Protestantism

» pink101 - Trying Not To Make It Personal

In response to Trying Not To Make It Personal posted by _Boanerges_:

.
Thanks for your input.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Doctrine of Christ

9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - The article

In response to Trying Not To Make It Personal posted by pink101:

Pink, I read the article. I too must agree with Wendell. The article engages in what might be described as 'sleight-of-hand.' It's cleverly written, but there are a lot of presumptions and illogical assertions made within it.

In particular, I was perplexed by the author's accusation that Protestant theology as "over-objectified" Jesus. Did Jesus live or didn't he? Did he die on the cross or not? Did he rise from the dead or not? These are not unimportant questions, for they speak to the heart of his message and purpose.

Next week, we will observe the Fourth of July in American history. I understand that there are important SUBJECTIVE aspects to that holiday and certain PERSONAL meanings that people can take from it. I understand that, and I'm not dismissing them. BUT....

Is there also an OBJECTIVE reality that we are celebrating on July 4? Of course there is. In fact, that objective reality is what makes the subjective stuff possible.

» pink101 - Dismissing The article

In response to The article posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I think your dismissals might make some point regarding what the author has to say.
.
Perhaps you can show how his points are incorrect?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Dismissing The article

In response to Dismissing The article posted by pink101:

He completely sidesteps the historicity of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. The Gospels and the New Testament letters stand as our best record of the life and ministry of Jesus. And they record Jesus performing miracles, claiming to be the Son of Man and the Son of God (both deific titles), forgiving sins, being crucified, and being raised from the dead. Now, it's the burden of the author of the article you reference -it's his burden to show WHY Wendell, Brother Jones, and I should set aside that biblical record and instead adopt these subjective interpretations of Jesus' life.

Why should I set aside the Gospels and the New Testament, Pink?

» pink101 - Dismissing The article

In response to Dismissing The article posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Now, it's the burden of the author of the article you reference -it's his burden to show WHY Wendell, Brother Jones, and I should set aside that biblical record and instead adopt these subjective interpretations of Jesus' life.
.
Do you claim a "personal" relationship with Jesus, Brian?
.
Is not a personal relationship a subjective experience?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Buddhism vs Christianity

In response to Buddhism vs Christianity posted by Brother_Jones:

.
It is like 2 and 2 almost makes 5.
.
I was always fascinated by Christian math: 1(Father)+1(Son)+1(Ghost) = 1(God)

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Dismissing The article

In response to Dismissing The article posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Are there any reliable secular sources about Jesus' life and miracles written in or close to that era which confirm the Gospel accounts?

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Dismissing The article

In response to Dismissing The article posted by Migisi:

Here we go again...

First, YOU have to show me why I should completely dismiss the biblical accounts out of hand. Even if you don't accept their divine inspiration (which you don't), you STILL have to engage them as ancient writings. You still have to accept that the entire collection of narratives and letters we know today as the "New Testament" was written in (most likely) the first century AD or (at the latest) the second century. Liberal and conservative scholars agree on this. As such, they warrant the same level of respect and attention that ANY ancient historical document would get. The fact that YOU refuse to give them that respect reflects your close-minded prejudice against all things Christian.

Second, there ARE secular sources (documents, archeaology, etc.) which affirm PORTIONS of the New Testament record. If you're setting up the standard that ALL of the NT record must be confirmed by secular sources in order for it to be valid, then your standard is HIGHER - MUCH HIGHER - RIDICULOUSLY SO, in fact - than for any other document from ancient history. WE don't require that high a standard for Julius Caesar's record of the Gallic campaigns nor for the leading histories of Alexander the Great's life. And so forth. You are imposing a rigid standard on the NT record that no reputable historian would put on records of antiquity.

The fact is, Migisi, that you've already made up your mind to dismiss CHristianity and the Bible - and you've done so, I believe, more out of bitterness and emotion than intellect. My only hope is that you won't dissuade others who visit here from paying some respect to Christianity. It deserves more than you give it.

» Brian Tubbs - Trinity

In response to Buddhism vs Christianity posted by Migisi:

A red herring that has little to do with our discussion. You're throwing it out there to mock and ridicule Christianity. No other reason. Thus, it's not worthy of a response.