The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons. You invent condradiction where none exists.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Option (d): The references to the Godhead as 3, and the references to the Godhead as 1 are equally literal. Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons.

Okay, option D then. But it is hard to support option D in opposition to C or B, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You invent condradiction where none exists.

Lol, I actually believe the contradictions in the Bible to be mostly paradigms (I though you could tell from the way I worded possibilities B and C). But I generally include any opinions that have reasonable support, which is why I just accepted your "possibility D" as a possibility.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Please do not presume to discern what I know. I did not know why you cited John 4:16, and did not assume you meant John 14:6. I avoid making assumptions; they usually get me in trouble.

In answer to your question: What is a person who has never heard of Jesus supposed to do?

Answer: Die. The unavoidable destiny of all unforgiven sinners is hell.

Why would God in His infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man that never gives Him a chance?

Answer: Because He wanted to. Again, a human definition of fairness might require God to give everyone a chance, but the biblical definition of fairness requires that God send everyone to hell. The fact that He selectively permits some to be saved is a product of GRACE, not fairness. Remember what Yahweh said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [Exodus 33:19b/NIV] This concept was reiterated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:15.

Consequently, we see that the body of Christ is made up of people to whom God has extended His sovereign grace [Ephesians 1:3-14]. It is a sin for the creature to suggest that his Creator is unfair [Romans 9:20]. To do so is to judge God by human standards, and we lack that authority.

I forget the name of the school of thought, but sometime in the 18th century (around the time of Oscar Wilde) believed that there was a group of people chosen by god to ascend into heaven after death, and their actions in life had no bearing on their final destination. Your interpretation of God's choices seems to mimic this belief, but it has a tint of moral (pre?) determinism that I don't like.

Inimalist, I was speaking of the first circle of hell limbo, "where reside the virtuous pagans", born without god's light, who are not tormented, save that they have no hope--Canto 4

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible makes it clear that not all who say "Hi, I'm a Christian" are telling the truth [Matthew 13:36-43].

Isn't that what ALL Christian denominations are yelling at each other?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Things like believing in only one God, or believing that Jesus is God the Son, are essential to authentic Christian theology. Those who believe in multiple gods, or think that Jesus was merely mortal, might be very religious, but they are not biblical Christians.

Ah, yes, back to the Council of Nicia...

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Christian orthodoxy (little o) is defined by the Bible and subscribed to by all true Christians.

Originally posted by Quark_666
And is Christian Orthodoxy defined by the Roman Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Isn't that what ALL Christian denominations are yelling at each other?

Ah, yes, back to the Council of Nicia...

Actually, most Christian denominations -- especially those of an evangelical bent -- get along rather well, thank-you.

And once again, your preoccupation with Nicaea is at best uninformed. Mormon theology contradicts biblical theology. You can dance around it all you like and uphold your beloved Mormon prophets all you please, but at the end of the day the LDS Church does not teach the Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, you continue to find yourselves unacknowledged in the evangelical community.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While faith plays a role in my recognition of the Bible, my faith is based on the evidence -- just as a juror's verdict must be based on the evidence. I believe my holy book is superior to all others, because I believe my evidence is superior to all others. In the end, all our human subjectivities won't amount to a hill of beans. If the Muslims are right, for example, then we are both doomed infidels. But I believe that the anecdotal, historical and literary evidence points to the Bible, not the Koran, so I'm betting on the evidence.

But the over whelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from lower animals. Also, of the trillions of humans that have died on the Earth, no one has ever come back to life, including a man named Jesus. Therefore your belief is based of faith and not evidence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the over whelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from lower animals. Also, of the trillions of humans that have died on the Earth, no one has ever come back to life, including a man named Jesus. Therefore your belief is based of faith and not evidence.

Many Christians hold to the theory of Theistic Evolution, that seeks to harmonize tensions between secular science and the Bible. I and many other Christians reject evolution altogether, because we are unconvinced that the evidence supports it. Same evidence...different interpretation.

Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only fiction if one sets aside the historicity of the New Testament, and evangelicals strongly affirm the reliability of the New Testament. You're assertions are based on a preemptive disbelief of the Bible and therefore prove nothing.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only fiction if one sets aside the historicity of the New Testament, and evangelicals strongly affirm the reliability of the New Testament. You're assertions are based on a preemptive disbelief of the Bible and therefore prove nothing.

Historicity? What is that, like Truthiness?

Where is this evidence you claim?

Originally posted by Devil King
Historicity? What is that, like Truthiness?

Where is this evidence you claim?

I'm not sure how to say this any more simplistically. The evidence IS the New Testament itself. When Bible critics claim there is no evidentiary support for the resurrection of Jesus, they base their assertion on the assumption that the New Testament is not a reliable history book. It is!

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm not sure how to say this any more simplistically. The evidence IS the New Testament itself. When Bible critics claim there is no evidentiary support for the resurrection of Jesus, they base their assertion on the assumption that the New Testament is not a reliable history book. It is!

I'm not asking you to respond simply; I'm asking you to respond matter-of-factly.

The evidence that validates the bible, is the bible itself? It is very clearly NOT a reliable historical document.

You fail to substantiate even a single claim.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Many Christians hold to the theory of Theistic Evolution, that seeks to harmonize tensions between secular science and the Bible. I and many other Christians reject evolution altogether, because we are unconvinced that the evidence supports it. Same evidence...different interpretation.

Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only fiction if one sets aside the historicity of the New Testament, and evangelicals strongly affirm the reliability of the New Testament. You're assertions are based on a preemptive disbelief of the Bible and therefore prove nothing.

And why are you unconvinced about evolution? I know what the answer is for a lot of fundamentalists; it is because evolution does not agree with the bible. The reason they place the bible over the evidence for evolution is because of their faith in the bible.

Secondly, I am simply trying to show you that the core of your belief is faith, and not evidence. I am not trying to prove anything about the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the over whelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from lower animals. Also, of the trillions of humans that have died on the Earth, no one has ever come back to life, including a man named Jesus. Therefore your belief is based of faith and not evidence.

Between 20 and 30 billion people..... 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Between 20 and 30 billion people..... 😄

between 20 and 30 billion, what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And why are you unconvinced about evolution? I know what the answer is for a lot of fundamentalists; it is because evolution does not agree with the bible. The reason they place the bible over the evidence for evolution is because of their faith in the bible.

Secondly, I am simply trying to show you that the core of your belief is faith, and not evidence. I am not trying to prove anything about the bible.

I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence. I also believe that Christian who propose Theistic Evolution are making unjustified compromises. That said, I specialize in systematic theology. For creation science I would point you toward specialists like Dr. Steve Austin.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7796171740936188298&q=answers+in+genesis&total=295&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Regarding your second premise: The core of my belief system is a person, Jesus Christ. I came to know Jesus through the message of the Bible. I came to believe the Bible because the internal evidence contained in the New Testament led me to conclude the message of the New Testament is believable. I know you want me to say "it's all just a leap of faith", but that would be a lie. If we objectively apply the same standards of analysis to the Gospels, for example, that we would apply to other ancient literature (like Homer's Iliad), then one can only conclude that the Gospels are not myth, not epic, not midrash, and by no means propagandistic pseudonymous fiction. They are, in fact, exactly what they claim to be. Biographies.

Originally posted by Devil King
between 20 and 30 billion, what?

People....humans.

As Lord XYZ would put it, I was being pedantic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
People....humans.

As Lord XYZ would put it, I was being pedantic.

20 to 30 billion humans, what?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence. I also believe that Christian who propose Theistic Evolution are making unjustified compromises. That said, I specialize in systematic theology. For creation science I would point you toward specialists like Dr. Steve Austin.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence.

so, reality must only be interpreted by people who subscribe to the same ideas as you? Is that like the bible being it's own proof?

Originally posted by Devil King
so, reality must only be interpreted by people who subscribe to the same ideas as you? Is that like the bible being it's own proof?

No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.