News-Record.com

People also forget that Jesus is supposed to have stated, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." And what many of the Christian mindset forget is that the Christian Church gave up the right to feed the hungry, give refuge to the homeless, etc. to the State. Thereby, a form of socialism was born and has to be funded by taxation and other revenue avenues.

Also, I guess many people have forgotten their history and FDR's New Deal!

Shalom

Who is this Jesus, is he one of those illegal aliens from Mexico ?

Recall a few items here: first, the stimulus package was a mixture of spending and cuts to taxes to get to the figure of 787 billion. Regardless, the total loss to the government is a staggering figure. The main question (I think) has to be, will the nation get good value for what it pays?

Now, the Bible says that Jesus told a few rich guys that to get to heaven they needed to give away everything and live like him. Perhaps if the United States becomes as poor as Haiti, the nation might stand a chance at becoming heavenly? Sounds like a pretty massive leap of faith to me.

It is amusing, and sad, to read the analysis of Jesus' teachings by those who have not studied His word.
I won't try to elucidate- but I will say that the ad mentioned simply used a date most people can relate to in order to describe the enormity of this bill. I has nothing to do with Jesus.
As far as Christians giving up feeding and housing (and clothing) the poor- well, you need to get out more.

It is amusing, and sad, to read the analysis of Jesus' teachings by those who have not studied His word.
I won't try to elucidate- but I will say that the ad mentioned simply used a date most people can relate to in order to describe the enormity of this bill. It has nothing to do with Jesus.
As far as Christians giving up feeding and housing (and clothing) the poor- well, you need to get out more.

I don't seem to remember any of the New Testament writers mentioning Jesus forcibly taking money from anyone to give to the poor unless you count 2nd Socialists 10:40.

I seem to recall that in Acts, church members were required to give all their worldly goods to the church leaders for fair distribution. And when one couple failed to do this, they lost their lives.

"And when one couple failed to do this, they lost their lives."..........................
shows your complete non understanding of scripture nam........but actually i don't expect any more from you.

This morning I stopped in the McDonald's on High Point Road for an Egg McMuffin - the guy cleaning the bathroom had on a name tag which read "Jesus" - is this of whom you speak ?

Buz, I think I've long ago stopped counting the number of times I'm told "you don't understand the Bible" while either having no corrective explanation offered or with a "correction" that makes no sense at all.

Thanks for your effort. It wasn't counted.

namtac:

The husband and wife in the book of Acts were struck down because they tried to lie to the Holy Spirit. They presented the money in a way that it appeared that they were giving everything from the sale of property, when in fact, they weren't. The text makes this clear and makes it clear that they were not required to do so.

ECUman, thanks for adding to the discussion. It's good to hear people discussing things like religion without anger.

Here's the text I refer to:

Acts 5:1-5 - But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife's knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

I have 2 questions regarding this and your view of it.

1) Why is it that Peter says that this guy was lying to the Holy Spirit? The description sure looks to me as if the fellow was lying to Peter and the Apostles.

2) Why do you think these people were killed? I expect you believe that people lie to God all the time. What's different here? I note that the passage mentions that "great fear" was involved for those left alive. You think maybe that's part of the reason this is in the Bible?

nam,
i'm looking at the text you provided...yet you cannot understand it? but not surprised.

you ask....." Why is it that Peter says that this guy was lying to the Holy Spirit?
the text you provided says..."You did not lie to us but to God!". there is your answer to that question. but i suppose i need to tell you that Christians believe in the Trinity which presents the Father, Son & Holy Spirit as one God.....sooooo when peter says Ananias was lying to God, he was also lying to the Holy Spirit (get it?).

please take a moment to show me where in that text you provided it says Ananias and Sapphira were killed.

and finally the reason it was recorded in scripture is for our instruction.

now nam i provided an explanation...whether or not it make sense to you is of no consequence to me but most likely it is to you (a consequence that is).

ECUman i trust all is well with you !

Buzz, that's for remembering me. I hope to contribute a little more than I have in the last couple of years. That being said, Ananias died in verse 5 and Sapphira died in verse 10.

Namtac, the greater sin is lying to God although they also lied to Peter and the other apostles that were present. I think causing great fear (respect) was necessary in the formation of the early church. The book is called the Acts of the Apostles. It shows that the acts (including miracles) that the apostles were performing were made possible by God and He was giving them authority to carry on Jesus ministry and to teach others to do the same (spread the gospel). I think the fact that the books of the Bible contain passages that are difficult for us to understand in the 21st century (and in the 1st century for that matter) attests to the honesty and integrity of the things that were written. Many times in the gospels, the writers include embarrassing information about themselves including times when they lacked faith. I wouldn't make that embarrassing stuff up if I were writing a biography about Jesus! That's why when people say the Bible is a bunch of made up stories, it doesn't ring true to me.

Most biblical scholars today, I understand, don't believe that the Gospels were written by the apostles; if that is the case (and I'm not arguing either way right now), your argument, ECUman, would be invalid. Remember, though, that Acts was written by Luke, who was not an apostle. I suspect that if the intent was to instruct, whoever wrote the gospels used stories that were well known and handed down as oral tradition in the Christian community as instructive parables. If some pious author had invented them, as Jesus invented the story of the good Samaritan, for example, I doubt that the apostles, being humble, would have minded. So the presence of unflattering materal is not, to my mind, a guarantee of historical accuracy.

"Most biblical scholars today,.."

Enough said.

Kuranes:

I don't have time for a full response right now, if no one else addresses your point today, I will tonight.

Buz, my question was not regarding comprehending WHAT the passage says, but WHY the statement was made. Imagine any church leader saying "you have lied to God" as they put a tithe check in the offering plate. How would you react? Is this not the same situation?

it is quite possible that this conversation is predicated upon a teaching Jesus previously gave......."Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". As a child of God you should realize that everything you have is on loan to you from God.The husband and wife conspired to lie to the apostles thus leading those involved to believe that the proceeds they gave were given in total as a gift. it was theirs to give and they had total control as to how much if any was to be given, but they chose deception and became pious while expecting the others who had given freely all to believe their gift was just like the others. it seems to me if they had simply stated "we sold it for $100 and we are giving $80" they would have not suffered the same fate. God is more concerned with the content of your character than the actual gift imo. it is the intent which defines your real relationship with God. now i hope i did not sound angry in my explanation. and don't expect me to have answer to all your questions, some things i don't understand myself and just stand in faith to believe (you'll most likely have some fun with that comment).

it is quite possible that this conversation is predicated upon a teaching Jesus previously gave......."Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". As a child of God you should realize that everything you have is on loan to you from God.The husband and wife conspired to lie to the apostles thus leading those involved to believe that the proceeds they gave were given in total as a gift. it was theirs to give and they had total control as to how much if any was to be given, but they chose deception and became pious while expecting the others who had given freely all to believe their gift was just like the others. it seems to me if they had simply stated "we sold it for $100 and we are giving $80" they would have not suffered the same fate. God is more concerned with the content of your character than the actual gift imo. it is the intent which defines your real relationship with God. now i hope i did not sound angry in my explanation. and don't expect me to have answer to all your questions, some things i don't understand myself and just stand in faith to believe (you'll most likely have some fun with that comment).

Kuranes:

You started your post above..."Most biblical scholars today, I understand,...". You understand, but you apparently don't KNOW what most biblical scholars believe. Otherwise, I suspect you would have stated your position more firmly. Even if you are correct, other biblical scholars will disagree with your scholars. You are committing the logical fallicy of " faulty appeal to authority". The fact that someone is an authority on a subject, does not necessarily mean they are correct in their opinion. What matters are the reasons and the evidence they have for holding that opinion. I included one website that gives several reasons to believe that the New Testament documents (books) are reliable. You may cite websites as well, but the question is "what is the best explanation for the facts we have at hand".

How do you account for the fact that the apostles died agonizing deaths claiming Jesus was God since they were in a position to know first-hand if those claims were false?

BTW, I know that Luke was not an apostle and neither was Mark. I was making a general statement. Luke traveled some with Paul as did Mark. Luke wrote in the beginning of Luke and Acts, that he investigated the events carefully. Read the books and look at all the historical people and places he cited. It doesn't read like something that was made up and certainly not several centuries later.

How do you know that the apostles all "died agonizng deaths"? The only information we have is from tradition passed down in an age in which martyrdom was the highest accolade and proof of spiritual stature, whch would have been expected of the apostles. But we have no firsthand evidence that any of them were martyred. Even if they were,you fail to take into account the power of delusion. All that is required for them to endure martyrdom is that the apostles beieved in Christianity; that would not make it true. Peple have died agonizing deaths for their belief that Moammed was a true prophet of God; does tht make Islam true?

As for the relability of the NT, try making a coherent, noncontradictory narrative of either the birth stories of Jesus in Mat. and Luke, or the resurrection narratives of all four gospels, including all details as described, neither adding nor leaving out anything. Good luck with that. What about the fact that the Quirinus mentioned in Luk 2:2, was not governor of Syria until after Herod the Great had died, or the fact that Herod's kingdom was not under direct Roman jurisdiction at that time, so would not have been affected by the census even if there was one, for which there is no evidence, or the fact that few, if any, of the alleged OT Messianic prophecies, read in context, have anything to do with Jesus (read them for yourself and see), or...but why enumerate examples? Those who have ears to hear will hear. For every believer website, there is a skeptical one. I will only say that less than a year ago, I would have said a hearty "amen" to ECUman, Buz, Nikos and the rest. But when I finally looked at the evidence from other than safe, evangelical sources, I found that my emotional commitment to Christian faith had made me unable to view the evidence objectively. There were things my mind just slid over, and refused to recognize. I once was blind, but now I see.

kuranes said................ "my emotional commitment to Christian faith ". perhaps the reason you've had a disconnect with your former beliefs is that your commitment was misplaced. emotions are simply your 'feelings', like i feel happy, i feel mad, i feel like dancing - you pretty much have control of what you chose to feel. if you've based your salvation on how you feel, then today you might feel saved but tomorrow you don't feel saved - you are basing your salvation on you and what you feel. salvation is an unwarranted gift from God to you totally irrespective of how you feel. i can honestly say that when i got saved, i did not feel any different than before i got saved. but through much prayer and seeking God thru His word, i soon realized that how i felt wasn't what was important and that my feelings would lead me on peaks & valleys and leave me exhausted. not until i fully realized that salvation is a gift from God and that i could not possibly save myself, did i disassociate my feelings from my worth to God. kuranes it's apparent that you have spent a lot of time reading free thought and others material to support your 'feelings', i can't help but wonder how much time you spent in God's word and on your knees in prayer. God knows the intent our each our hearts and if your intent was based upon how He made you feel, then maybe you missed the mark.

Kuranes:

I would be happy to have a follow-up discussion via email. You can email me at bcorbett@afo.net. I will only respond to one objection at a time, however. I will not respond to scatter gun argumentation. I simply do not have that kind of spare time. If you're interested, feel free to email me with your first point.

Thanks, ECUman; I'll be in touch.

Buz: you evidently missed the point of my statement about my emotion blinding me. I became a Christian because I was convinced that it was true, not beause of any feeling I had. Feelings, as you say, are notoriously unreliable, and I try not to base any of my convictions or actions solely on them. By "emotional commitment to the Christian faith" I meant my increasing comfort with, and dependence on, the promises of God; but if I had not thought the Bible true and the promises therefore reliable, I would not have had those feelings. However, because I had them, I did not allow myself to see certain objections to the faith, because those objections threatened the whole strcture of my worldview, both thought and feeling. So while your post is kindly meant, and I thank you for it, it does not address the problem.

"I became a Christian because I was convinced that it was true"............................
can you explain how you were convinced ?

i think a lot of people 'become' a christian because they can't find another category to place themselves, so by default they call themselves christian.

did you see yourself as hopelessly lost and headed for eternal damnation and in need of a savior?

bedtime for me................................

Buz asks me, "did you see yourself as hopelessly lost and headed for eternal damnation and in need of a savior?"

Yes, and I "accepted Christ as my personal savior" and believed that the Bible was without error in everything it affirmed (in the original documents), and read a lot of books supporting that point of view, and worked out an elaborate theology (in fact, several), served in various ministries, and so on, happy as a hog in slop (if you'll pardon the expression), until , having proved to my satisfaction that only the literal reading of Genesis, teaching creation of the unverse in 6 days about 6,000 years ago, was the correct one, I read the evidence for evolution. Then I read, rather desperately, several books by so-called "theistic evolutionists" like Francis Collins and Kenneth Mitchell, finding their science unimpeachable but their hermeneutics unsatisfying. Then, being forced reluctantly to accept natural selection, I asked myself whether the rest of the Bible seemed like the sort of book the infinitely loving and omniscient God it described would write, and the more I looked, the more it didn't. (Sorry if this picture doesn't fit your neatly padded pigeonhole). So when I see others in the same state of self-imposed blindness I had been in, I can't resist teasing them a little, seeing if I can poke a hole in that little cell they live in, with the sky painted on the walls. There are more things in heaven and earth, Buz, than are dreamt of in your theology.