Come out of the closet Americans

[MajGenl.Meade]

Joe

Oh surely you have... let's see... there was Matthew, Luke, John, some other chappie. Oh and the personal revelation that all Christians experience encountering the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit.

wesw - yes I was trying to explain my take on the same things. No misunderstanding - I had Gob in mind.

Speaking of whom.... why do you ask, Two Horses Stalking?

[Gob]

wesw - yes I was trying to explain my take on the same things. No misunderstanding - I had Gob in mind.

Speaking of whom.... why do you ask, Two Horses Stalking?

Any/everyone. What is the point of having an allegedly God inspired tome of rules, which is "open to interpretation"? What about those, the Phelps shits for example, who get it wrong, why did God do that to them?

[wesw]

I thought exactly the same thing until I read it.

as I said earlier, there is knowledge and wisdom there.

no matter what you believe, you can increase your understanding of others by reading it

[Gob]

I'll stick with DSM-5 thanks.

[Crackpot]

That's one place you can go to identify your problems.

[wesw]

DSM-5?

[Joe Guy]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Any/everyone. What is the point of having an allegedly God inspired tome of rules, which is "open to interpretation"? What about those, the Phelps shits for example, who get it wrong, why did God do that to them?

Gob... dear old Gob... the Bible is not a tome of rules. All humans, according to the Bible, are imperfect - you, me and the Phelps chap (dearly departed). We do not and cannot understand everything perfectly - whether God exists or doesn't exist, we remain fallible. God hasn't "done that" to any of us - we do that. The message of salvation is not "open to interpretation". It is stated clearly and thoroughly - you've read it and if you don't understand it, apply here and the answers will be sent to you in a plain brown envelope (to avoid confusion).

Christians and non-christians, even scientists I hear, tend to differ over the "how" of a thing rather than the "what" because we try to understand not just that a thing is, but also "how" it works. Phelps and his kind "get it wrong" because they want to. That's the way of all unbelievers.

[Lord Jim]

Any/everyone. What is the point of having an allegedly God inspired tome of rules, which is "open to interpretation"? What about those, the Phelps shits for example, who get it wrong, why did God do that to them?

Looks like an appropriate place to repost this:

You know, over the years, I've seen some good intellectual arguments for the Atheistic point of view, and some not so good arguments, for that souless and depressing point of view...

Guess which category the "God must not exist because if He did, He would order things the way Strop thinks He should" argument falls in to?

[Gob]

So Meade, we are imperfect, so how can "The message of salvation is not "open to interpretation". It is stated clearly and thoroughly" be true? I don't understand it, so how can it be clear?

Jim, you keep posting that, but God really needs to consult with me, he's getting it all to cock.

[wesw]

yeah, the "not open to interpretation" comment seems to assume authority not granted to us mere mortals

[wesw]

jesus wanted to spread salvation far and wide. let s not close doors when we should be opening them...

[MajGenl.Meade]

So Meade, we are imperfect, so how can "The message of salvation is not "open to interpretation". It is stated clearly and thoroughly" be true? I don't understand it, so how can it be clear?

Oh well Gob if we're going to rule out as "unclear" everything you can't understand then most of the world is in deep trouble. I didn't think (as a good atheistic liberal do-gooding tree-hugger ) you'd declare that the definition of "clarity" is whether you understand something or not Nuclear physics must be a bunch of cock since you probably don't get it much more than I do.

I know that you can understand the words. That's all we've got. So either you become convicted of the truth eventually or you don't. Do I know if that means you choose not to be or that God chooses you not to be? No I don't know. Which do you think it is? (Good luck Pete on getting a straight answer to that have you stopped beating your wife yet question).

1Cor 15:1-8 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

•First, we must believe. To believe means "to take hold of something." We must admit that we are helpless sinners in desperate need of a Savior.
•Second, we must repent. To repent means "to let go of something." We do this when we put our trust and faith in Jesus and turn the direction of our lives over to Him. That means turning away from our old, sinful lifestyles and being willing to change and become a different person.
•Third, we must learn of Him. As we walk and talk with Jesus Christ in our heart and lives, and as we begin to read His Word, we begin to see things the way Jesus does. We have new eyes because we have become a new creation.

1."I realized that I'm a sinner and that I fall short of God's glory" (see Romans 3:23).
2."I recognized that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins" (see Romans 5:8).
3."I repented or turned away from my sins" (see Acts 3:19).
4."I received Jesus Christ as Lord of my life" (see Revelation 3:20).

wesw I think you'll find that I never claim authority - the authority is the word of God. It is Jesus Christ. Either we believe him or we don't. As to doors: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me". And of course John 3:18.... “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God".

Well regardless of what each of us may say, including and especially me, we have Jesus' word that not one who belongs to him will be lost, so that's all right then.

[Big RR]

and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve

Interesting, if Cephas is Peter, then none of the gospels mentions Jesus appearing to him before appearing to the apostles, whether 11 or 12 (and if he is someone else, he is not mentioned either). And Paul somehow ignores the appearance to the women that first easter morning. Interpretation?

[rubato]

Rashomon!

Or perhaps god made the text deliberately confusing to the minds of beings he created himself.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

I would agree with Rashomon; each perceives and understands as (s)he can, and relates this perception and understanding to others as best as (s)he can. And no one perceives the entire truth.

No need for a supreme being to make anything deliberately confusing, even if a truth were clearly stated, our minds would not comprehend it--at best we would understand an approximation of it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not quite accurate Big RR.

Luke 24:33-35 records that Cleopas and the other chap (the two men on the road to Emmaus) returned to Jerusalem to announce Jesus' appearance to them and found the 11 locked up in the hidey hole and talking about Jesus having already appeared to Peter. No doubt they were puzzled and alarmed - to believe Peter or not? The two new arrivals then related that they too had seen Jesus.

I can suggest many reasons for Paul not mentioning the women but the most likely is the common misperception of his audience (and perhaps him too) that women were not reliable witnesses. Luke 24:11 says (of the disciples' reaction to the women's reports) "but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them". One sees this in the feeding of the 5,000 which apparently estimated only the number of men and left out the women and children. A cultural thing I suppose. It's not prescriptive is it?

(And no, I don't know why he didn't name Cleopas and I don't particularly care either - but perhaps it's because no-one in Corinth would know who that was. Or Paul didn't like Cleopas. Who knows?).

Paul was citing recognized - i.e. known - church leaders - Peter and the twelve. Note that Paul was not mistaken in the number even though only ten disciples were in that room when Jesus also appeared there. Thomas was absent from the room so the 11 had been decreased by one during the day - Thomas saw him eight days later.

In addition to the 11 original disciples plus Cleopas + 1, Acts 1:21-26 reports two names of people nominated to replace Judas from amongst others who had been with them from the start to the ascension. The two nominees are: "Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias". The envelope please: Matthias replaces Judas.

Either of those two men may have been Cleopas' companion on the road or maybe it was one of the others. However that may be, when Paul wrote his letter he was referring to the disciple "leadership" which numbered 12 including Matthias. He

I don't know if this is interpretation as much it is reading what is written.

Oh dear - maybe someone should have waited for an education before posting this:

Or perhaps god made the text deliberately confusing to the minds of beings he created himself

And really Big RR:

even if a truth were clearly stated, our minds would not comprehend it

I just don't understand what you mean

[MajGenl.Meade]

Quick note
Peter-Petros-Rock. Also Cephas (Greek: Κηφᾶς) and Kepha (Hebrew: כיפא‎). Both Cephas and Kepha also mean rock

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas”

Paul uses Κηφᾶς in Galatians and Corinthians. Only the Roman church tries to argue that Peter(Rock) and Cephas(Rock) were two different people who coincidentally were both called as early disciples and were both fishermen named Simon with a father named as Jonah according to Jesus in both Matthew and John. They have to do that or accept Paul's stinging - and seemingly very frank and honest - rebuke of Peter who after all is beyond criticism (except Jesus of course; they can't explain Him away). Ahem ahem.

[Big RR]

Meade--Luke 25 does not report that jesus appeared to peter, only that some of the 11 said peter told them he did; each of the other appearances in the gospels is described in some sort of detail, or at least is stated as a fact and not hearsay. The other gospels do not mention it nor, so far as I know, does peter in any other report. And if you look at the reaction of the 11 shortly after when jesus appeared, it does not seem like they placed much stock in peter's story, despite what they said before.

I just don't understand what you mean

You really dispute that? If humans are imperfect (and I think we all are), then I think it only follows that we cannot fully comprehend what lies ahead (or god or god's plans), no matter how clearly it is stated, our understanding will be imperfect.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR:

none of the gospels mentions Jesus appearing to him before appearing to the apostles

Gospel:

"And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”Lk 24:33b-34

= you're wrong. That is a mention.

Peter was one of the 11 in the room when Cleopas came in. They were discussing with Peter that Jesus had appeared to him, as you seem to agree, and he also would have been one of those shocked that Jesus suddenly appeared in the room even though the door was locked. You surely don't expect they would have just nonchalantly said "Oh well we expected that - after all Peter saw him already". But apparently you think that Luke's report that Peter claimed to have seen Jesus is hearsay but Luke's report that Cleopas said it is not hearsay?

Secundus: you made no statement about us not comprehending "what lies ahead (or god or god's plans)"** You stated as a fact (not hearsay) that "even if a truth were clearly stated, our minds would not comprehend it". I guess you are kind of proving that though.....

And in the last place, if X is hearsay why don't you simply claim that the entire Bible is hearsay? Why on earth do you even think that Jesus existed (if you do)?

Sorry for being a bit peeved

**although that's rubbish as well. The Bible tells us what we need to know about what's ahead and God's plans. Do we know every little detail? Of course not - we'd have to be God. Even Jesus said that it wasn't for us to know - although that might just be hearsay.