Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Do You Believe In God ?

Then we might as well all live like heathens since him mind is already made up.

I am not surprised. Specifically how did you come to that belief? Was it something you read? If so, who said it? If you came to that belief by reading something was it unambiguous and was it said clearly on divine authority?

Predestination throws most of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religions in the trash.

His children aren’t living right to get to heaven because they know conduct has nothing to do with salvation. They live right because they are his elect and wish to do his will. We are saved by the grace.

Romans 8:29-30 tells us, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Ephesians 1:5 and 11 declare, “He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”

Most churches oppose this because it sets believers free. There’s no money in it. You can’t control people.

I would have bet big money on who was the author of that belief.

Jesus warned us not to believe he appeared out in the desert (road to Damascus) or in secret chambers (Ananias' house)

It is not ridiculous or surprising to historians when they hear skeptics or those with a clear agenda…like atheists or modern day Judaizers…claim that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. A case can be made that scholarly positions are that the Gospels of Matthew and John were eyewitness accounts, and the Gospels of Mark and Luke were based on reports from eyewitnesses.

But for the sake of discussion (or argument) let’s say those scholars are wrong. It ‘still’ wouldn’t be a problem for historians because we don’t have any surviving eyewitness accounts for specific historical people from ancient history. None.

There are no surviving eyewitness accounts of the life and deeds of Hannibal of Carthage. We don’t have any eyewitness accounts of the high priest Caiaphas or of the Jewish scholar Honi ‘the circle-drawer’ who lived during that time period. We don’t even have any surviving eyewitness accounts of the ruler of the mighty Roman Empire itself, Tiberius Caesar.

The one person from ancient history who we have the most information on is Jesus. By far. Overwhelmingly so.

So when put into context, it’s not odd or ridiculous to historians when skeptics or those with an agenda…like atheists or modern day Judaizers…claim what they do. Nearly all ancient texts have simply been lost to history. What we have for all of ancient history are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. And referrals in those copies to other manuscripts.

I believe the Bible isn’t a cafeteria plan. If you reject the Bible then we have no common ground for discussion.

Pain and suffering in the world, and his inability to reconcile a good and loving God with that, is specifically what led Bart Ehrman away from Christianity. His loss of faith had zero to do with the New Testament manuscripts. He concedes that.

And then, he went looking for reasons to substantiate his new beliefs and agenda. A crystal clear case of confirmation bias.

Even when there is a clear contradiction?

Fair enough reply, but no, I am not headed to a “True Scotsman” argument.

My intended point is much more basic than that.

Forget Bart Ehrman for now…..we can return to him later….

What makes a “True Christian?” Remember, you brought it up. What if I told you that, when younger, I was a Mormon, but then spent many years as an agnostic….and later “converted to” Catholicism.

You might wonder, was TF a “True Mormon?”

Was TF a “True Agnostic?”

Is TF a “True Catholic?”


So, what makes a “True Christian.”


This is your term, you brought it up….leave Bart out of it for now.

Not so…. As “English” is the modern day world wide language…..the most common second language spoken in the world today, so was Greek “universal language” in the Mediterranean. It is incorrect to characterize Greek as only the language of “playwrights and scholars.”

Relying on what men, mere mortals, understood from oral tales, translated centuries earlier, presents severe challenges to meticulous scholars honestly interested in facts alone. True believers are worse off. The level of waste and carnage rival religious factions laid on each other professing to worship the same true God you might think would check present day Christians with a touch of humility. You would be mistaken, as witnessed in this long winded, self righteous confabulation of utter contempt for other views, sincere beliefs, as well as the very Almighty, ageless, eternal, and unknown by human reason, doctrine or faith. Whatever is Higher. That's all we know from the best evidence - manifest indifference. The greatest gift of Christianity is similar to that of Mohamed; every individual soul is equally precious to Him and there is a oneness with God no human master can violate. Romans eventually looked upon Christians as good people following a worthy philosophy, not a religion, whose power transformed the world although its tenets of dignity, love, and non material devotion to service were soon corrupted into hierarchies with factions.

Did the NT writers speak Greek? Of course they did and don't forget, the "time of the Gentiles" was beginning, Greek was the best and most widely used language to use. Did Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles": write in Greek? Of course he did.


See this and investigate further if you want fact and not biased conjecture.



LIFTED.....

Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in GREEK!

In the next article in the same issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, the author, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, points out that no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs -- funerary inscriptions -- are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. The geographical spread of these inscriptions reveal that Jews were living all over the world at that time, especially the Roman period. In other words, when Jesus' brother James said in Acts 15, "Moses has been preached in every city for generations past and is read in the synagogues on every sabbath" (v.21), he was simply stating the truth. Peter, in his first sermon, enumerates a list of the countries from which Jews came to worship on that first Pentecost of the newly formed Christian Church (Acts 2:9-11).

Van Der Horst goes on:

"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.

"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.

"APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.

"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).

These are shocking statements to all who have believed, and taught, that the Jews as a whole were ignorant of Greek during the time of Christ! Obviously, Judea was not a "backwater" and "boorish" part of the Roman Empire, but a most sophisticated and cultivated part. In fact, the Jewish Temple was acknowledged to be the finest building structure throughout the whole Empire! The Jewish people, because of their widespread dispersion in the Empire, for business and commercial purposes, mainly, spoke Greek rather fluently -- and this knowledge and usage of Greek was also common throughout Judea, as this new "funerary inscription" evidence attests!

This really should not be surprising at all. The Greek influence in Judea had grown very significantly since the days of Alexander the Great, circa 330 B.C. By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 168-165 B.C., Hellenism had become very strong, and many of the high priests had become "Hellenists," leading to the Maccabean revolt. In successive generations, the Greek influence never abated, particularly among the business, commercial and priestly crowd. Many of the priests, being Sadducees, were greatly influenced by Greek culture and contact.

Writes Van Der Horst further:

"The great rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish oral law) in about 200 C.E., was buried in Beth She-arim; the majority of pious Jews who wanted to be buried with him at Beth She-arim had their funerary inscriptions written in Greek.

"This is not to say Hebrew and Aramaic ever died out completely as languages for the Jews. Especially in the eastern Diaspora, Jews continued to speak a Semitic language. But IN THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES OF THE COMMON ERA, exactly the period when rabbinic literature was being written in Hebrew and Aramaic, A MAJORITY OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE and the western Diaspora SPOKE GREEK" (ibid., p.48-54).

All of this is very interesting, of course. But what about Jesus Christ, and the disciples? Did Jesus also use Greek, commonly, in speaking to the people of Judea? For centuries, theologians and scholars have assumed that He only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. However, this assumption now seems to be far off the mark!

Jesus and the Disciples Spoke Greek!

Another article in the very same issue of BAR discusses this very issue. The author, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, points out that there is no doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic. He shows that although a form of Aramaic was "the dominant language, it was not the only language spoken in Palestine at that time." He continues:

"The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that a TRILINGUALISM EXISTED IN PALESTINE in the first and second century of the Christian era. In addition to Aramaic, some Jews also spoke Hebrew or Greek -- or both. Different levels of Jewish society, different kinds of religious training and other factors may have determined who spoke what" ("Did Jesus Speak Greek?", same issue of BAR, p.58).

During the Babylonian captivity, many Jews came to use Aramaic as their first language, a sister language closely akin to Hebrew. Although Hebrew continued in use in the Temple, and the emerging synagogues, Aramaic was the common language of the people during the time of Christ. The majority of the people apparently did not fully understand Hebrew, for the custom arose to have an Aramaic translation read of the Hebrew Scriptures, following the reading in Hebrew, in all the synagogues. These readings and interpretations were done by a person called the meturgeman. In time, they were written down and were called targumin.

But what about Greek? Says Fitzmyer:

"Greek, of course, was in widespread use in the Roman empire at this time. Even the Romans spoke Greek, as inscriptions in Rome and elsewhere attest. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that THAT GREEK WAS ALSO IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE. The Hellenization of Palestine began even before the fourth-century B.C. conquest by Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture among the Jews of Palestine spread more quickly after Alexander's conquest, especially when the country was ruled by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.), and later under certain Jewish Hasmonean and Herodian kings" (p.59).

A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being "Hellenists." The King James Version says, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians (Hellenistai) against the Hebrews (Hebraioi), because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1). Who were these Hellenists or "Greeks"? The term applies to Greek-speaking Jews, in whose synagogues Greek was spoken, and where undoubtedly the Septuagint Scriptures were commonly used. This is verified in Acts 9:29 where we read: "And he (Saul, whose name was later changed to Paul) spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians . . ." The "Grecians" or "Hellenists" were the Greek-speaking Jews, who had their own synagogues, even in Jerusalem.

Says Fitzmyer:

"Such Hellenistai may have spoken very little, if any, Hebrew or Aramaic. This is suggested by a reference in Philippians 3:5 where Paul stoutly refers to himself as 'a Hebrew of the Hebrews.' Paul also spoke Greek. Thus Hellinistai as C. F. D. Moule has suggested probably is the designation of those Jerusalem Jews or Jewish Christians who habitually spoke only Greek (and for that reason were more affected by Hellenistic culture), whereas Hebraioi designated those Greek-speaking Jews and Jewish Christians who also spoke a Semitic language, probably Aramaic, which they normally used" (ibid., p.60).

What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a "second language"?

"The answer is almost certainly yes. The more difficult question, however, is whether he taught in Greek. Are any of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved for us only in Greek nevertheless in the original language in which he uttered them?

"That Aramaic was the language Jesus normally used for both conversation and teaching seems clear. Most New Testament scholars would agree with this. But did he also speak Greek? The evidence already recounted for the use of Greek in first-century Palestine provides the background for an answer to this question. But there are more specific indi- cations in the Gospels themselves.

"All four Gospels depict Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, at the time of his trial (Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38). Even if we allow for obvious literary embellishment of these accounts, there can be little doubt that Jesus and Pilate did engage in some kind of conversation . . . In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that JESUS SPOKE GREEK at his trial before Pilate" (p.61).

Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.

In addition, we find that Jesus journeyed to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon, where He spoke with a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Gospel of Mark identifies this woman as Hellenes, meaning a "Greek" (Mark 7:26). The probability is, therefore, that Jesus spoke to her in Greek.

Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt.4:15) -- a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.

Having grown up in Galilee, it is evident that Jesus and His disciples must have spoken Greek, whenever it suited their purpose to do so. Declares Fitzmyer:

"Moreover, these specific instances in which Jesus apparently spoke Greek are consistent with his Galilean background. In Matthew 4;15, this area is referred to as 'Galilee of the Gentiles.' Growing up and living in this area, Jesus would have had to speak some Greek. Nazareth was a mere hour's walk to Sepphoris and in the vicinity of other cities of the Decapolis. Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee, was built by Herod Antipas; the population there, too, was far more bilingual than in Jerusalem.

"Coming from such an area, JESUS would NO DOUBT HAVE SHARED THIS DOUBLE LINGUISTIC HERITAGE. Reared in an area where many inhabitants were GREEK- SPEAKING GENTILES, Jesus, the 'carpenter' (tekon, Mark 6:3), like Joseph, his foster- father (Matthew 13:55), would have had to deal with them in GREEK. Jesus was not an illiterate peasant and did not come from the lowest stratum of Palestinian society; he was a skilled craftsman. He is said to have had a house in Capernaum (Mark 2:15). He would naturally have conducted business in Greek with gentiles in Nazareth and neighboring Sepphoris" (ibid.).

Did Jesus also, therefore, teach in Greek? Were many of His parables and saying actually uttered in the Greek language?

If the answer is yes, as A. W. Argyle says, "We may have direct access to the original utterances of our Lord and not only to a translation of them."

Nope.

If you watch his content, especially his newer content he discusses how textual issues contributed to his disbelief, but problem of good and evil was a greater contributing factor for him. It doesn't have to be an either or, multiple factors can contribute to a belief.

Yep.

The problem of pain and suffering was the thing that caused him to lose his faith. He’s clearly said so. And again, after he lost his faith, he went looking for reasons to substantiate his new beliefs and agenda. Confirmation bias, to a T.

Many people misunderstand predestination. Each person has a free will to make a choice to either believe or reject Christ and the gospel. Then comes predestination, all those who accepted Christ are predestined to be conformed to His image to be like him - Rom 8:30, Those who reject Christ are predestined to eternal separation from Christ in the Lake of Fire. Paul's sermon in Acts 13:46 places responsibility on those who reject Christ, "Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Here are Ehrman's own words......

"The problem of suffering has haunted me for a very long time. It was what made me begin to think about religion when I was young, and it was what led me to question my faith when I was older. Ultimately, it was the reason I lost my faith."

More on Bart Ehrman later.....


But, back to AS......

".....What makes a “True Christian?” Remember, you brought it up. What if I told you that, when younger, I was a Mormon, but then spent many years as an agnostic….and later “converted to” Catholicism.

You might wonder, was TF a “True Mormon?”

Was TF a “True Agnostic?”

Is TF a “True Catholic?”"


So, what makes a “True Christian.”


This is your term, you brought it up….leave Bart out of it for now.

Thanks TF49.

Right. Ultimately it was the reason. That doesn't mean it was the only reason.

Sure, when he began to pursue the “atheist” market, he changed/added to his testimony to make it more appealing to that audience. Is that what happened?

Oldest trick in the book….”tell audience what they want to hear.”