Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity could possibly become a minority religion in US as early as 2045…

Not me. I am personally not compelled enough to delve into the detail of this type of fiction. Others have done this and provide key listings of their findings.

Not all can be repeated – we have historians doing investigations to try and determine the likelihood of the accuracy of the information. They compare with other writings and whatever other archaeological data there may be – still no guarantees though.


Some can, some can’t. If they can’t then there is no reason to believe that they are true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Absolutely. This is not the way to determine truth. It's an invalid circular argument: "I know it's true because it evidently is".


If it can’t then there’s no reason to believe that it’s true. The time to believe that something is true is when it has been proven to be true.



"If you can't show it, then you don't know it."

My mantra is to live accordingly with the proven truths of reality. You seem to want to rebel against truth and reality.

Here's what I figure (as if it matters one whit):

Who said "the Holy Bible" as we know it is "the Word Of God?" Where did that thought originate?

What is red-lettered as quotes of Jesus Himself ARE the Word of God. A compilation put together many centuries ago is a good thing and provides much context, but the New Testament is NOT the Word of God. Jesus's words are the Word of God and are but as small part of the NT. Not Paul's, not Peter's, not Matthew's, none are the word of God. They are witness, and nothing more.

Paul's words are not without merit, but it must be understood that Paul was chosen for his in-depth knowledge of Jewish law and his ability to tie all the loose ends together and make it all understandable to the Gentile.

We have to see things as they are, not as someone has told us to see them in order to make sense of Scripture and events.

While Jesus rose from the dead, God did something that I really doubt you did - he turned his back on his son. Jesus was in spiritual anguish and cried 'My God, why have you forsaken me' from the cross. Jesus was piled high with our sins and God couldn't look on that sin. That was Jesus' whole purpose in coming - to take our sins on himself.
What would your son have done if you'd rejected him on his deathbed? It would probably have destroyed both of you. Well, God did exactly that.

God won't judge people by their works. He'll judge them by their faith. No amount of works will save anyone. Once you're saved, THEN works come into play but not for judgement. We'll be rewarded for our works, not judged.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

You're shining light on truth as we know it, Rock Chuck (and I never take your posts lightly), but I think the Father's expectations from the Son make a distinction between circumstances.

Maybe not well expressed but maybe well enough to see my point.

The red-lettered viewpoint is based on the premise that “the very words” of Jesus (printed in red) in the Gospels are somehow more authoritative than the rest of the New Testament is. The assertion is that all of the words in the New Testament are important, but preeminence should be given to “the very words” of Jesus.

So let’s do that. In John’s Gospel, Jesus was gettin’ His disciples ready for His pending departure. He told em’ that He had many more things to say to them, but they couldn’t bear em’ now. Then He said He’d later send em’ the Holy Spirit that would guide em’ into all of the truth.

He was letting them know that the Holy Spirit was gonna come in a new and powerful way (at Pentecost), and that right now He couldn’t tell them all that He wanted to because of ‘their’ spiritual limitations, not His.

The profound spiritual change in Apostle Peter after Pentecost was demonstrative of the eloquent change due to the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He was noticeably different, as evidenced by his sermon and actions at Pentecost.

Apostle Paul tells the Ephesians…‘after’ Pentecost…that by retiring the Law, with its commandments and regulations, Jesus made peace between the Jews and the Gentiles by creating in Himself one new people from the two groups.

So if we’re gonna take “the very words” of Jesus as authoritative, should we take the Epistles…which are textual fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in John’s Gospel (ch. 16)…as unrestricted revelation from Him, unlike the restricted revelation of the disciple’s pre-Pentecost spiritual limitations…?

Me neither; not on these kinda threads dealing with this kinda subject matter. Dude’s insightful and smart and pretty rock solid when it comes to this kinda stuff.

Uuhhhh...yeah. Opinions and words of other mortal men of the times are fine for the purpose of insight, but only the words of God ARE the word of God.

So if we’re gonna take “the very words” of Jesus as authoritative, should we take the Epistles…which are textual fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in John’s Gospel (ch. 16)…as unrestricted revelation from Him (Jesus), unlike the restricted revelation of the disciple’s pre-Pentecost spiritual limitations…?

They're records. They originate with fallible men with good intentions. Take it as you please within the confines your intellect alllows.

Both Judaism and Christianity rejects the theology of Islam. The word 'God' is common to a number of religions, but the character and attributes of 'God' between religions is contradictory, therefore not compatible.

Being contradictory, they are different versions of the concept of 'God.'

For example, Muslims class Jesus as a prophet of God with the same standing as Mohammad as a prophet of God, Christians of course disagree.

Both cannot be true, either one or the other must be wrong, or both can be wrong. Someone has to be wrong.

I have read the bible from cover to cover once and in sections for reference many times. That is one reason why I do not consider it to be divinely inspired. It is interesting as a testament to the beliefs of the ancient people who lived in that region.

The assertion that we should rank the words of Jesus as more important than the rest of the New Testament seems problematic to me, especially given the fact that the only reason we have the words of Jesus recorded is because those who wrote the rest of the New Testament are the one’s who recorded the words of Jesus in the first place…!

The writers of the New Testament…the one’s who were eyewitness…provide the very basis for the authoritative New Testament claims about Jesus’ life (including the resurrection). They followed Jesus for two to three years and eventually documented their eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, and their decisions to write down what they witnessed are the only reason we have the four Gospel’s (including the words of Jesus) at all.

These eyewitnesses, especially those who were Apostle’s, documented not only Jesus’ teachings and His deeds…in addition to the words that He spoke…but also the meaning and the context of it all for those who came after them. So how do we separate the words of Jesus from the other eyewitness testimony…? To detach His words from their context and apply em’ to our lives in whatever way suits us seems more than a little bit disingenuous to me.

These New Testament writers were likely in a way better position to understand the context of Jesus’ words than we are. They were His students and His friends, and they understood the Aramaic language that He spoke. John’s Gospel makes it crystal clear that we don’t have all of Jesus’ words; not even close. It’s likely that Jesus told more parables, preached more, and gave further instructions to these eyewitnesses that we know nothing about.

To diminish what they wrote about Jesus, in deference to our interpretation of ‘just’ the words of Jesus (which ‘they’ also recorded for us), seems thoughtless and reckless to me. We sure as heck don’t have a better understanding of Him and His will for us than they did. Many people believe that God Himself moved these writers to document and testify to ALL of what they wrote (not ‘just’ the words of Jesus).

I’m surprised that not one among You see’s
The Evil One…

Unfortunately, nothing is that simple or straightforward.

For instance:

"The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts.

New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that "the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies."[31] 

Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology.[2] 

E.P. Sanders states that "these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature."[19] 

Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vögtle writing for Karl Rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items.[32] 

Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world."[3] - Wiki

Readers of the Bible are of 1 of 2 types: spirit filled, not spirit filled. Those with the Holy Spirit will understand what it says much better and will believe what it says. Those without the spirit will call it myth, untrue, or anything other than the true word of God. The writers of this quoted post were clearly of the 2d type.

The red letter Bibles really aren't doing us any good. Jesus gave us his words, but in his own manner, so does the Spirit. The spirit doesn't speak in a verbal manner, he speaks from inside. We come to realize that understanding has been planted in our heads that could only come from God. The Spirit will NOT give us anything that isn't God's truth so calling the truth 'mythology' has to come from the deceiver.

No less than the book Revelation said it, not me. 20:12 " And I saw the dead great and small, standing before God, and the books were opened. And another book was opened which is the one of life. And the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books according to their WORKS".

Can any of you show the correctness of Paul's assertions of salvation by faith alone and the abolishment of the law without quoting Paul? Who else endorsed the abolishment of the law and the covenant?

"Take heed that ye be not deceived"

Paul never said that.