initiating all human behavior, good or bad. In fact in these passages he explicitly places the fate of Pharaoh directly after his assertion of the absolute sovereignty of the will of god over the actions of man

We have the assertion that it was god who initiated the actions that led to death and destruction in Egypt. We also are informed of the motive. God initiated the series of event in order to glorify himself in the eyes of the Israelites and of the whole world.

To further illustrate that it was this he intended to convey, Paul adds the passage which show god taking ownership over the actions of men.

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"

Paul shows that god does this only on the basis of his good pleasure, and to enforce that this is the case he anticipates and answers the objection that would only arise if this was so.

" One of you will say to me, Then why does god still blame us? For who resists his will"

This is a question that confirms Paul's intended message. For by his choice of words Paul affirms that yes he is intending that we are to understand that he believes that god will judge us for actions that god himself initiated.
And here we have the crux of the predestination answer to those who insist we must have free will and through this we are able to act in ways contrary to gods will and by which he is justified in imposing condemnation.

One can simply understand that even in those cases where it appears a choice is given and condemnation and punishment are the result, god is still the initiator of those actions.

In his choice of words " Why does he still blame US " Paul shows that he considers everyone to be subject to the doctrine he has just outlined and not just historical figures such as Pharaoh

To any reasonable person a god such as this has no basis in logic and reasonable behavior and we would expect some form of justification for this behavior. Paul supplies the answer to the objection .

" But who are you O man to talk back to god? shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this?"

Again Paul enforces his intended message. We are the product in every way, positive and negative of the intent of god. Paul reinforces his doctrine in the next passages.

" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use"

Again in his choice of words Paul hammers home his doctrine. In the form of question Paul explicitly defines the role of man and his destiny as having the same relationship as a lump of clay to a potter. To further enforce his point that we have no more influence over our destiny than an inanimate object Paul continues.

What if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction"

Here Paul clearly defines the reprobate as no more than an object, not preparing himself for destruction, but being prepared by god for destruction.

But why would God do such a thing? Paul could again have answered that we do not have the right to question the motives of god. But as a concession to his readers and a revelation of his personal belief, he elaborates further.

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us whom he also called."

And in this passage Paul reveals the justification for all god's actions. In the same way as the reprobate is an object prepared for destruction, the elect is simply an object of mercy prepared for glory. Both objects inherit there fate as a matter of god's good pleasure. And in the same way as god brought death and destruction on to the Egyptians in order that he might be glorified in the eyes of the Israelites and the world, he will also inflict eternal damnation on the reprobate so that he may be glorified in the eyes of the elect in that in comparison to the suffering of the damned the elect may be made aware of gods great mercy to them that received there blessing only at gods discretion and not on any merit in themselves. "

johntheapostate

Many Christians insist that everyone can freely choose salvation by accepting Christ. I am going to show that this is not necessarily true according to some interpretations of scripture.

John 14: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains in him"

Here we have testimony that Jesus is the only path to salvation and we can see that in the choice of words "Gods wrath remains in him" that the condemnation of the individual is a preexisting condition as the wrath was not a result of the rejection but simply remains in him due to his rejection of Jesus.

John 6:40 "For my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

My father was fond of this verse and used it to impress on me the free nature of salvation. He chose to ignore the testimony of the author of John only a few verses down.

John 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day"

Some would argue that God has drawn everybody, but this is a very weak argument in the context of the verse For shortly afterward Jesus again formulates the same concept to explain his betrayal by Judas.

John 6:64-65 " For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

Here the text specifically links unbelief to the concept that God had made belief impossible by withholding the enabling that had made it possible for the other disciples to believe.

John 8:47 " He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God"

Jesus had just gone on a fairly extended rant denouncing his countrymen as children of the devil etc and here he also specifies the reason that they reject him. They simply are those whom God has not extended the ability to believe.

So an argument could be made that God has extended the ability for some people to accept or reject Christ but certainly not the ability of everyone to do so on the basis of free will. and even that is a weak argument considering that Jesus insisted that everyone the Father would give him would come to him and would not be lost.
John 6:37 " All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"



These verses hit hard at the concept of free will as far as the most important decision any person could make if in fact the New Testament is true. The decision on which rests the fate of ones eternal destiny. We could have perfect free will in all areas of life but it would be of zero value if the ability to reject or accept salvation rest on the good pleasure of gods will.


It is very important to some people that this be denied at all costs. For in their belief in the free will to accept or reject Christ rests there justification for infant salvation.

They just cant bear the thought of deceased infants suffering in agony for an eternity in hell. They subordinate the concept of original sin and make a conscious act of rejection of Christ the determining factor in the damnation of the individual.


They insist that because the infant has not consciously rejected Christ he has automatic entrance into heaven.

They choose to ignore the testimony of the author of John which states that the wrath of God was a preexisting condition and that eternal life is dependent on a conscious act of belief on the part of the believer and this is only achieved by god enabling the person to do so.

The logical conclusion would be that as part of that enabling god would also have granted the infant the ability to live to an age where such a decision could be made.

rlogan

I suppose eventually we could get back to examining the passages in the Bible that purport to be "eyewitness testimony"?

Or have we exhausted all of those claims? As I recall, I thought aChristian indicated there were a bunch more of them, but I'm still waiting on the specific citations so that we can inspect what they actually say.

So far we've got one "collective" witness to "God" saying that Jesus was his son.

The problem is that they did not ask for proper identification when "God" spoke. How do they know it was God? Hmmm?

Dirac_Delta

There's no such thing as "free will" in the first place. Every conceivable event must be either caused or random what leaves no space to the cherished concept of "free will" (it's concept void of significance like soul or god, etc.)

aChristian

You misunderstood what I said, maybe because the paragraph break didn't show up. I was saying the gospels were written soon after the resurrection. I agree that the apostles didn't preach until 50 days after the resurrection.

In an article I read, at a conference, the author was surprised at how many scholars were leaning favorably toward the theory that the manuscript was a fragment of Mark. It has been dated at 45 AD, I think on paleographic grounds.

I am unaware of any that had knowledge of the events that could present a reasonable arguement against the resurrection, or the miracles the disciples were performing for that matter.

I don't think you really believe this. You know people you can trust and people that you cannot. Same thing in history.

Only one writer deemed it necessary to include it. So what? This is one of the worst arguements against the gospels that I have read, and I read it a lot by the liberal scholars.
You may not think the Romans would take it seriously enough, but they were obviously concerned with Jewish uprisings, and besides, Matthew was around at the time it happened and so I think his report is more credible than your guess at what was in the minds of the Romans.
Why were the Jews claiming the body was stolen? Why didn't they go get the body if it was there. If the disciples stole it, why did they undergo persecution and often death for a lie that they knew was a lie? It makes more sense that they stuck to their story because they believed it. Why are there no credible alternative accounts by the non-Christians who were alive at the time. All we have are the Jews saying Jesus did miracles by Satan's power and the Christians reporting the story the Jews made up, which story apparently didn't sound convincing enough to record anywhere else.

The Bible indicates that both the Jewish authorities and the bribed Roman authorities knew right away.

It doesn't specify how much he believed. It is only certain that he believed the women's story that the tomb was empty at that point. That of course would raise a number of questions in his mind.

It doesn't ignore the decay. The tomb was new and should have been empty if Jesus' body wasn't in it. The Romans and the Jews knew where to send the guards. Joseph of Arimathea was well know and I am sure there were records of the purchase of the tomb. Are you saying that the Romans and Jews could not have located the tomb? Not credible. Are you saying the disciples stole the body and went through persecution for a lie? Not credible.

The story wasn't true. It was the only lame excuse the Jews could come up with to explain the resurrection.

The point is the Christians were persecuted as Jesus had forewarned them. All they had to do was deny Christ to avoid it. However, they didn't deny him because they knew he was God because they had been with him after the crucifixion and resurrection and more than 500 of them saw him ascend into heaven.

johntheapostate

And how do we know if god was telling the truth?

2 Chronicles 18:18-23 " I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there? One suggested this and another that. Finally a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, I will entice him. By what means? the Lord asked. I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets, he said. You will succeed in enticing him, said the Lord. Go and do it. so now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.

Maybe Jesus was actually a lying spirit sent to deceive the gullible.

aChristian

Clarification. The story about the disciples stealing the body wasn't true. The bribe was true. Bribes work now and they worked back then.
.[/QUOTE]

aChristian

Your comments about 1 John 1:1-4 don't make sense. It is obvious from the passage that he (along with the rest of the early disciples) is claiming to have seen, touched, heard, etc. the one who claimed to be the Almighty God who was from the beginning.