jakejonesiv

This is all question begging and circular reasoning. You are not going to get where you want to go (salvation by faith in Jesus) by logic of any means. You must have faith, which is the belief in things unseen. Gamera, you are right, if there was any evidence, it wouldn't be faith.

It all depends on subjective feeling (a warm swelling sensation in the belly perhaps when you think of Jesus nailed to the tree? It is indeed a powerful iconic image). As long as you do not attempt to prove your faith by scientific or historical means, we can have no disagreement. The Jesus of faith can be viewed, and even worshipped :notworthy: without regard to the question of the Historical Jesus.

Indeed, the Jesus of the Church (JF, the Jesus of Faith) is completely at odds with the Historical jesus' conceived by Liberal Protestantism. Here you find a failed preacher (who perhaps spouted some moral aphorisms) stripped of every shred of divinity, who got himself killed and his followers hallucinated the resurrection. That is your best case HJ.

The Jesus argued for by such believers as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel is the Jesus of Faith, not the Historical Jesus of so called "Quest". That is why their efforts fail so miserably in the realm of historical inquiry. You can't prove the resurrection without retreating to the supernatural. :snooze:

But the Jesus Myth is much more aligned with the Jesus of faith than the alleged Historical Jesus. The Mythical Jesus, like the Jesus of Faith, is never deemed a failure. His mission is a complete success. He is killed, risen, and ransoms the chosen in myth. There are no historical or scientific issues to deal with. (If you think myths aren't meaningful, then you need to read Joseph Campbell).

Gamera, if Jesus had never trod the earth or been seen by human eye, would you still believe?

Jake Jones IV

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, you are representing God’s position, and your position, not mine. While God is willing that some will perish, (I actually agree with you that that is the case. I have just been arguing, along with the majority of the Christians, that some Scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish.), and while God endorses unmerciful eternal without parole, I am not willing that anyone perish without having the opportunity to know the truth, and I do not endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

The lack of a provable contradiction that meets your satisfaction most certainly does not mean that the Bible is inerrant. Millions of Christians believe that the Bible is not inerrant. Is it your position that those people are not going to heaven?

That is false. As I have said on numerous occasions in many threads at three forums, the real issue comes back to whether or not rational minded and fair minded people are able to will themselves to accept a God’s whose character is questionable.

If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being who he would accept if he knew that the being exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, but are uncertain that the God of the Bible exists. You obviously do not have any problems loving a God who opposes people not for what they know, but for what he says they OUGHT to know. You obviously do not know the difference between IGNORANCE of a truth that is UNKNOWN, and REJECTION of the truth that is KNOWN.

Lest you claim that if Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, no one would become a Christian who was not previously convinced, I will tell you that modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods.

Humans place great importance on physical health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. There is great rejoicing among everyone, including Christians, when preventions and cures for diseases are discovered. ANY being who healed all of the sick people in the world, whether a human being, an alien, or a God, would be greatly appreciated. Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in copies of ancient records. Helping people in TANGIBLE ways, not just in SPIRITUAL ways, helps to gain their trust and confidence that you have their best interests at heart. As it is, Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed. Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, great fear spread among the people. It is much too much of a coincidence that the issue was over money and not something else. The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people. Hypocrisy is sufficient ground to reject any being. If God has no interest in keeping his own rules, he should not expect rational minded and fair minded people to love a being who is a hypocrite. If God wishes to punish rational minded and fair minded people for refusing to accept his numerous detestable actions and allowances, that is his choice, but rational minded and fair minded people do not have any choice in the matter. If God has the right to be a hypocrite, then he also has the right to be a liar, right?

If you can convince me that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, or allowing people to be injured and killed in hurricanes, and refusing to clearly tell people that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women are wrong, are in any way beneficial to God, and to mankind as a whole, I might be willing to become a Christian.

I am only interested in accepting a God who will look out for MY best interests, and EVERYONE ELSE’S best interests, not HIS OWN best interests. In the U.S., we believe in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You believe in a government of God, by God, and for God. Such a government is arbitrary, tyrannical, and dictatorial.

Some non-Christians are more loving, kind, generous, and forgiving than the typical Christian is. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving God if they knew that he exists.

It is interesting to note that God is much less willing or able to choose the elect from Muslim countries than from countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. This is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. When mere humans can frequently determine where God is able to choose the elect, there is a rat in the woodpile somewhere.

Julian

οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι

That is the NA27 version of the Greek for 2 Peter 3:9. Directly translated it goes like this, in bad but grammatically clear English:

οὐ βραδύνει κύριος
Not slow (refers to Lord) [the] Lord (Nominative, i.e. subject of clause along with the following genitive)

τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται
the promise (in genitive singular, could be read as promise of the lord) as some (i.e. people, here in plural) slowness (accusative, object of consider) consider

ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι
but forbearing to (or into, read toards) you (plural accusative) not wishing some (i.e. people, again in plural) to be ruined (aorist infinitive)

ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι
but all to (or into) repentance hold (aorist infinitive)

Hope this helps. One thing to note is the use of aorist infinitives which is the clearest way of expressing no method or time. Basically, how you are ruined or come to hold repentance is not spoken of in this verse nor is it implied, it reads like you are responsible for either all on your own. A very curious grammatical choice, I think. A form that was not aorist or infinitive could have been used to portray the promise in action by showing action on the part of the Lord. Just an observation...

Julian

Johnny Skeptic

Are you proposing the the "minority rules" defense is great? An important issue here is whether or not the Bible is inerrant. Logically, the Bible is not inerrant merely because it claims that it is inerrant, and because no provable contradictions have been discovered in the opinions of Christians. In your opinion, can a person be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant? If a person can be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not necessary for us to discuss 2 Peter 3:9, or any Scriptures that mention predestination. If it is not possible for a person to be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, where is your proof?

Before we go any further, please give us your definition of Biblical inerrancy.

In order for you to claim that the Bible is inerrant, you have to reasonably prove which writings originally comprised the Bible, and that the writings that originally comprised the Old Testament and the New Testament were chosen by God, not voted on by men according to their own artibrary opinions.

rhutchin

Nope. Credibility is not determined by either a majority or minority vote. Credibility is determined by the facts. An argument that is consistent with the facts is credible.

rhutchin

Not really. A claim for inerrancy makes it much more difficult for me does it not. Why would you care if I do that? Seems like that would work to your advantage. Regardless, the claim may be true or false. However, if the Bible is not inerrant, why should anyone really care what it says? It is only if the Bible is inerrant that we should care what it says, so let's make the claim and let the Bible live or die by what it says.

Let's go with the OT and NT books as comprising the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: What is your definition for inerrancy?

No, let's not. In your opinion, can a person be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant? If a person can be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not necessary for us to discuss 2 Peter 3:9, or any Scriptures that mention predestination. If it is not possible for a person to be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, where is your proof? Why is it not reasonably possible that parts of the Bible are true, parts are false, and some parts have been changed? Millions of Christians believe that that is the case.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that the elect will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, you are representing God’s position, and your position, not mine. While God is willing that some will perish, (I actually agree with you that that is the case. I have just been arguing, along with the majority of the Christians, that some Scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish.), and while God endorses unmerciful eternal without parole, I am not willing that anyone perish without having the opportunity to know the truth, and I do not endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

The lack of a provable contradiction that meets your satisfaction most certainly does not mean that the Bible is inerrant. Plenty of murderers have been set free even though there testimonies were errant. Millions of Christians believe that the Bible is not inerrant. Is it your position that those people are not going to heaven?

It most certainly is not up to skeptics to reasonably disprove inerrancy. Rather, it is up to Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant to reasonably prove that the Bible is inerrant. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to trust the Bible. No intelligent, moral being would needlessly inspire the writing of a book as confusing as the Bible is. For the better part of 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. Now whose fault was that? Aren't Christians supposed to get wisdom when they ask God for it?

That is false. As I have said on numerous occasions in many threads at three forums, the real issue comes back to whether or not rational minded and fair minded people are able to will themselves to accept a God’s whose character is questionable.

If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being who he would accept if he knew that the being exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, but are uncertain that the God of the Bible exists. You obviously do not have any problems loving a God who opposes people not for what they know, but for what he says they OUGHT to know. You obviously do not know the difference between IGNORANCE of a truth that is UNKNOWN, and REJECTION of the truth that is KNOWN.

Lest you claim that if Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, no one would become a Christian who was not previously convinced, I will tell you that modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods.

Humans place great importance on physical health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. There is great rejoicing among everyone, including Christians, when preventions and cures for diseases are discovered. ANY being who healed all of the sick people in the world, whether a human being, an alien, or a God, would be greatly appreciated. Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in copies of ancient records. Helping people in TANGIBLE ways, not just in SPIRITUAL ways, helps to gain their trust and confidence that you have their best interests at heart. As it is, Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed. Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, great fear spread among the people. It is much too much of a coincidence that the issue was over money and not something else. The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people. Hypocrisy is sufficient ground to reject any being. If God has no interest in keeping his own rules, he should not expect rational minded and fair minded people to love a being who is a hypocrite. If God wishes to punish rational minded and fair minded people for refusing to accept his numerous detestable actions and allowances, that is his choice, but rational minded and fair minded people do not have any choice in the matter. If God has the right to be a hypocrite, then he also has the right to be a liar, right?

If you can convince me that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, or allowing people to be injured and killed in hurricanes, and refusing to clearly tell people that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women are wrong, are in any way beneficial to God, and to mankind as a whole, I might be willing to become a Christian.

I am only interested in accepting a God who will look out for MY best interests, and EVERYONE ELSE’S best interests, not HIS OWN best interests. In the U.S., we believe in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You believe in a government of God, by God, and for God. Such a government is arbitrary, tyrannical, and dictatorial.

Some non-Christians are more loving, kind, generous, and forgiving than the typical Christian is. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving God if they knew that he exists.

It is interesting to note that God is much less willing or able to choose the elect from Muslim countries than from countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. This is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. When mere humans can frequently determine where God is able to choose the elect, there is a rat in the woodpile somewhere.

rhutchin

Or to take it one step further and make sense of the translation.

οὐ βραδύνει κύριος

[The] Lord (kurios) is not slow...

τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται

...in providing that which He promised... (to His elect as explained by Peter earlier in the chapter)

ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι

...but (ALLA) is longsuffering towards you (hUMAS) (His elect) [because the Lord is] not willing (ME BOULOMENOS) that any of you (His elect) perish...

ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι

...but (ALLA) [instead of perishing] that all of you (His elect) come to repentence.

Johnny Skeptic

But what if the writer of 2 Peter 3:9 was speaking for himself and not for God? In your opinion, can a person be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant? If a person can be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not necessary for us to discuss 2 Peter 3:9, or any Scriptures that mention predestination. If it is not possible for a person to be a Christian and believe that the Bible is not inerrant, where is your proof? Why is it not reasonably possible that parts of the Bible are true, and parts are false? Millions of Christians believe that that is the case. In court trials, if a witness is caught telling a lie, that never means that everything else that he claims is automatically considered to be a lie.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that the elect will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.