Posts by JosephAlward

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

There is no first centruy extrabiblical evidence that the "Jesus" described in the gospels existed. The leading historian of that time, Josephus, said virtually nothing about this man. The author(s) of the book of "Mark" were either reporting traditional stories about Jesus, or else were manufacturing stories about Jesus. The source of the traditional tales, if that what they were, and the manufactured stories, if that's what they were, was the same: the Old Testament. Mark took stories about Moses, Elija, David, and the Lord and adapted them to fit "Jesus" to show his readers that Jesus was just as divine a figure as those in the Old Testament.

Matthew and Luke copied, for the most part, what Mark had written. I wouldn't assume that Matthew "lied" when he wrote his Jesus stories; he may have sincerely believed that the things he wrote *must* have happened,since they happened to the divine figures in the Old Testament.

Those who are interested in learning more about the origin of the gospel stories, and discovering why most religious scholars believe that the stories are fictional, may consult the many articles listed on the web page shown below.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

JosephAlward

If the author of the book of Matthew can be believed, Jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur. It would be before all of Jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of Israel. Since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that Matthew was wrong and that the Bible is in error.

Here is the evidence:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

"...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
(Matthew 24:29-34)

"...Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of Man be come." (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 10:23).

This is pretty clear. Jesus told his disciples that some of them would still be alive when the apocalypse comes, and that they'd better hurry to spread the word of its coming, because it would come even before they finish visiting all of the cities. Those disciples died about two thousand years ago. Thus, Matthew was about as wrong as he could be when he said that Jesus told the men standing before him that some of them would live to see the apocalypse.

If this story in Matthew cannot be believed, then why should we believe any of them?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

28

Is It Impossible for God to Lie?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that "...it is impossible for god to lie.." (hebrews 6:18).

however, if causing a person to believe something which is not the truth is a lie, then that is exactly what paul said god did:.

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the lord jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

JosephAlward

Pom's meltdown above reminds me of the 1960's Star Trek episode in which Spock deliberately fed the alien computer information which would not correlate with data in its memory banks. It kept repeating, "Does not compute, Does not compute,..." in increasingly frantic, but weaker, tones as it slowly wound itself down, started smoking, and went silent.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

28

Is It Impossible for God to Lie?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that "...it is impossible for god to lie.." (hebrews 6:18).

however, if causing a person to believe something which is not the truth is a lie, then that is exactly what paul said god did:.

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the lord jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

JosephAlward

Pom responds,

"For nothing [GOOD] is impossible with God."
The context is an old woman giving birth to a child.

Pom, you can't add words to a verse that God did not inspire his writer to put there. If God wanted his angel to tell us that it is impossible for God to do bad things, then God would have spelled that out for us. If you're arguing that the angel was making an incomplete statement,that he really wanted his readers to know that God could only do *good* things, why didn't he say that? How hard would it have been for God to have the angel say, "Nothing GOOD is impossible for God," if that's what God wanted us to know?

If Pom is right about the angel not saying exactly what the readers were meant to hear, and that we have to imagine an extra word ("good") squeezed into the sentence, then it's clear that Pom is admitting that this Bible verse is not literally true.

"Literally" means "word for word", exactly as it reads, not figuratively, not metaphorically, but exactly word for word what is written. The words say "For nothing is impossible with God," but, according to Pom we can't take these words literally; we have to add a word that is not there to get the "correct" meaning.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

28

Is It Impossible for God to Lie?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that "...it is impossible for god to lie.." (hebrews 6:18).

however, if causing a person to believe something which is not the truth is a lie, then that is exactly what paul said god did:.

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the lord jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

JosephAlward

Pom, are you going to offer your interpretation of the angel's comment to Elizabeth, or have you abandoned this thread?

Do you not think that the thrust of the angel's message to Elizabeth--and to all of the readers of the Bible--was that anything was possible with God? He could do anything, absolutely anything he wanted, and that included making a barren women pregnant?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

28

Is It Impossible for God to Lie?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that "...it is impossible for god to lie.." (hebrews 6:18).

however, if causing a person to believe something which is not the truth is a lie, then that is exactly what paul said god did:.

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the lord jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

JosephAlward

Pom disagrees with the notion that the Bible teaches that all things are possible with God. In response to the statement below, he wrote, "Disagree."

>>and with him all things are possible,<<

Disagree.

Thus, Pom thinks God's powers are limited; God can't do whatever he wants, and that includes lying. God does not have the power to lie, Pom says, and therefore it is not possible for him to lie.

I showed Pom the words of Matthew and Mark, but Pom doesn't think they mean that literally "all" things are possible for God. Pom says that Matthew's and Mark's statements must be taken in context, and that the claims of what is possible for God must be limited "to the context of WHO of man can be saved."

This is a strange personal theology. Is there anybody else in this forum--or even in the world who believes that the Bible does not teach that God can do anything he wants to do, that anything is possible for him in any context?

If Pom believes that "all things are possible for God" must be limited to the issue of salvation, then how does he explain the miraculous pregnancy of Elizabeth, and the inspired words the angel of God used to describe how it could happen that a barren woman could have a child:

35
The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God.
36
Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.
37
For nothing is impossible with God." (Luke 1:35-37)

Does Pom think that the angel was speaking in the context of salvation here, too? Does Pom think that the angel, speaking for God, didn’t want the readers to know that God could do anything, that anything was possible for God? Will Pom say that the angel meant only that it was possible for God to make any barren women pregnant?

I think any clear-thinking person will know that the angel was telling us that all--literally all things--were possible for God. If not, why not?

In summary, it is crystal clear that the Bible teaches that anything is possible with God--and it says so several times, and without any restrictions whatsoever. Will Pom still insist that the several references to “nothing is impossible with God” applies only to salvation--and perhaps, now, making barren women pregnant?

Stay tuned.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

28

Is It Impossible for God to Lie?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that "...it is impossible for god to lie.." (hebrews 6:18).

however, if causing a person to believe something which is not the truth is a lie, then that is exactly what paul said god did:.

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the lord jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

JosephAlward

I stopped reading Pom's recent responses to my list of questions after I read his response to the statement below. I will return to his other responses later, if we can get past the contradiction implied in Pom's answer below:

>>and with him all things are possible,<<

Pom's response: Disagree.

Alward's response:

Pom evidently doesn't believe that Matthew and Mark should be taken literally when they said, "...with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26), and, "...all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:27)

Now, let me guess what Pom's going to say. He's going to say that Matthew and Mark didn't really mean for us to believe that "all" meant literally all things; for instance, it is not possible for God to lie, Pom will assert. Well, if Matthew and Mark wanted their readers to know that they were excluding lying from the list of things which were possible for God to do, then why didn't they tell us that? They were--according to Pom--guided by God when they wrote those words, so God would have known that the chosen words were not expressing the literal truth, and the god wouldn't have allowed that; this is strong evidence that a god didn't guide the writing of those words.

Furthermore, if that was their intention--that we should mentally subtract lying from the "all" they spoke of, then it is obvious that what they wrote was not literally true. That's what most of my arguments have been about in my discussions of biblical errancy. The Bible, according to Pom, is the word of God; as such, one would expect it to contain no inadequacies, no imprecision, no contradictions. That is not the case here, clearly; Pom will say that Mark and Matthew didn't really mean it when they said "all"; well, if that's the case, Pom, why didn't God inspire them to say, "with God all things are possible except lying" ? At least then we could believe that their words could be taken literally; as they stand now, they cannot; thus the Bible is not literally true. If it's not literally true here, perhaps it is not literally true in its account of the resurrection.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

the author who called the deity god said the land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] god created man..[on] the sixth day (gen 1:12-13; 27).

however, the author who called the deity lord god said no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

JosephAlward

You see, Pom hasn't the slightest idea how his Bible was created. Anything he doesn't understand he attributes to an act of God.

Pom "knows" God appointed some men to supervise the selection of the texts which would be part of the Bible, but he doesn't know who these men were, or what rules they used to make their decisions.

Pom just assumes that God *must* have chosen these men and given them the inspiration they needed to make the correct decisions. In other words, Pom just *wants* to believe that good men followed good rules in selecting text for the Bible, but he has no evidence that this is what happened. How is he so certain that not one of the decisions reached by these men was wrong? Who told him that these men were inspired? God? The writers of the Bible? Who?

Thus, if one doesn't really know where the Bible came from, or who put it together, or the rules used to make it, how can one trust that every word in the Bible is the word of God? Does Pom just take the word of the Bible writers that they were telling the truth? (A hugely amusing parody of just such cicular-reasoning belief is found the the humorous story, "Kissing Hank's Ass," found in a thread of that title in this forum.)

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

28

Is It Impossible for God to Lie?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that "...it is impossible for god to lie.." (hebrews 6:18).

however, if causing a person to believe something which is not the truth is a lie, then that is exactly what paul said god did:.

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the lord jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

JosephAlward

Pom's reply certainly is quite defensive and windy. I think he thinks bluster and outrage will win the argument. Let me rephrase my argument in as simply as I can, so that he might better focus his energies on what's important.

I invite Pom to tell us whether he agrees or disagrees with the following statements. If he agrees with the statement, let him just say "I agree." If he disagrees, let him say "I disagree," and explain why he disagrees. I will agree to submit myself to the same type of questioning from him if he will do this for me, provided he responds in good faith.

Here are the statements:

1. God is all-powerful, and with him all things are possible, because the Bible says so.

2. Since God is all powerful, he had the power to impart the truth to the wicked.

3. Since God is all powerful, he also had the power to deepen the wicked's belief in a lie.

4. Pom said that God did "cause" the wicked's belief in a lie to deepen.

5. If one causes someone to believe even more deeply a lie, one has made the harder for the believer in the lie to recognize the lie and thus abandon it. This is true even if one is not the one who caused the original lie to be believed.

6. If someone deliberately does something which makes a lie easier to believe, then one is fostering a stronger belief in the lie, which is equivalent to lying.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

the author who called the deity god said the land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] god created man..[on] the sixth day (gen 1:12-13; 27).

however, the author who called the deity lord god said no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

JosephAlward

Cut and pasted from the previous post:

-------------------
"I suspect that Pom doesn't have the slightest idea who did the selection of the canonical texts, nor does can he explain how he knows those men were guided by God in their selections. If Pom *does* know, I'm sure there are others on this list who would love to know what Pom thinks he knows."
-------------------

Pom's had four days to take the bait, but so far there's been not a nibble. I guess I was right; Pom doesn't have any idea how the men who selected the canonical texts decided which ones were the word of God, and which ones weren't, so I wonder how he knows that every word in the Bible comes from God if he doesn't even know who the men were who selected those words.

On a separate matter raised in this thread:

I've earlier observed that in the creation stories in Genesis One and Two the deity is called it "God" 35 times in a row without even once being called "LORD God," then suddenly, at the beginning of what some apologists think is a "summary," the name is changed to "LORD God," and is used nine times in a row without a single reference to the earlier name.

Pom attempted an explanation which could politely be described as cryptic:

Genesis 1 - 2:4a, through the eyes of Bad
Genesis 2:4b - 2:25, through the eyes of Good

Pom, what are you talking about here? What is bad and good? After you've explained this, will you please tell us if any denomination in the world shares your view?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html