Was God's Intent To Be Cryptic?

[POI]

Was God's/Jesus's Word(s) meant to sometimes be vague/mysterious?

Are humans just too stupid to collectively associate the correct intended conclusions behind some of these claimed Bible passages?

Should the reader of the Bible's claims, be at mere face value, even if the seemingly axiomatic claim does not look to comport with later human discovery?

Should the reader conclude, if the claimed passage does not align with discovery, that this is not what God actually meant?

Why would God not want His message(s) to be abundantly clear, which is evident by the reality that we have many mutually opposing sects in Christianity?

I'll stop here....

Thank you in advance!

[brunumb]

Is belief a choice? If so, simply will an opposite belief in something you hold dear, as a test And when you admit that you cannot, I re-ask the same question above... Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

That really goes to the heart of the matter. One cannot simply choose to believe that something is true. You are either convinced or you are not. Your brain is the stumbling block. We all have different thresholds of credulity and our brains will respond to information in different ways. Mine does not see any compelling evidence for gods and it won't let me simply choose to believe in God/Jesus. Had I been subjected to more intense and consistent indoctrination in my formative years then it might have been a different matter.

[POI]

Is belief a choice? If so, simply will an opposite belief in something you hold dear, as a test And when you admit that you cannot, I re-ask the same question above... Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

That really goes to the heart of the matter. One cannot simply choose to believe that something is true. You are either convinced or you are not. Your brain is the stumbling block. We all have different thresholds of credulity and our brains will respond to information in different ways. Mine does not see any compelling evidence for gods and it won't let me simply choose to believe in God/Jesus. Had I been subjected to more intense and consistent indoctrination in my formative years then it might have been a different matter.

Thank you for your insight. I agree with you.

However, I think I've already touched on this issue in another thread with Venom? If memory serves me correctly, he is under the BELIEF that you, as an atheist, are instead just in denial or suppressing the 'truth'. --- And that deep down, you believe, and choose to rebel instead

When Christians are pressed long enough, it seems to often times boil down to Romans 1:18-22 (i.e.):

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

[nobspeople]

[Replying to brunumb in post #121]

One cannot simply choose to believe that something is true. You are either convinced or you are not. Your brain is the stumbling block. We all have different thresholds of credulity and our brains will respond to information in different ways. Mine does not see any compelling evidence for gods and it won't let me simply choose to believe in God/Jesus. Had I been subjected to more intense and consistent indoctrination in my formative years then it might have been a different matter.

I disagree the bolded section, as I understand your take on it here.
Believing is a choice and one that's made by the individual with their individual needs, wants and desires. Sometimes it relies on thinking and other times it doesn't.
Believing needs only a person to accept it for said belief to 'exist' and requires no logical convincing (why do you believe? I don't know I just do, for example). Sometimes the terms of a belief 'feels right' or 'is liked by' the individual, with little to no logical reasoning as to their belief or how they came about it.

If someone wants to believe a hamburger eating octopus is living in their basement with no evidence of it past 'hey I want to believe in a hamburger eating octopus living in my basement', they can accept it's true and thus, 'believe it'.
I have family members that believe in things that never happened. They will argue and defend their position because, I suppose, it makes them feel good about it(?). Sometimes their belief is a mis-remembered fact (they did XYZ when in fact it was someone else that did XYZ) and sometimes it's totally created in their own mind (they did XYZ when no one did XYZ).

What you indicate as a stumbling block above is what I see for it to take for one to believe in something or not.

While your reasoning above may work this way for you and others, it's not 'species-wide'. In other words, how your (and my) mind works isn't the same for everyone. The brain and mind is a complicated thing not fully understood.

While you and I may not choose to believe in XYZ (because it doesn't make sense, because of this or that, etc), it is from a thinking POV. And many rely more on 'feeling' than 'thinking', as evidence by the millions of christians world wide. I'd challenge any one of them to provide thinking points on why they think as they do that's logical and not emotional. I think that (logical vs emotional) is the differentiation here that needs to be made.

[brunumb]

When Christians are pressed long enough, it seems to often times boil down to Romans 1:18-22 (i.e.):

"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,......

.....blah, blah, blah."


Oh well, that explains it. I am simply a wicked person, just a filthy rag in God's eyes, and I am suppressing my belief in him because of my wickedness. Who made up this utter nonsense? Who, in this day and age, can give that any credibility? It might have had a bit of currency in ancient times of ignorance, superstition and gods galore, but surely not now. Have we really not made that much progress in 2000 years? When you look at all the conspiracy theories and misinformation being swallowed hook-line-and-sinker, I guess the answer is, no.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #121]

One cannot simply choose to believe that something is true. You are either convinced or you are not. Your brain is the stumbling block. We all have different thresholds of credulity and our brains will respond to information in different ways. Mine does not see any compelling evidence for gods and it won't let me simply choose to believe in God/Jesus. Had I been subjected to more intense and consistent indoctrination in my formative years then it might have been a different matter.

I disagree the bolded section, as I understand your take on it here.
Believing is a choice and one that's made by the individual with their individual needs, wants and desires. Sometimes it relies on thinking and other times it doesn't.
Believing needs only a person to accept it for said belief to 'exist' and requires no logical convincing (why do you believe? I don't know I just do, for example). Sometimes the terms of a belief 'feels right' or 'is liked by' the individual, with little to no logical reasoning as to their belief or how they came about it.

If someone wants to believe a hamburger eating octopus is living in their basement with no evidence of it past 'hey I want to believe in a hamburger eating octopus living in my basement', they can accept it's true and thus, 'believe it'.
I have family members that believe in things that never happened. They will argue and defend their position because, I suppose, it makes them feel good about it(?). Sometimes their belief is a mis-remembered fact (they did XYZ when in fact it was someone else that did XYZ) and sometimes it's totally created in their own mind (they did XYZ when no one did XYZ).

What you indicate as a stumbling block above is what I see for it to take for one to believe in something or not.

While your reasoning above may work this way for you and others, it's not 'species-wide'. In other words, how your (and my) mind works isn't the same for everyone. The brain and mind is a complicated thing not fully understood.

While you and I may not choose to believe in XYZ (because it doesn't make sense, because of this or that, etc), it is from a thinking POV. And many rely more on 'feeling' than 'thinking', as evidence by the millions of christians world wide. I'd challenge any one of them to provide thinking points on why they think as they do that's logical and not emotional. I think that (logical vs emotional) is the differentiation here that needs to be made.

This 'is believing a choice?' argument has come up before. I think it's this way.

On any question one can follow the evidence or try to explain it away. One has made a choice to 'Believe' in both cases, and once could also say following the evidence wasn't a choice to Believe but an inescapable conclusion. But where Faith pushes one to reject or dismiss or at least try to argue away the evidence, we are talking Faith, and that is a Theist trait, though it can happen with the skeptical or scientific side where a Pet Theory is involved.

Discuss?

[POI]

[Replying to brunumb in post #121]

One cannot simply choose to believe that something is true. You are either convinced or you are not. Your brain is the stumbling block. We all have different thresholds of credulity and our brains will respond to information in different ways. Mine does not see any compelling evidence for gods and it won't let me simply choose to believe in God/Jesus. Had I been subjected to more intense and consistent indoctrination in my formative years then it might have been a different matter.

I disagree the bolded section, as I understand your take on it here.
Believing is a choice and one that's made by the individual with their individual needs, wants and desires. Sometimes it relies on thinking and other times it doesn't.
Believing needs only a person to accept it for said belief to 'exist' and requires no logical convincing (why do you believe? I don't know I just do, for example). Sometimes the terms of a belief 'feels right' or 'is liked by' the individual, with little to no logical reasoning as to their belief or how they came about it.

If someone wants to believe a hamburger eating octopus is living in their basement with no evidence of it past 'hey I want to believe in a hamburger eating octopus living in my basement', they can accept it's true and thus, 'believe it'.
I have family members that believe in things that never happened. They will argue and defend their position because, I suppose, it makes them feel good about it(?). Sometimes their belief is a mis-remembered fact (they did XYZ when in fact it was someone else that did XYZ) and sometimes it's totally created in their own mind (they did XYZ when no one did XYZ).

What you indicate as a stumbling block above is what I see for it to take for one to believe in something or not.

While your reasoning above may work this way for you and others, it's not 'species-wide'. In other words, how your (and my) mind works isn't the same for everyone. The brain and mind is a complicated thing not fully understood.

While you and I may not choose to believe in XYZ (because it doesn't make sense, because of this or that, etc), it is from a thinking POV. And many rely more on 'feeling' than 'thinking', as evidence by the millions of christians world wide. I'd challenge any one of them to provide thinking points on why they think as they do that's logical and not emotional. I think that (logical vs emotional) is the differentiation here that needs to be made.

This 'is believing a choice?' argument has come up before. I think it's this way.

On any question one can follow the evidence or try to explain it away. One has made a choice to 'Believe' in both cases, and once could also say following the evidence wasn't a choice to Believe but an inescapable conclusion. But where Faith pushes one to reject or dismiss or at least try to argue away the evidence, we are talking Faith, and that is a Theist trait, though it can happen with the skeptical or scientific side where a Pet Theory is involved.

Discuss?

It's definitely worth discussing, albeit, probably in a new thread?

I already have about 6 topics going all about belief, as well as others, in this thread alone with Venom. In regards to his assertion about belief, I'm also asking him if lack in a belief warrants eternal damnation?

[POI]

When Christians are pressed long enough, it seems to often times boil down to Romans 1:18-22 (i.e.):

"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,......

.....blah, blah, blah."


Oh well, that explains it. I am simply a wicked person, just a filthy rag in God's eyes, and I am suppressing my belief in him because of my wickedness. Who made up this utter nonsense? Who, in this day and age, can give that any credibility? It might have had a bit of currency in ancient times of ignorance, superstition and gods galore, but surely not now. Have we really not made that much progress in 2000 years? When you look at all the conspiracy theories and misinformation being swallowed hook-line-and-sinker, I guess the answer is, no.

The kicker of it all, is that Venom tends to think that everyone, deep down, is a believer. Hence, to mention the necessity for belief seems redundant and/or unnecessary? Further, if belief is required, and Romans 1 tells it's readers all are believers, deep down, then I guess all are already saved???

Or, if we go another direction, let's say you, and others, truly do not currently believe deep down; and Romans 1 is completely incorrect. or, Rom. 1 is correct and you are currently plagued by evil... You will still believe the second you die, as He would then reveal Himself to you in a way for which you could no longer deny. But then, of course, is it too late? You should have believed before you died?.?.? But regardless, the 'justified' punishment, for not believing before you die, is eternal damnation?

Or how about HOW MUCH you believe right now? Maybe you kinda believe, but still have quite a bit of doubt? Is there a provided Biblical barometer? Or maybe a 'mustard seed' is already enough, which most/all already have?

Maybe the mention of belief is nothing more than a redundancy, and the way to salvation has to do with grace by works?

The concept of Christianity is quite confusing, even if you think it is true :0

[Tcg]

The kicker of it all, is that Venom tends to think that everyone, deep down, is a believer. Hence, to mention the necessity for belief seems redundant and/or unnecessary? Further, if belief is required, and Romans 1 tells it's readers all are believers, deep down, then I guess all are already saved???

Or, if we go another direction, let's say you, and others, truly do not currently believe deep down; and Romans 1 is completely incorrect. or, Rom. 1 is correct and you are currently plagued by evil... You will still believe the second you die, as He would then reveal Himself to you in a way for which you could no longer deny. But then, of course, is it too late? You should have believed before you died?.?.? But regardless, the 'justified' punishment, for not believing before you die, is eternal damnation?

Or how about HOW MUCH you believe right now? Maybe you kinda believe, but still have quite a bit of doubt? Is there a provided Biblical barometer? Or maybe a 'mustard seed' is already enough, which most/all already have?

Maybe the mention of belief is nothing more than a redundancy, and the way to salvation has to do with grace by works?

The concept of Christianity is quite confusing, even if you think it is true :0

Romans 1 takes it further than belief and makes claims of knowledge:

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Would it be possibly to know God and yet not believe in him? I can't see how. Whomever is being described here believes, but clearly that is not enough. Here honor of and thanks to God are required. As we've seen before, if one desires to attain eternal life based on the many and various ways the Bible presents, they are going to be awfully busy and perhaps a bit fearful they've misunderstood or missed a vital ingredient.

As cryptic as mud.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

If this was the case, then DON'T TELL ANYBODY.

That would contradict Matt 28:19-20.

We then all get free passes!

Who is "we"? Whoever it is, it doesn't include you...because you already know.

I doubt 'oral tradition' is that reliable

Oral tradition, supplemented with written work (ever heard of the OT)? Both are deemed reliable to the millions of Judeo-Christians who've been following.

I guess it wouldn't be reliable to unbelievers.

I doubt all heard the same messages, if any at all? I bet many heard many conflicting messages, or partial messages, or even no messages. And by the time Matthew was written, some many decades later, who the heck knows how much legend and lore had developed before anything at all was written to paper and canonized by the 'church'?.?.?.?.?

That is your opinion. I will share mines. It goes a little something like this; those who wanted to be saved and receive the Good News, God will provide a way for them to receive the Good News (and become saved if they accept what they heard).

Further, you seem to think all such parables were spoken at the same time, to the same people? It does not suggest as such... Again, this is your hope/faith at work....

Hmm. John 21:25

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

As I previously stated, not everything Jesus said/did was recorded in the Gospels.

Mentioning 'children' in a Verse is not 'clear as day', But nice try.

You were provided the scripture were Jesus explicitly stated that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (children).

And of course you were dismissive about it, which is no surprise, considering this isn't about coming to believe, this is about the need to feel justify as to why you don't believe.

If that isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Oh, and if we are to rely upon 'common sense', then why list any Commandments at all?

The whole "common sense" thing went over your head. Moving along.

Further, again, if belief IS a requirement, then the handicapped, dead infants, and the ones whom have not heard are not saved.

I already responded to this.

And BTW, we've already read your 'firearms' analogy, which has already been debunked by another interlocutor.

Nah, it was a failed "gotcha" moment by the interlocutor, which I nipped in the bud immediately and as far as I'm concerned, the analogy stands.

Please accept your given contradiction, or please come up with a better response.

I stand by what I said.

No, God has no problem dispatching infants... Have you read the OT?

The act of dispatching the infants says nothing about their eternal destination.

Not allowing an infant to grow up, and possibly not believe, based upon your doctrine, would be a guaranteed way to assure your child's salvation, right?

I continue to appeal to what the Bible has Jesus himself saying about little children.

Nothing you say can/will negate what he said, and what he meant.

Moving along.

Don't tell anyone about Jesus. The ignorant get a free pass, according to you. Which also, again, is in contradiction to stating belief is a requirement.

I already responded to this and refuse to do so again.

Nope. You've already conceded three reasons why belief is not required. Sorry.

I did. Too bad you don't qualify for it. No free pass. You know about Jesus, you reject him, and that's that.

Um, I've known this for years. I'm just letting you hang yourself, as we go. This should have been an easy layup for you... (i.e.) "Oh, that Verse was not from Jesus." If you already knew that, then why did you not mention it before? I myself doubt anything from the Bible is 'authoritative'. You do. See the difference?

In all honesty, I knew that there was an addition to Mark's ending that isn't in the earliest manuscripts, but I wasn't aware that that particular passage was in this later addition.

However, even if it WAS included in the earliest copies, it STILL doesn't mean what you claim it means...so either way, you are wrong.

Whoever wrote that Verse states that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." If baptism was not a requirement, it would not mention this, right along side belief in the the same assertion. The author states you need both. The fact that the author was sloppy, and did not mention both in the next part of the sentence does not matter. Why? Because you cannot have one without the other. No need to mention both again. ---> "Common sense"

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I will say this one last time...baptism is analogous to walking across the stage when you graduate. It is ceremonious. But it isn't a requirement to graduate. You move on to the next grade, whether you walk across the stage or not.

Again, one last time..

"Whoever passes the class and walks across the stage will move to the next grade".

It does not follow that you need to walk across the stage in order to move to the next grade, however, the statement is still true, that if you pass the class and walk across the stage, that you will move to the next grade.

In order to find out which direction we need to go when it comes to that, we can appeal to illustrations in scripture where people were saved despite being unbaptized. The thief on the cross simply believed, and he was saved. No baptism necessary.

That will be my last time addressing this issue.

Blind faith does not mean too much, does it? I would reckon many have not truly read their Bibles, and/or do not study it regularly. Many just follow the crowd, and/or only know parts, and/or were indoctrinated.

It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you get there.

And since we have many opposing doctrines, which you have already acknowledged, all the ones that follow cannot even agree on the basics of what they blindly follow.

Some have blind faith, and some have reasonable faith (as do I). I am of the opinion that Christian apologetics should be taught in Churches.

It's a good thing I'm now speaking to the one person that has the right doctrine. Oh, wait a minute, I was debating a Catholic last week, who is under the same exact impression as you. The week before that, it was a Universalist who thinks all are eventually saved. Heck, I've even debated proclaimed experts in hermeneutics, some of which read Genesis and translate a young earth, while others of this study translate an old earth... This was at one of the churches I used to attend. I asked that they both speak with me together, so we could sort out all the discrepencies, but they refused... Sighting that they "did not want to bring discord." Seems the search for truth would trump all such petty worries,,, But I digress....

You are correct, it is indeed a shame that we (believers) can't even agree on salvation. Disagreements amongst believers isn't something new, the early Christians had to hold a council just to decide whether circumcision was necessary for salvation. (Acts 15:1-2)

It is what it is. However, none of this should concern you, being an unbeliever and all.

Who says I do not believe? As I stated prior, I place belief, in any claim, on a percentage scale. Didn't we already go over this? I believe in a "risen Jesus" about the same I believe in "Muhammad flying to heaven on a white horse"...

My belief in both assertions stands at <1% You already disclosed your belief in the same proposition is ~90%. Does the Bible state HOW much belief is enough? Has God told you?

And to answer your statement, if you believe that God exists, you should worry that I do not believe (enough). Unless <1% is already enough?

But see, the difference between me and you is simple; I live my life as though Jesus not only existed as a historical figure, but that he is the risen Christ on whom salvation is based.

See the difference? So, that is where the 90% thing gets me.

You, on the other hand...

Nope, it goes right back to grace alone God's grace covers all the sin you commit, and/or do not repent for.... You have also already conceded (3) ways belief is not required You have also admitted your belief in Jesus is about 90%. Does God consider this "true belief"? Maybe anything under 100% is insufficient? Is God going to instead offer His grace, for your lack in full conviction?.?.?.?

Ok, so since you are riding this 90% thing into the ground, let me explain why my level of belief is 90% instead of 100%.

It is simple, because the evidence/proof that we have for Jesus Christ is based on historicity, and nothing from antiquity can be proven 100%, because no one living today was there to witness anything.

So, instead of 100%, I gave it an honest and sincere 90%, which is still relatively high...high enough for me to live practically my entire life as though it was 100% true as opposed to not.

And my history of proclaiming Jesus Christ as savior, as well as my track record of arguing in favor of Christian theism speaks for itself.

The God that I worship (according to my belief/faith) sees what I've done and he will be the judge, not unbelievers on religious forums 2,000 years later asking questions about a God that they don't believe in.

I disagree... I'm reading the text plainly. It does not matter whether I believe enough or not. Luke 14 alludes to the notion that you must get rid of any possession which you might covet. --- To assure Jesus is and always will be your 100% focus. If you own possessions, you may loose focus from Jesus once in a while, or more. This is 'common sense', from a plain reading of the text in Luke 14. Wait a minute, does your 'common sense' differ from mine? If so, how might we resolve this disagreement?

I already provided an answer to this. Again, that would mean that the disciples couldn't own anything...not even clothes or food, if you take it as a literally "everything".

If I tell you "the IRS took EVERYTHING from me", does that mean that they even took the jar of pickles I have in my cabinet?

No. It is a hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally.

So yeah, we will have to disagree there. How might we resolve the issue? I don't know. If my answers are not good enough and that is where your convictions lead you, then it simply is what it is.

You almost answered.... Instead of 'moving along', you might have instead asked, do you know you will willfully lie again in the future? For which I would assume the answer is also yes. Hence, is it truly asking for forgiveness, if you know you are going to willfully perform the same 'sin' again?

I can probably count on one hand how many times I've lied to someone this entire year...and I take efforts to not place myself in positions where I have to tell lies.

The effort is there.

Now just exchange (lie) with (rape). And please remember, lying made the top 10, and rape did not. Hence, it's plausible God detests lying more than rape?

So yeah, lets pretend as if the 10 commandments were an end-all-be-all to God's law and there aren't entire passages/chapters/books in the Bible dedicated to outlining God's laws and requirements to the Israelites, with the issue of rape being one among many.

Actions speak louder than words. If a rapist rapes again, is it even possible he ever truly repented from the heart? Same goes for lying... If a liar lies again, is it even possible he ever truly repented from the heart? Once a rapist, always a rapist. Once a liar, always a liar

Habitual sin, basically.

I will state again; I am of the belief that God will judge us based on how much we tried to overcome sin.

True story. So in high school, I was 3 credits short from graduation, and the one class I was failing in (Probability and Statistics), was the 3 credits I needed to walk.

I tried so hard (studying and doing homework) but I never really got it.

So, my teacher, who had mercy on me (I will never forget him, Mr. Eddings ), knew my situation, and he gave me a passing grade of a D, even though I deserved an F.

He told me that he didn't grade me based on the quality of my work, but he passed me based on the effort that I put it. He saw the effort. I never gave up, and I sincerely tried.

He told me straight up "look, everyone doesn't understand this stuff".

That is how I believe God will judge us. Some people will pass with flying colors, others won't...but it is the effort that counts, in my opinion.

You keep avoiding the parallel analogy. That's all. I'm not sure why? Maybe it's a little too uncomfortable for you? Who knows? Hand-waving this topic away doesn't make the problem go away. It just means you wish to avoid it...

Hand-waving the fact that the acceptance of Christ is an absolute must, won't make your problem go away.

You did not answer the basic 'common sense' question. Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

John 3:18

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

Well, will you look at that...two verses after the infamous John 3:16, the author decided to put even more salt on the wound for unbelievers.

Hahaha, this from someone who has no problem mentioning 'dishes', 'vacuuming', 'no firearms'. etc

Is belief a choice? If so, simply will an opposite belief in something you hold dear, as a test And when you admit that you cannot, I re-ask the same question above... Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

Then I will re-emphasis on John 3:18, which explicitly state the condemnation of those who refuse to accept Christ.

[POI]

If this was the case, then DON'T TELL ANYBODY.

That would contradict Matt 28:19-20.

Oh, now telling others is required too? Interesting....

Is telling others required, or not? You tell me?

See how you keep stepping all over yourself, the deeper we go...?

We then all get free passes!

Who is "we"? Whoever it is, it doesn't include you...because you already know.

You seem to have a short memory. Did you already forget the 'belief scale with Muhammad on the white horse"? Plus, you already assert that, deep down, I believe. Hence, maybe my works alone, and God's grace, is what will save me.

See how you keep stepping all over yourself, the deeper we go...?

I doubt 'oral tradition' is that reliable

Oral tradition, supplemented with written work (ever heard of the OT)? Both are deemed reliable to the millions of Judeo-Christians who've been following.

I guess it wouldn't be reliable to unbelievers.

Does the number of believers make something true? No
Is decades of oral tradition really reliable? Likely not
Do we even know what the original manuscripts assert? No
Do we know what source(s) were used to write these original manuscripts, for which we do not even have? No

I'll stop here.

I doubt all heard the same messages, if any at all? I bet many heard many conflicting messages, or partial messages, or even no messages. And by the time Matthew was written, some many decades later, who the heck knows how much legend and lore had developed before anything at all was written to paper and canonized by the 'church'?.?.?.?.?

That is your opinion. I will share mines. It goes a little something like this; those who wanted to be saved and receive the Good News, God will provide a way for them to receive the Good News (and become saved if they accept what they heard).

The Gospels were not written until decades later. There would be no way for them to know exactly what was said, and when? The writer(s) was/were not there themselves to verify multiple parables being given to the same group. Again, at best, the writer's source would be from oral tradition alone. And at worst, the original manuscript authors were told what to write from overzealous believers of the church; for which we have many. It's called faith. But as we know, faith is not reliable.

Mentioning 'children' in a Verse is not 'clear as day', But nice try.

You were provided the scripture were Jesus explicitly stated that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (children).

Aren't you a 'child' of God?

Google:

What is the definition of "Child of God"? a highly disciplined, fundamentalist Christian sect, active especially in the early 1970s

Oh, and if we are to rely upon 'common sense', then why list any Commandments at all?

The whole "common sense" thing went over your head. Moving along.

Hahaha. I'm afraid you brought it up, so now you must justify it... Moving forward...

Are the 10 Commands God's most important, in His given rules, or not?

If so, is intentionally breaking one of these rules considered a larger transgression, (vs) the ones not on this list? Cough cough, lying...

If not, then why list a top 10 at all?

Further, again, if belief IS a requirement, then the handicapped, dead infants, and the ones whom have not heard are not saved.

I already responded to this.

If belief is a requirement, then the handicapped, dead infants, and the ones whom have not heard are not saved.

You also already conceded that you do not know if "once saved always saved" counts.

Quite the cryptic Book, as we forge ahead

Please accept your given contradiction, or please come up with a better response.

I stand by what I said.

Stubborn, got it... Moving forward...

No, God has no problem dispatching infants... Have you read the OT?

The act of dispatching the infants says nothing about their eternal destination.

I thought we already established their destination? All dead infants get a 'free pass'. Since "God" is the one said to have ordered the killing of infants all over the OT, and infants receive a free pass, just dispatch them all. Guaranteed admission. Viola!

Or are you now going to argue that dead infants don't get a free pass?

Um, I've known this for years. I'm just letting you hang yourself, as we go. This should have been an easy layup for you... (i.e.) "Oh, that Verse was not from Jesus." If you already knew that, then why did you not mention it before? I myself doubt anything from the Bible is 'authoritative'. You do. See the difference?

In all honesty, I knew that there was an addition to Mark's ending that isn't in the earliest manuscripts, but I wasn't aware that that particular passage was in this later addition.

However, even if it WAS included in the earliest copies, it STILL doesn't mean what you claim it means...so either way, you are wrong.

What this passage alone acknowledges, is that you have absolutely NO CLUE what the originals even state, and who added what, and when? The oldest copies, are copies of copies of copies; with no way of knowing what was originally written. And EVEN IF we did have the originals, this still means little more, as we have no idea of the source. And even if we did know the source, we must acknowledge the source was from a minimum of decades oral tradition alone. And this was Jesus's chosen method of communication for the most 'important' lessons in humans history?

Whoever wrote that Verse states that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." If baptism was not a requirement, it would not mention this, right along side belief in the the same assertion. The author states you need both. The fact that the author was sloppy, and did not mention both in the next part of the sentence does not matter. Why? Because you cannot have one without the other. No need to mention both again. ---> "Common sense"

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I will say this one last time...baptism is analogous to walking across the stage when you graduate. It is ceremonious. But it isn't a requirement to graduate. You move on to the next grade, whether you walk across the stage or not.

Again, one last time..

"Whoever passes the class and walks across the stage will move to the next grade".

It does not follow that you need to walk across the stage in order to move to the next grade, however, the statement is still true, that if you pass the class and walk across the stage, that you will move to the next grade.

In order to find out which direction we need to go when it comes to that, we can appeal to illustrations in scripture where people were saved despite being unbaptized. The thief on the cross simply believed, and he was saved. No baptism necessary.

That will be my last time addressing this issue.

I thought you weren't into analogies? Anywho...

A true-blue proclaimed Christian can effectively argue it's like a driver's test. You need to pass both the written (and) driving portion.

And then following up, the DMV says, "You will not get your license without the written portion." Does this mean you do not have to also pass the driving portion? Of course you need to, "common sense."

Baptism is mentioned all over the Bible. Maybe it's a 'requirement'?

It's a good thing I'm now speaking to the one person that has the right doctrine. Oh, wait a minute, I was debating a Catholic last week, who is under the same exact impression as you. The week before that, it was a Universalist who thinks all are eventually saved. Heck, I've even debated proclaimed experts in hermeneutics, some of which read Genesis and translate a young earth, while others of this study translate an old earth... This was at one of the churches I used to attend. I asked that they both speak with me together, so we could sort out all the discrepencies, but they refused... Sighting that they "did not want to bring discord." Seems the search for truth would trump all such petty worries,,, But I digress....

You are correct, it is indeed a shame that we (believers) can't even agree on salvation.

Conversation over????

Who says I do not believe? As I stated prior, I place belief, in any claim, on a percentage scale. Didn't we already go over this? I believe in a "risen Jesus" about the same I believe in "Muhammad flying to heaven on a white horse"...

My belief in both assertions stands at <1% You already disclosed your belief in the same proposition is ~90%. Does the Bible state HOW much belief is enough? Has God told you?

And to answer your statement, if you believe that God exists, you should worry that I do not believe (enough). Unless <1% is already enough?

But see, the difference between me and you is simple; I live my life as though Jesus not only existed as a historical figure, but that he is the risen Christ on whom salvation is based.

See the difference? So, that is where the 90% thing gets me.

You, on the other hand...

Repeat from above...

Did you already forget the 'belief scale with Muhammad on the white horse"? Plus, you already assert that, deep down, I believe. Hence, maybe my works alone, and God's grace, is what will save me.

Nope, it goes right back to grace alone God's grace covers all the sin you commit, and/or do not repent for.... You have also already conceded (3) ways belief is not required You have also admitted your belief in Jesus is about 90%. Does God consider this "true belief"? Maybe anything under 100% is insufficient? Is God going to instead offer His grace, for your lack in full conviction?.?.?.?

Ok, so since you are riding this 90% thing into the ground, let me explain why my level of belief is 90% instead of 100%.

It is simple, because the evidence/proof that we have for Jesus Christ is based on historicity, and nothing from antiquity can be proven 100%, because no one living today was there to witness anything.

So, instead of 100%, I gave it an honest and sincere 90%, which is still relatively high...high enough for me to live practically my entire life as though it was 100% true as opposed to not.

And my history of proclaiming Jesus Christ as savior, as well as my track record of arguing in favor of Christian theism speaks for itself.

The God that I worship (according to my belief/faith) sees what I've done and he will be the judge, not unbelievers on religious forums 2,000 years later asking questions about a God that they don't believe in.

Repeat from above/above...

Did you already forget the 'belief scale with Muhammad on the white horse"? Plus, you already assert that, deep down, I believe. Hence, maybe my works alone, and God's grace, is what will save me.

BTW, I would not be here, engaging with you, if I was not continually surrounded by humans who asserting "Christ". If the surrounding assertion was for Thor, I would be on a religious debate forum about the concept of 'Thor' instead I have doubt in Thor too, but maybe Thor's grace will save me anyways?

I disagree... I'm reading the text plainly. It does not matter whether I believe enough or not. Luke 14 alludes to the notion that you must get rid of any possession which you might covet. --- To assure Jesus is and always will be your 100% focus. If you own possessions, you may loose focus from Jesus once in a while, or more. This is 'common sense', from a plain reading of the text in Luke 14. Wait a minute, does your 'common sense' differ from mine? If so, how might we resolve this disagreement?

I already provided an answer to this. Again, that would mean that the disciples couldn't own anything...not even clothes or food, if you take it as a literally "everything".

If I tell you "the IRS took EVERYTHING from me", does that mean that they even took the jar of pickles I have in my cabinet?

No. It is a hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally.

So yeah, we will have to disagree there. How might we resolve the issue? I don't know. If my answers are not good enough and that is where your convictions lead you, then it simply is what it is.

'Common sense'. I already told you... Give away anything you may possibly covet. Never take your complete focus off of Jesus. If you ever admire a possession, then you loose focus on numero uno. Have you done this? In the grand scheme of things, it won't hurt much; but it may be to your demise, if you do not.

You almost answered.... Instead of 'moving along', you might have instead asked, do you know you will willfully lie again in the future? For which I would assume the answer is also yes. Hence, is it truly asking for forgiveness, if you know you are going to willfully perform the same 'sin' again?

I can probably count on one hand how many times I've lied to someone this entire year...and I take efforts to not place myself in positions where I have to tell lies.

The effort is there.

Let's re-issue your response, by simply replacing (lie) with (rape).

"I can probably count on one hand how many times I've (raped) someone this entire year...and I take efforts to not place myself in positions where I have to (rape)."

"A" for effort?

Again, lies made the top 10 list, and rape did not. Are you golden in your efforts? If not, are you going to count on God's grace? Because please remember, the Bible lists no shortage of the word grace too? Maybe grace is enough?

You did not answer the basic 'common sense' question. Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

John 3:18

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

Well, will you look at that...two verses after the infamous John 3:16, the author decided to put even more salt on the wound for unbelievers.

You still did not answer the question.

Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

But even if the above Verses were the be-all-end-all, where would the mention of 'grace' fit? If you must follow certain rule, there would be little need for the mention of 'grace'.

Hahaha, this from someone who has no problem mentioning 'dishes', 'vacuuming', 'no firearms'. etc

Is belief a choice? If so, simply will an opposite belief in something you hold dear, as a test And when you admit that you cannot, I re-ask the same question above... Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

Then I will re-emphasis on John 3:18, which explicitly state the condemnation of those who refuse to accept Christ.

Refuse to accept/follow (or) refuse to believe???? BIG difference there.....