Lazarus: sleeping or dead? – sleep was a euphemism for death (1 Thes. 4:13-17 is another example).

Dwells not in temples made with hands: I'm not sure how these passages relate to "[splitting] God into further Gods". All I see here is a being to "large" to be contained in any one place. God is omnipresent.

Your Twitter page describes you as an "antitheist" and a "theosofist" (theosophy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy). Does that mean you hold to many theosophic views but reject the concept of higher spiritual beings, perhaps preferring some impersonal divine force consistent with the rejection of divine beings?

This discussion seems to be all over the place. I think we would be better served if we focused on some primary objections rather than everything that comes to mind. Would you mind presenting what you would consider to be the 3 best objections to Christianity and its gospel message as I presented it above?

John 12:47 – See John 12:48. In this passage, Jesus says that He has come to save the world, but His words will judge them in the last day.

John 8:14-18, etc. – It is easy to find lies if you assume everything someone says is untrue. Justifying your assumption that Jesus was not who He said He was, however, is a much harder task. I clearly do not accept your premise that Jesus was not who He said He was. Therefore, I fail to see why you would expect me to be convinced that claims Jesus makes regarding God being His Father are somehow problematic.

– Hell —

Christians frequently disagree. Finding a dissenting opinion is not proof of error. To briefly answer the cited objections:

1 – I am not claiming Abraham's bosom is heaven. While believers that die now are held to be instantly present before the Lord in spirit, that is after Jesus died. Before the cross, all the dead went to Sheol (Gen. 37:35). It is this place that Jesus presents as being compartmentalized into a place of torment and a place of paradise.
2 – Isaiah 65:17 refers to the new heavens and the new earth, which is not the setting of Jesus' parable, see (1).
3 – God is spirit (John 4:24), and yet He is said to have a mouth (1 Kings 8:15). Clearly, this is an attempt to explain a spiritual state to corporeal beings and there is no justification for going any further with such statements.
4 – While much of our rewards will be meted out at the Bema judgement, eternal life is part of our reward and precedes that judgement. As a part of this life, Lazarus was not being tormented.
5 – Matt 13:40-42 speaks of the collection of those unbelievers yet living at the time of judgement. It does not deny judgement on those who have died before the judgement.

Eccl 9:5 – Solomon here seems to speak from the perspective of those in this life, especially with the goal of describing a life without God. There is no reason to conclude that he was making a spiritual declaration regarding the lack of a next life.

That fire and pits are generally corporeal manifestations does not mean they can not be used to describe spiritual matters to corporeal beings. How else would we be able to relate to spiritual things if not through corporeal comparisons?

How do you conclude that the "world" in verse 19 is atheists? Jesus also says He called the disciples out of the world. There is no indication that He called them out of atheism. Rather, it is much more likely that they were called out of the distorted Judaism of the religious leaders of that day, and there is no particular reason to believe that Jesus’ use of the world is limited to that group either. Jesus usage of the term here seems to merely denote those who oppose Him, a group which is not limited to atheists or the religious leaders of His day.

The word translated "Gentiles" in Rom. 3:9-18, is the Greek word Hellen, an inhabitant of Helles. That is, a Greek. Clearly, Paul here means non-Jews, whose pre-dominate culture in Paul's day was Greek. There is no justification for confusing this with the enemies of King David.

The "all" in verse 23 is universal. Even if it were not, one could still demonstrate that scripture teaches that those who reject Jesus are under sin. In the earlier passage you cited, (verse 9) Paul declares "Jews and Gentiles…are all under sin".

– Fire God —

Thanks for the scripture reference, but you don't need to link for scripture references. I have Bible software I can use to look it up. :)

That God uses fire does not make Him a being of fire.

Deut. 4:24 – The statement that God is a consuming fire is clearly speaking about the destructive nature of His judgement, not His bodily form.

John 5:37 – Contrary to your claim that God has a corporeal form, Jesus here states that no one has seen the Father.

That God doesn't always do as He wills (for example, saving everyone) is proof of freewill. Only if another will is at work can God will something and not have it come to pass.

Your argument that our choices are dependent on the soul God gives us assumes that the soul is a deterministic entity. Based on that assumption, only God can truly will. However, I see no reason to assume that God is incapable of making a non-deterministic soul by which we are free to make our own choices.

————-

Regarding Jesus' statement in John 3:13, there are two reasonable explanations. First, that Enoch and Elijah were not taken to heaven (that is, the third heaven where God resides), but to paradise in Sheol. The second is to note that in John 3:13, Jesus is establishing His authority on heavenly matters. While Enoch and Elijah may have been taking into heaven, they had not subsequently descended, which Jesus had done and mentions in the same verse.

There is no justification for understanding the Greek word "kosmos" in terms of the Land of Israel or the general area of Israel, especially when Jesus later sent the disciples to Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8) and sent Paul explicitly to the Gentiles.

– Marriage —

Matt 19:10-12 says merely that some are born eunuchs and some have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. He does not command against marriage.

Jesus did not promise a hundred-fold reward in this life, in fact, everlasting life is part of the reward, implying rewards in the next life.

Jesus statement that one can not serve two masters is clearly not a statement opposing any authority but God's. Throughout scripture, God repeatedly sets up authorities under himself, from religious leaders and judges to kings. Jesus Himself recognized the authority of the Caesars. The statement clearly is talking about one's highest allegiance. Therefore, a wife's submission to her husband does not conflict with Jesus statement regarding two masters because she is not to see the husband as her highest master, nor is the husband to seek that position, being Himself subject to Chirst.

You said:

"All of the crimes you suppose, your Gods and their Son are ful guilty of: http://egroups.com/message/theproving/6415."

I said:

"I do not see how the post you reference proves God guilty of anything. Please clarify."

You replied:

"The posts were not of the same point—their guilt is another subject, in other stages of the work."

To me, that looks like you are saying that the article in question (6415) is "not of the same point" as your preceding statement, the crimes of God.

You also say:

"I said they were guilty of your short list, at least. And it's /you/ who believe a perfect God would allow human sacrifice, not only of his son, but his son and Paul believed and had told their followers to do so of themselves. He who would keep his life shall lose his life, and otherwise."

I think here might be the confusion. I never stated a list of deeds I claimed God was guilty of. It seems that you are saying God is guilty of human sacrifice in accepting the substitutionary death of Jesus. You also claim that God is guilty of asking for others to sacrifice themselves when Jesus states something like "whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it" (Matt. 10:39, 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24, 17:33; John 12:25).

However, Jesus's death was not human sacrifice (killing arbitrary people to appease the divine beings), but self-sacrifice. It is evil to force someone to bear the punishment for one's own crimes, but not evil for someone to offer to pay the penalty another deserves freely. Furthermore, the loss of life statement is not a call to sacrifice one's self, but to hold something as more valuable than this life, as in Matt 10:28, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

– Search Links —

I do not see a date given for either. It isnot much of a hassle for you to link directly to the article you want me to read. Frankly, it is inconsiderate to link to a list of articles and expect me to find the article you want me to read when you could easily just link to the article you wish to cite yourself. If you aren't willing to do the minimal amount of work it takes to find the article yourself, I certainly am not going to let you waste my time finding it. I'm sorry if Google has gone down hill, but the search you linked includes direct links to articles. That's all there is to follow. Therefore, your justification, which appears to be that no direct link exists and therefore a search is the simplest way to reference the article, is false. Please provide direct links.

—-

I'm not sure what you mean by "the flood was self-deemway". Do you mean damning?

Gen. 6:7 – God's "repenting" can easily be understood as anthropomorphism rather than admitting God saying He never should have made man. In the very next verse, it states that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord and as a result, He does not destroy all mankind, but spares Noah and his family.

Gen. 8:21 – God merely says that He won't curse the earth any more than He already had and would not kill off all living things as He did in the flood. None of the examples you claim prove Him a liar are examples of God destroying all life as He did in the flood for the sake of mankind's sin. Therefore, your claim that God is a liar is not supported by your cited cases.

Uh, breath and spirit are the self-same word, one in English and other in Latin. It's so, Hibirijt has the same word for wind and breath and whiff, and blow and breathe, but another word for huff which nepesh came from—and so soul and huffer is the same word. I didn't say other members of trinity, but any member—there is no spirit; it's a blunder. pneýmatic = vitumenic; pneýmal = vitumenal; pneýma = vitumen; pneýs = vis; pneýdal = vital. Althouh I said pneýma was wit, for short, it's fully wittway. There was also Akaic "is" or "iis"—and maybe ikor therefrom; it may'v lost a dighamma, a "wis", but they no longer use either. The best overall word for ruàk is whiff, which is often smelly. But there was no such conflation a thousand years later in Hellènic; there are two words for breath and wit. But see how over time they split God into further Gods—1Kin 8:27, 2Kro 6:18; Act 7:48 17:24—lest these verses contradict so many others. It is easier to expect Scripture is rough, flakey, loos, and wrong than to make up excuses where there are none. In Num 12:8, j·hveh admits he has a build, which Moshè and the elders may see; Krist tald the same in Jòan 5:37. And in Deý 4:24 it says he [is] fire. Sith ruàk is all wind, breath, whiff, and maybe wit, there was no distinction between stuff and ghost. Indeed, there was no such distinction until Zarathustra, by which Kristism is a rippoff.

You could look at my Twitter page. Why would you ask about my outlook after you read my email on theproving? The "Buybull" to me is a weapon against the illiterate world. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Seneca_the_Youn... For anyone who wonders, j·hveh (not j·hjeh) is the verb "he gets" or "he'll get", in the absolute imperfect.

-Aut
Jòan 8:46

About the parabol of a rich man in hellfire, awake, here is what another Kristian says:

http://helltruth.com/q-a/the-rich-man-and-lazarus...
The Rich Man & Lazarus
Doesn't the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 teach an eternal hell of torment?

No, Indeed! It is simply a parable used to emphasize a point. Many facts make it clear that this is a parable. A few are as follows:

• Abraham's bosom is not heaven (Hebrews 11:8-10, 16)
• People in hell can't talk to those in heaven (Isaiah 65: 17)
• The dead are in their graves (Job 17:13; John 5:28, 29). The rich man was in bodily form with eyes, a tongue, etc., yet we know that the body does not go to hell at death. It is very obvious that the body remains in the grave, as the Bible says. If you'd like to know more about what happens after you die visit The Truth About Death website.
• Men are rewarded at Christ's second coming, not at death (Revelation 22:11, 12)
• The lost are punished in hell at the end of the world, not when they die (Matthew 13:40-42). The point of the story is found in verse 31 of Luke 16. Parables cannot be taken literally. If we took parables literally, then we must believe that trees talk! (See this parable in Judges 9:8-15).

By representing the beggar as being in heaven and the rich man as lost, Jesus taught His hearers that, contrary to the prevailing view, wealth was not necessarily an indicator of divine favor, just as poverty was not a sign of God's judgement upon a person.

Jesus was also seeking to educate the Jews that salvation would not be theirs by birthright. The rich man in torments calls out to "father Abraham," just as the Jews of Jesus' day were mistakenly pointing to heritage as proof of their assurance of salvation.

Furthermore, Jesus was seeking to lead His hearers to understand that only faithfulness to God's Word would prepare them to enter into eternal life. He told them, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

To use the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in order to promote the false doctrine of an eternally burning hell is to misuse God's Word and to misrepresent His character.

It wasn't unjustly here as the charges were by the book—or rather, by the slab and scroll. If you will not bother to seek where I tell you to, for the very thing you ask for, which wouldn't take more than 10 seconds to find, then don't ask me. In the past when the groups were smaller and the search engine smarter, a searchlink would be the neatest way to show where a post was for someone without a website—but Google went downhill last year and dumpd so many results and sýntacs, without so much as admission of guilt. Where is your problem? It's funny how you say one could be accused, convicted, and executed unjustly, when the deeds of j·hveh and his troop were even harsher and crookeder than anything the Romans did to Jèsu and his buds—of course their victims couldn't help who they were or what they did. If I were God, I wouldn't slay folks if they wouldn't abide by me—as it would be my fault and thus murder—but I would beslave them; and if they did wrong I would maim them so they couldn't anymore, but I'd still make them entertain me. I'd not slay them unless I hated them. I do hate the world, so never mind. Here is your friendly fiendly firegod at a tune: http://net.bible.org/?Ps+21:9. Could the 1940s Holocaýst be social retribution for who had started the -1100s Holocaýst? Eýropè, unlike America, in the midst of their warlosses wrihtfully sank their faith in God[s] and instead focusd on progress and self, as did Russija and Nihongo; and wherefore they didn't dump their money intom churchs or the Holy Land unlike the lackwits in America, per capita they are at the top in prosperity—which flies in the face of fakethfuls who're so innumerately bankrupt to claim America is so rich due to God's blessing upon believers in him. (I still mean them of course.)

Eric Wadenius, Friendly Atheist: "My view is that when a society is healthy, with equal rights, stable economy and government, feels safe and sprouts a highly educated citizenry, then religion simply fades away…"

Hale Dalnmark!

Which search did you mean, the one for Google Groups or for eGroups/Yahoo! Groups? Neither is tough to find; I gave you the date for the latter, and the group has a calendar browser; the author for both is Autymn D. C. I don't see how you get tons of links.

If you want to argue on direct means, the ark was salvific. But the flood was self-deemway: Ghene 6:7, where God admits his failure; 8:21, where he shuts out further groundly/earthly curses or punishments—such as earthquakes, landslides, fiery hell, volcanos, abattoirs, barren till, salt heaps. How soon did he show himself a liar? Ghene 19. How often did he show himself a liar? As -el shàddàij, or god of wreck, he hade to prove himself for Moshè, his folks, and Hicuptah he was the same [pagan] god of -abraham. Whenever God wiped out a world, it was to make way for the faithful, some small strain—I think you call "remnant"—so they would not [easily] wander astray, whether to seek other gods or rebel or fail in any of the 620 commandments. So it's clear how doom for others makes the world safe for a few.

Did not j·hveh express outrage at the child sacrifice of their neahbours? Did his uncle not hold -abraham's arm when he was about to slit his son? Tell me where he intends to follow in the strange gods' ways, or how he would mistake a man or a god for a lamb.

God does not do as he will; he often dooms his own throuhout Tanac; but he does as he must. A common motif in both testaments is the evil heart of man and its will to sin, curse, and lige. However another motif is God's continual testing and trying (tempting) of man with evil so he would sin, and so he would die—in contradiction of Jacòb's statement in 1:13–14. (You know him as the not-name Dzhems, or Giems, yet spell him James.) I'm about to do up a list of verses for Twitter where God was so the evil temptar/temptand. In many Tanac verses God was self-admittedly tha maker/doer/crafter/eker of evil—Kristians mistakenly believe "evil" and "sin" are one and the same, be they collocate, but they're quite independent. (Consequently God doesn't like himself: Psa 5:4.) Whenever they talk about Ja 1:13, they shamelessly stick "sin" in "evil"'s stead; but sin was for 1:17 as the outcome of 1:14. Man cannot freely choose (Maybe that's a better term than free will.) without one's heart or Gods—by heart, tha writers mean mind, within the brain. And what is the mind but the inner deeds of the soul? And how did the soul come in but by the breath of Gods? Unless you'd like to tell us we make our own souls—in which case, God would be a thief [further].

I did not say J·hudàijm; that's but one tribe. And I already talkd about Jòan 3:16's use of "world"; it was narrow, local, racist-religionist. Besides, the word for cosmos is rank, how things are; why didn't he say man, mankind, or creation? Tell me, where did Jèsu preach? Did believers call him Papas or Ràbbi? If you go by the pagan rippoff of Jòan, why don't you deal with 3:13? which was of course contradicted by Kanoc (Ghen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and -elij·hu (2Kin 2:11).

Matt 19:29? The hundredfold reward, no, but that must be where this scammer Mike Murdock got the line. The point is, Krist made impossibil beseechs and promises: Luca 18:27–30. We can test his word in Matt 19:29 and Luca 18:30 now: Did every apostol get a hundredfold more life and homes until their execution? How about Kristians? The verses I had in mind were Matt 19:10–12 and 1Cori 7C: Don't breed, thus don't mate, thus don't wed. Paul said the same; however, in 1Cori 7A he breaches the rule he mildly implied in 7C, the one Krist gave: no one can serve two masters. The wife must serve her husband, and God, and the husband his wife, and God. It's a catch-22 for Krist and Paul. Whether husband and wife are both believers, or not, Paul didn't mind the latter here; however, in another writ he made clear not to be yokede with unbelievers. Or does his target town matter? (It ouht not; the law should be the same for everyone.)

What is God guilty of and how does that cause Him to forbid human sacrifice? Are you saying that if God was perfect He would allow human sacrifice?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read through every article that comes up on a search. Please link directly to 1-2 articles that support your point. I'm willing to discuss these things with you, but please don't try waste my time with tons of irrelevant or redundant links.

The water of the flood and which shall destroy the heavens and the earth are presented as judgement, not salvation (2 Peter 3:6-7). On what basis do you conclude that these elements were salvific to the exclusion of self-sacrifice by Christ?

A basic scriptural case for freewill is based on three observations:

1 – Salvation is received by a choice (faith)
2 – God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9)
3 – Not all are saved

If God wants to save everyone and not everyone is saved, and salvation is by a choice, either God does not will us all to make that choice (which would contradict 2 Peter 3:9) or a will apart from God is at work (namely, our own). What in scripture do you see denying freewill?

Upon what do you base your claim that Jesus only cared about the Jews? While there are some passages that emphasize Jesus's ministry to the Jews, coming as their Messianic King, there are other passages that emphasize His ministry to Gentiles. Most notable among them is John 3:16.

When you say that the gospels speak against marriage, are you referring to Matthew 19:29 and parallel passages? If so, Jesus does not say that one must abandon one's wife for Him or to receive eternal life. Rather, He says that if following Him results in doing so (presumably because the spouses negativity towards Christ), one will receive reward. Peter had a wife as Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 9:5. Jesus is not teaching against marriage, but promising to reward those who endure hardship for His sake.

Please include references so I can look up the verses you cite. Regarding John 15:22-24, Jesus does not refer to atheists specifically in anyway and He says merely without sin, not completely without any sin. He may easily be referring to a specific type or degree of sin, namely, rejecting Him directly. Paul makes a similar argument in Romans regarding the Law and sin, but points out that even those who have not the Law have a conscience which is a law unto them (Rom 2:13-15). As a result, Paul concludes that there are sins without the law and sins with the law (and by extension, sins with Christ and sins without Christ). Ultimately, Paul concludes that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). No group of people, not religious, secular, pagan, Judaic, atheist, or Christian is without sin.

Upon what basis do you declare that Jesus sinned? Frankly, your claim that He must have been guilty of something or He would not have been arrested is laughable. Do you really believe that no one has every been accused of a crime, convicted of a crime, or executed for a crime unjustly? Also, I'm not going to read searches, let alone conduct them myself for you. Again, please provide 1-2 relevant, direct citations or a good reason why you can not do so and some type of search is the best method.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus presents hell as a place of torments after death (Luk 16:20-31). I am not aware of any argument from scripture which supports the claim you make, and again, I'm not going to read through an entire search.

"Breath" is frequently associated with spirit. In Gen. 1:2, the word translated "Spirit" is "ruac", which means "wind" or "breath". In Gen. 2:7, the word for "soul" is "nephesh", a breathing creature. Such terminology ephasizes the lack of a corporal form associated with a spirit. Beyond that, I see no reason to conclude that because one member of the Trinity is known as the Holy Spirit, that the other members can not be spiritual beings. You seem to try to refer to the pillar of cloud and fire in the wilderness as proof of the corporal of God. However, before that, God appears to Abraham in human form (Gen. 18) and later manifests to Elijah as a still small voice (1 Kings 19:11-12). This merely demonstrates that God can manifest Himself physically to interact with us. It does not imply that His essential nature or form is not spiritual, but a corporal body of flesh, cloud, or fire.

In closing, could you please clarify your view of reality? It would help me understand your posts if I understood where you were coming from. Are you an atheist claiming that religious views are incoherent? Do you consider yourself to be a scripture-informed Christian? What is the Bible to you?