Evidence for God from Science

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:Are you a dictator, who must be obeyed? What happened to the free will of men that God respects? Then that is God, and you do not have to follow his lead, unless you choose to.

This is a discussion forum, if one does not answer a question then it is not a discussion and I am here to discuss, I am not forcing you to answer but I choose not to continue until you do.

Yes this is a discussion forum, where people discuss what they choose, and have the opinion that they choose, no one here is required to answer your questions. You may believe that they must, but this obviously is not so.

Again, the gospel does not have a meaning. The gospels (plural) have many meanings, and different Christians and non Christians alike, will interpret these meanings differently. This has always been the situation, not understanding this, frankly seems quite egocentric and childish to me.

Questor, here is the problem. You are guilty of doing exactly what you are accusing. You are saying, in no uncertain rerms, that your thoughts on the Gospel (that it has multiple meanings) are correct and everyone else is wrong. Obviously you don't realize you are doing this or you wouldn't, since, after all, it is hypocritical.

With that sad, I do agree that there are multiple Gospels (in one sense). The term Gospel, for anyone reading, simply means good news. One Gospel mentioned in the NT is the Gospel of the Messiah who would restore Israel. Just as we sing at Christmas, "and ransom captive Israel." But, we are not Israel and that isn't our Gospel. Now, that will likely offend many here, as some believe that every use of the term Gospel in the NT refers to the Gospel we preach today. But then what of Paul warning of other Gospels?

Now, it is important to understand that there is ONE Gospel FOR today. The Gospel of grace, which welcomes Jew and Gentile alike. It isn't contingent on the throne of David, the Temple, Jerusalem or the Law. It isn't ambiguous and it doesn't have multiple meanings. And when I use the term 'meaning' I am referring to intended meaning, not interpretive meaning.
If you were born on the 4th of July, you might interpret that all the fireworks displays are to celebrate your birth. Sure, you can ascribe that meaning to it, but that meaning doesn't correspond to reality, or the meaning INTENDED by such displays. Whatever meaning you assign to it doesn't make it true.

Earlier you said,

Why did Jesus come and die. He did not come and die, he was born, he lived and had great effect on others, then he was killed.
The purpose of the cross, was a public death, meant to kill criminals and others who caused troubles for the Roman Empire, and to keep the masses in line, with fear.

All other meanings, are the product of human writers after the fact.

Or must everyone, believe exactly as you do?

This is wrong on so many levels. Jesus Himself spoke of the meaning of His lifer, death and resurrection. And the Bible confirms that the Gospel for today was known since before the foundations of the world. (1 Peter 1:20, Eph. 1:4, Rev. 13:8)

Here is the problem with your line of thought.
We can arrive at different meanings and I don't think that anyone disputes that fact. As already explained, that doesn't mean that the Gospel ACTUALLY has different meanings. Interpretive meaning isn't necessarily intended meaning. The Gospel is a message with an intended meaning. It isn't ambiguous or fluid based on what someone WANTS it to mean, or thinks it SHOULD mean.
Here we are dealing with the law of non-contradiction. You can't have contradictory interpretations both be true at the same time and in the same way. That is not how reality and truth work.
In fact, what you are saying is that your interpretation excludes PaulSac's understanding. So, your view is exclusive while claiming to be inclusive. It's self-defeating and contradictory because the Gospel can't mean what it means to Paul, according to you.

For example, perhaps an atheist interprets the Gospel to mean, "I'm OK, you're OK, and even if I don't believe in the life and work of Jesus, God will forgive me and grant me eternal life if I try to be a good person. Too me, that's the Gospel." Well, that opinion is in direct contradiction to the actual teachings, message and......wait for it......MEANING of the Bible. The atheist may say this is what the Gospel 'means to me,' but that doesn't mean he has arrived at a correct meaning. Do you know what I mean?

Any time you hear someone say, "Too me, the Gospel means....." they have committed the oldest sin in the book, idolatry. Truth should shape our beliefs, not the other way around.
The Gospel has a meaning, communicated in the scripture, and we will either align our minds with that Gospel or we will twist it to suit ourselves.

So, the question is can atheist, or whoever, arrive at the correct understanding of the Gospel? Yes, and they can arrive at the incorrect understanding as well.

Why did Jesus come and die. He did not come and die, he was born, he lived and had great effect on others, then he was killed.
The purpose of the cross, was a public death, meant to kill criminals and others who caused troubles for the Roman Empire, and to keep the masses in line, with fear.

All other meanings, are the product of human writers after the fact.

All meanings other than what? What you claim the meaning to be? That's arrogant. You are saying your singular opinion is superior to 2,000 years of Christian teaching as well as the the scripture and words of Jesus Himself. So, the cross and death of Christ was not part of God's plan. When you say human writers after the fact, are you referring to the Paul and the Gospel writers?
Other than your opinion, how do you ground these claims?

The problem is Questor is grounding all his claims in what he was told or read (either from outside the bible, or Cherie picked from it to suite an idea outside the bible). He doesn't know truth and thinks he does. Example:

Mallz wrote:Have you read the gospels? It's in there, read them and be enlightened.
TheQuestor wrote: Another no answer, which confirms the correctness of my postulation. Have I read them, well no I have not read them all, as bible study class is not part of my religion.....as it is in some.

He doesn't know because he doesn't go to the Word for truth. He is arguing things for and against what he thinks the gospel is, when he hasn't even read it..

Mallz wrote:The problem is Questor is grounding all his claims in what he was told or read (either from outside the bible, or Cherie picked from it to suite an idea outside the bible). He doesn't know truth and thinks he does. Example:

Mallz wrote:Have you read the gospels? It's in there, read them and be enlightened.
TheQuestor wrote: Another no answer, which confirms the correctness of my postulation. Have I read them, well no I have not read them all, as bible study class is not part of my religion.....as it is in some.

He doesn't know because he doesn't go to the Word for truth. He is arguing things for and against what he thinks the gospel is, when he hasn't even read it..

That isn't an unusual problem today. In our post modern society relativism rules. What's true for you may or may not be true for me. And the fact that this view is contradictory and self-defeating doesn't really matter to them. And this impacts both Christian and non-Christian. I don't know Questor's faith position, but someone who says they haven't read the Gospels and implies no desire to do such, and then wants to argue the meaning of Gospel, not only seems unChristian, but doesn't seem open or on a "Quest." Oh well. How can you reason with someone if they don't think that reason has any objective foundation? But that brings up another question. Why are they here? This forum has rules and guidelines and is more than open to people who don't share our beliefs, but have a sincere and honest desire to understand a biblical worldview as it relates to creation and have their questions answered. There is little doubt that the OP is asking a question as it relates to a biblical worldview.
In this case, has it ever been asked, "why do you think the Gospel has one meaning?" No. Instead, Questor seems uninterested in anything other than making a bald assertion and telling everyone why they can't hold their opinion. Someone who comes here who has ulterior motives or only wishes to argue or antagonize is like a child who puts their fingers in their ears and goes 'la,la,la,la' as someone tries to communicate with them.

Repent is a great word, but one that is often misunderstood and applied today. It means to forsake one way of thinking to embrace a new way. Sometimes we use the phrase, 'forsake the thought,' which is probably close to the original term. Maybe you've heard someone say, "You need to change your attitude," or, "Your mind is messed up." All this has to do with thought.
It doesn't matter what the Gospel is or isn't. If our method of thinking is wrong, that is, our mindset, then we cannot understand the Gospel. It isn't an accident that Jesus' first recorded words are "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Questor was banned as well as Creation which was him too.

The Gospel isn't a what. It's a who.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Gospel isn't a what. It's a who.

Where were you 6 pages ago ?

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Gospel isn't a what. It's a who.

Yes, I follow the gospel of Paul.