• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

FROM NOTIFICATION

Gerhard Jason Geick feeling optimistic September 29 at 7:33pm · Edmonton, Canada · Edited Thank you for accepting me into this group. While I am not a Christian Universalist, for me Christian Universalism provided the 'Missing Link' that rescued me from more traditional Christianity and opened up the way to Hopeful Theism. Like Like · · Share

 Seen by 56

12 people like this.

 Charles Watson Hopeful theism/sympathetic CU is a stepping stone toward the greater hope. Welcome. Invite those you believe need to hear this message. (Everyone) September 29 at 8:10pm · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Thanks. September 29 at 8:17pm · Like · 1

 Sam Collier I'm not a universalist either but I don't condemn it as heresy. I'd call myself undecided but currently leaning toward one of the three views. Anyway, could you give a little more detail about how universalism provided the missing link? I'd like to know what you were struggling with in order to learn what others may also need rescuing from. I am a bible teacher and have started to become disgusted with the "condemn all other views" crowd. I teacj all views and let the listener decide on their own because I believe the holy spirit can lead everyone and not just me.

Anyway, would like the to hear the pertinent part of your story if you have time. September 29 at 8:21pm · Like · 1

 Charles Watson Gerhard? September 29 at 8:25pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Sorry, I am at work, so sometimes I respond slowly. September 29 at 8:27pm · Like · 1

 Sam Collier No rush brother. I can wait. September 29 at 8:28pm · Like  Charles Watson No rush. Just tagged you so you don't miss that he asked about your walk. September 29 at 8:28pm · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh I'm glad you've joined Gerhard. One of the members of our local church was talking about an author Sunday during our coffee hour about an author who traced the history of the church between 200-400: from when Rome left Britton with xtians left to develop a theology of their own through to when new roman catholic missionaries came back to the isles some two centuries later. The differences: the natives developed a theology based around John's Gosple, who Jesus loved. While the missionaries from Rome had a theology based upon Peter including doctrines such as Original Sin. And the history of this different xtianity is that the people who were operating for two centuries based out John's Gospel thought it would be a troublesome idea to start from the basis which was being taught by this state sponsored church. September 29 at 8:30pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I grew up in an abusive (physically, sexually, and emotionally) Fundamentalist Christianity. The fear of hell was ingrained so deeply that, upon leaving (escaping) the church as a teenager, that fear stayed with me. It haunted me. In my early twenties I returned to Christianity, finding a less fundamentalist home church, grounded in love and community. I joined the worship team. I became a Youth Pastor. I found healing, but the fear of hell nagged at me, if not for myself, than for everyone around me. I thought about Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were condemned for believing in Jesus, but in the wrong way. I stated to suspect that it was not as cut and dry as I had been led to believe… September 29 at 8:38pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick It was nearly three years that a friend suggested that the concept of hell was unbiblical. Although I had my doubts about who was in hell, I did not doubt the FACT that hell was REAL, and so I set out to prove my friend wrong. What happened was that, to my great joy, I proved my friend right! Enthused, I began sharing this with my friends, naively believing that this would be GOOD NEWS! Unfortunately, as many people here might be able to attest to, it was not received as well as I had hoped. The idea that all might be saved was offence in a way that I still have a hard time understanding. I lost friends. It is a journey that, if I had known the cost in advance, I would not have taken. Only, by looking back, can I say that I am glad that I did! September 29 at 8:41pm · Unlike · 7

 Rami Kuttaineh Tentmaker Ministries has been classic in their exploration of where the hell idea come from. What is certain, at least according to Gary Amirault, is that is did not start with Christianity but was essentially an external idea which got mixed in and mixed up the faith. http://www.tentmaker.org/ &&http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/burning-links/ Christian Universalism, not UUA, universalist apolegetics, victorious gospel The Bible, correctly translated teaches Jesus Christ, the... TENTMAKER.ORG September 29 at 8:47pm · Like · Remove Preview

 Gerhard Jason Geick Questioning the doctrine of Hell, for me, was just the beginning. This is where the next leg of my journey began to alienate me from the Christian Universalist crowd. I began to wonder, if Hell is a myth, how much else is a myth also. In this way Christian Universalism was, for me, not a destination, but a door. Previously, it might have been said that my salvation rested, not just on my acceptance of Jesus as my Lord and Saviour, but on doctrine as well. To question doctrine, was to risk the fires of Eternal Damnation, but this was no longer the case. I began to question the concept of virgin birth, eventually disbelieving. I began to question the idea that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, eventually disbelieving. I began to wonder, does the resurrection story even make any sense? For me, it no longer did. I did not come to these conclusions lightly. It took hours upon hours upon hours of study and struggle and dialogues with close friends and debates on-line. The end result was a kind of Hopeful Theism that has brought me more peace than any form of Christianity I had experienced previously. September 29 at 8:49pm · Like · 2

 Gerhard Jason Geick (I am friends with Gary Amirault!) September 29 at 8:51pm · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh That's awesome!

I've been reading him for years however have never met the fellow. For anyone not familiar with his writings. They are extensive and well summarized herehttp://www.tentmaker.org/articles/spirit-of-church.html

The Spirit of Church A list of Church leaders quotes revealing the Satanic origin of their teachings. TENTMAKER.ORG September 29 at 8:57pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview  Gerhard Jason Geick If you asked me, today, if I believed in God, I would say, “No.” In that way, you might say I am an Atheist. If you asked me if I know if there is a God or not, I would say, “No.” In that way, you might say I am Agnostic. But I would say that I am neither. These labels imply an attitude that I do not (or try not to) possess. I am a Hopeful Theist. I am sceptical, but I am not closed to the possibilities. Einstein’s Pantheism rings true, in many ways. That being said, if I see something within religion as harmful, I will point it out. I will make a point of it. After suffering at the hands of an abusive religion as a child, I will not be quiet. My Richard Dawkins is tempered by my John Shelby Spong; my Sam Harris by my Tony Compolo. And that is my journey, in a nutshell. September 29 at 8:58pm · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Last winter I wrote The Miracle Free Gospel (this is not a plug for my book, just sharing) as a testament to Hopeful Theism. I am including a link to the testimonials. Some of them are actually from members of this group! If anyone is interested, the side bar has a link to my Blog where I talk more about the project and excerpts from the book. I would love to answer any questions that anyone might have. http://themiraclefreegospel.weebly.com/testimonials

The Miracle Free Gospel; reviewed by customers Published April 1, 2014, The Miracle Free Gospel is... THEMIRACLEFREEGOSPEL.WEEBLY.COM September 29 at 9:12pm · Like

 Robert Distefano Gerhard, I had a similare experience growing up in the Catholic Church with the fear of hell looming over me as I was continually threatened by the sisters in school. It may have led to my drug addiction in the 60's and 70's. During my drug addiction, the Lord brought people into my life who exempified what the true God was all about and they used love and acceptance and not fear. One ex-addict who became a Christian told me he was delivered from drug addiction by praying to Jesus and I was amazed at his testimony. I has already planned in my heart to remain addicted until the end of my life since I did not see any alternative. Years later, I had reached rock bottom and while in a drug rehab, I began reading the New Testament and I felt a strange peace come over me as I read about Jesus eating and drinking with the sinners and outcasts. I felt like an outcast of society and a failure as a human being but I knew that Jesus loved me anyway. From then on I decided that I did not want to take drugs anymore but follow Christ intead. It has been almost 40 years since I am drug free and it was all accomplished through prayer and the love of God residing in my heart. Just wanted to share with you that God is real and He is loving and kind and nothing like we heard about growing up. Bless you Gerhard and may the Lord show you His loving kindness in your heart as well. September 29 at 9:43pm · Like · 1  Mariana Lalrindiki May you be blessed, to be a blessing. .. September 29 at 11:37pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Thank you for sharing that Robert Distefano. In my own life, there is no doubt that coming to accept Christ was a catalyst for real positive change in my life. Although I have, basically, walked away from that belief, I do not view that period of time in my life cynically, the way that other non-theists might. This is why i still, occasionally, attend Church and join groups like this one. September 29 at 11:43pm · Like · 2

 Leonard Curtis And then Gerhard threw it all away and wrote a book making Jesus a blaspheming street thug and rewriting the biblical narrative to exclude anything to do with the miraculous.

The slippery slope of running down every rabbit trail. September 30 at 10:53am · Like

 Leonard Curtis https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTMFG?ref=bookmarks The Miracle Free Gospel- Exposed Community Like Page 20 Likes September 30 at 10:55am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I am sorry that you see my writing in this way. I do not see how a compassionate Jesus, who feeds the poor and helps people could be could compared to a street thug. It is true that in The Miracle Free Gospel Jesus accomplishes good without the use of supernatural forces, but it is for this reason (I believe), that people have found it so inspirational. In my own life, I cannot multiply loaves by magic, but what I can do is share what I have and encourage others to do likewise. Why is that blasphemy? September 30 at 11:15am · Like

 Sam Collier Gerhard, my story was very similar all the way up to the point of questioning but I actually wound up going a different direction. I spent about 2 years in isolation studying all those things and learned why we believe them and why others don't. I'll just say, because you aren't here for a lesson, that those who don't, have based their opinion on the illogical reasonings such as bias, circular reason, non sequitar conclusions, and self contradiction. True Christianity can only have hatred against it. There is no evidence. Anything opposing Christianity, has only those things, which I just mentioned as its defense. I am saying that is what I found in my 2 years of study. I am not saying that I have found that you have said anything likewise. Although, I have no doubt that your "doubt", which are actually positive assertions that things which people witnessed and wrote about, can only be based entirely on bias and circular reasoning. I am summing my views in a succinct statements because most people in your position see correction as a for of typical church hatred. However, if you are as reasonable as you sound, I am prepared to speak at length with you about your view. Be prepared though; others in your position get mad when they see their positions shown in the light of logic and reason. I don't want to have that conversation.

I can understand why you made the steps you did but there is no reason behind them. It had to be that you have never known Christ. Had you known him, you would have made the conclusions that I did. Feel free to ask questions. I have read your FB page and have seen a whole lot of unreasonable posts which can only assume you posted them because you incapable of seeing the flaws. Bias is blinders for the mind and you can not speak from a position of leadership or or knowledge. We out blinders on a horse so that he doesn't see and know and therfore take the lead. I would like to think you consider yourself reasonable. I can't call you brother really as you have disowned our relationship but I don't mind calling you friend. Take care. September 30 at 11:27am · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Leonard Curtis, as ever, have no problem discussing with you, or answering any questions you might have. But I feel like you are trolling me, bullying me, and it is getting annoying getting run out of groups by you. My request is that you cease. I shared some very personal things on this thread at the request of Sam Collier and I do not appreciate that you are taking screen shots (out of context) and using them to promote your page, which is nothing more than a rally against me. Further, I could be wrong, but I do not believe that your actions fall within the mandates of this group. Thanks. September 30 at 11:30am · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Sam Collier, I don't get upset easily. I have been wrong more often than right. I am interested in dialoguing this further, assuming we can both keep our cool. At first I took offense at your accusation that I never really knew Jesus. Not sure why it bothered me, probably because my 'Walk with Christ' meant so much to me for so long, and the Christ story continues to mean a lot to me, enough so that I used it as a vehicle to tell my own. That being said, it is possible that you are correct. How does anyone know, or have a relationship, with a dead Jewish carpenter from the first century? Or what is the difference between what you have and what I thought I had? September 30 at 11:43am · Like

 Sam Collier I appreciate your sharing Gerhard. It is so far, helpful, though I am familiar with a lot of it. It still adds to the voice of many waters speaking against the non-Christian behavior of victimizing opinions. Many of us Christians do it and don't know it until it is too late. If I present your words in my teaching forum, it will not be as Leon has. I think you present what I have been teaching for years which has to do with the logic aspect as mentioned previously, and the "condemn all others" as I mentioned previous. Discipleship requires us to teach. Had they taught logically and not condemned without reason and logic, I believe your outcome would have been different. As it is, you are now outside and jot under the church's ability to teach. It is quite possibly the immaturity of the church which is responsible party for your current state and Leon's method stem from that.

I am not apologizing for Leon. He may be called to something other than me. I am only pinpointing the pivotal point in your change of direction and giving it a name. September 30 at 11:47am · Like

 Sam Collier My phone doesn't update while I am typing so I did not see you latest post before I posted mine. We may have a delay in our discussion because of that. September 30 at 11:49am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I am at work, so responses on my end are sporadic, either way. We will have to be patient with each other. September 30 at 11:52am · Like · 1

 Sam Collier Me too. September 30 at 11:59am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I find it ironic when people like Leonard, who claim a CU worldview, say that I am drawing people away from Jesus or God. When I talked about CU with people, I explained that nothing could separate a person from God,that he is literally drawing everyone to Him. If that were true, I have a hard time believing that my book -a book promoting Biblical principles (albeit, in an unorthodox way) - could divert the will of God. September 30 at 12:00pm · Like

 Sam Collier I don't get mad. I don't beat around the bush either and candor seems to come accross as insulting. I will not insult you though. September 30 at 12:06pm · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Likewise, if I think you are out to lunch, I will respectfully tell you so. Emphasis on RESPECTFULLY, explaining my reason for saying so. September 30 at 12:08pm · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick But back to my original question to you: How does anyone know, or have a relationship, with Jesus (a dead Jewish carpenter from the first century)? Or what is the difference between what you have and what I thought I had? We, as humans, are more than capable of deceiving ourselves if it seems to be in our best interest. September 30 at 12:10pm · Like

 Leonard Curtis And I don't appreciate you blaspheming my Lord and putting such vile things in His mouth. My efforts to expose such things will continue.

I have no questions we have not covered, and my only discussion is to call you to repent of what you have done with this book.

And just because I believe all will eventually be with God, it does not mean that there are not ages of correction to come. Books like yours could keep people from the true Christ and age enduring life now.

What you call an "unorthodox way," I call satanic. September 30 at 12:14pm · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Do you think Luke 9:49-50 might apply to my current ministry? I can imagine John saying, "Master, we saw someone helping people in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

"Do not stop him,” Jesus might reply, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” September 30 at 12:21pm · Like

 Leonard Curtis You are against Him, as evidenced by your blasphemous treatment of Him.

And funny how you cry foul for me exposing you when you have linked to my personal page and requested your cronies contact me. No big deal though. It's great people can get the right perspective while perusing something so glaringly evil.

And did you really just refer to it as a ministry? Hilarious.

And at this point, I will go back to where we have been for many months,in that I am not going to continue to discuss it. It has gotten me no where and is fruitless. My only efforts are to call you to repent and expose this travesty until you do. September 30 at 12:28pm · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Fair enough. As ever, it bothers me that you feel so strongly, and wish I were better able to explain myself to you. The person, Jesus, means so much to me that it bothers me that anyone would think that I am against him. September 30 at 12:33pm · Like

 Leonard Curtis He means so much to Gerhard that he changes His miracle at the pool to a murder.

September 30 at 1:09pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I am sorry, Sam Collier, it is unfortunate that this thread has digressed in this way. If it is alright with you, I would much rather stay on the original topic than go down the above mentioned rabbit holes of whether assisted suicide is moral, whether evolution is true, and so on. These are topics addressed in my book, but not really what we are talking about now, I think. September 30 at 1:14pm · Like · 1

 Leonard Curtis He means so much to Gerhard that he changes the divinity of Christ into an evolutionary mishap where Jesus is merely a foul mouthed sludge. Oh what adoration he pours upon the Savior of the world. September 30 at 1:14pm · Like

 Leonard Curtis So much caring that he shows by taking away His mission to the world and thereby destroying thousands of years of prophecy fulfilled by Him.

September 30 at 1:19pm · Like

 Sam Collier Hi Gerhard, how does anyone have a relationship with anything? That is where you start. Relationships have levels based on similarities which I call connections. Have you ever liked a girl and having got to know her, you started drinking the things she drinks, and listening to the same songs she listens to, and watching the moviesshe watches, enrolling in the same classes she is in, etc? It is neurological programming or NLP for short. We do this naturally but it is the science which is used in hypnosis and the powers of suggestion. You are mirror imaging her to suggest a high level of connection to her so that she feels connected to you. So feined relationships can tell us a little about the purpose and cause of relationships.

Say a man has a pet rock. With the rock, there is no life or requirements to maintain life such as breathing, eating, or contact of any kind. It neither depends on you or you on it. Deception can create a relationship but note that it is entirely selfishly motivated.

Say the same man has a plant. The plant needs water to maintain its appearance and life. The man can relate to the plant because it breathes and "drinks". But there is no communication. If the man did not care for the plant he could just not water it and it would die. Because he understands this, his nature motivates him to continue watering the plant. The plant has no understanding nor could express gratitude or even know that it should be grateful. The relationship is almost purely motivated by the mans desire to keep the plant alive: selfish.

Say the man has a fish. Pretty much the same rekationship as the plant but the fish can move and anticipate movements such as when it about to be fed. So responses to the man. However, when some stranger comes up, the fish begins to respond in like manner. The fish is only selfishly motivated by shadows and colors which it has grown to understand means "food". The man keeps it alive because of purely selfish reasons.

The same man has a dog. Now here is something that is much like the fish but can respond and express gratitude and respond differently to strangers making the relationship somewhat personal. The expression of gratitude is very similar to ours in body language and emotion. The dog also shows other emotions like fear, anger, sadness, etc in similar ways or at least in ways we can interpret them. The relationship has more connections which can take on new meanings. Some would even be willing to give up their own comfort or even life for their dog because connections on so many levels borders on personhood where actions and thoughts are predictable.

Th e man has a brother. Now in this case they speak the same language and grew up with the same events and people and like clockwork, celebrated, ate, played, and shared most of the same emotions together. Butbthey now also have communication which can reveal through a common media what they think and feel and want. Most would almost certainly give up a lot even their own life for their brother. That is not selfish becuse selfishness comes with self preservation which dying in place of someone gives up self preservation.

The same man has a wife. A lot of the same things as the brother but now there is revelation of his own deepest thoughts and feelings and the same is returned. The share their most vulnerable moments and connect on so many more levels. The connections are based on every give and take of each party.

Relationships are based on how we relate to one another. The number of similarities or connections are directly proportional to the level of relationship.

How does one have a relationship with a dead carpenter? He doesn't. There is no return of emotion, no return of conversation, no similarities in language or like or dislikes; he is dead. He is like the rock. But Jesus is not dead. The overwhelming evidence is that he is alive. But you refuse to interact with his words, his spirit (emotions, power, life), and his attempts to connect to you. So you can't have a relationship. I can because I don't reject all forms or methods with which we might connect. You probably didn't know Christ because you never connected but treated him like the plant or the fish; you kept him alive long enough to make you feel better about you perceived relationship. When you no longer cared to feel good in those ways, you just let him die And now, to you, he is dead. But who has deceived himself? An empty tomb cannot be filled with a dead man's bone because you decided to not believe anymore. The only place that Christ is dead and buried is in your mind. I know Christ as well as I know my brother and could not doubt him no more than I can doubt my brother. You never knew him that well so how could you understand? September 30 at 1:52pm · Like

 Sam Collier Gerhard, I can have this conversation whether we agree about the topics in your book or not. I know that the "sick" need a "physician" and that your motives and methods will represent a "sick" man if you have not seen a physician. I judge as God does; seeing the potential and not taking time away from the variable. If I eliminated time from the equation, i would have to judge you based on your current positin. But you are not dead and you may have many years of your life ahead. So I reserve judgment to what you need and not what you have. September 30 at 1:58pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick It was not so long ago that I, like you, believed that I had a personal relationship with Jesus. I felt it was reciprocated. I felt that I was being led. And so on. Earlier, I had been in a very low place in my life. I saw a lot of people die, I was confused, drinking too much, and I was looking for answers. Jesus, like a lifeline, was thrown to me, and I grasped for it desperately. Christianity, I have observed, is often like this. It takes a person at their lowest and offers them hope, regardless of the probability of said hope. Once the person has found healing, they are forced to accept the improbable, or risk slipping back into despair. For years I committed myself to the Bible, and to Jesus. Reading the Bible two or three times a year, teaching the Bible in the Church Youth Group, and imagining that progress was all due to God's Plan for my life, and that set-backs were just victories I had not yet seen come to fruition. I prayed for the sick, and I spoke in tongues. If it could, rightly, be argued that my relationship with Jesus was not real, but by the same standard, I could easily argue that yours is not real also. My evidence for this would include; prayer does not work, the only evidence that we see of the Holy Spirit, today, are those easily faked, and the fact that feeling you get, that tingly, all over good feeling, of the presence of God, is easily duplicated. And conscience. I did good, before accepting Jesus, and I continue to do good today. Prior to accepting Jesus, I was (to use your analogy), sick. To use my own, I was drowning. Jesus was the lifeline thrown and I was brought into a boat called Christianity. The boats sealant was made of Personal Relationship With Jesus. For a time, it felt as though I had been rescued and it felt great. But the boat was slowly sinking. There was no sealant. The sealant was, as C.S. Lewis puts it, "comprised chiefly of imagination and ego." (Yes, I am aware that I am taking Lewis out of context, but it fit too well not too...) The sealant was a myth. Looking back, I can see the good that came out of being 'rescued by Jesus', but I wish someone could have rescued me without. Offered me counseling without indoctrination, friendship without stipulation, compassion without expectation.

People are taught that they need to be born again, but what does this really mean? That they need to, once again accept the improbable, without question, the way they did Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny? This is manipulation, plain and simple, compounded by a fear of hell. As Leonard stated, even though he imagines that I will eventually be united with Jesus, he revels in the idea of me being tormented for Aeons for my sins. I did not need to be 'Born again'. I was born OK the first time. And so were you. And now that we are adults, we need to start acting that way. I did not need Jesus, nor did I need to be convinced that I am vile sinner, no one does, what people need is for people to care about them. Professionally, I work with street kids and with adults with addictions. This is what I strive to do; help. Without expectation. There is no demand that my clients love or even like me, let alone believe what I believe. September 30 at 2:54pm · Like

 Sam Collier Your relationship with Jesus was a feeling; like the man and the rock. If that is all you had, then it was definitely perceived. I don't question that. If we were to put you in the analogy of the man and the fish, you were like the fish. You got something out of the event and so participated. But when something else came along that gave the same full belly feeling, you did not make any distinctions. It is yourself that you are pleasing. You may give yourself up for others at your work and in your community, but it is for you so that you can feel good by helping them or because you get paid in some form.

My relationship is not a feeling or tingles. I don't think I have met anyone who believes that tingles are the holy spirit. That sounds like practices of the occult to me. I'm talking about knowing Christ by his spirit. Not speaking in tongues because I have never spoken on tongues yet I know Jesus. When I was first filled with the Holy Spirit I thought it was all fake (speaking in tongues, flopping like fish, etc) but that the Spirit was real. I attended a church who agreed though I didn't know them well enough to know then. I was memorizing the whole bible and was teaching it 6 hours a week and I started noticing the "be filled with the Holy Spirit" passages. So I thought I will go forward to the benches up front (something else I thought was silly but figured I'd test it out) and ask to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I first prayed that everyone would leave me alone because this was a personal pursuit of mine. Then I just asked God to fill me with his Spirit and for a second I felt nothing which seemed to confirm my suspicion that the actions were being faked. So I prayed a basic prayer asking God to help me show others what he had been trying to show me. And as I went to get up thinking that it was all very uneventful, a huge surge of emotions came over me for no apparent reason. I began weeping uncontrollably and had to turn back to the bench because didn't want anyone to see me. I kept trying to stop weeping so I could get out of there. After what felt like an eternity it all shut off like a faucet and I was soaked with tears. And I saw a very clear vision of my laptop sitting on my desk at home and I heard the words, "you know what you have to do". I had issues with pornography but was always told that's what men do. I am a construction worker and it seemed like porn was just normal. Christian behavior to me was to not show females or children because it was disgusting to them; but a normal part of life. I was living apart from my wife because I had to travel for work for 3 years and porn seemed like a less adulterous way of addressing that need. I did know that looking was adultery in the heart but I did like others and thought the lesser of two evils was okay. I had started thinking that I shouldn't be looking and saving those images om my computer but had not fully realized how bad it was.

So there I was being told that I had an issue that I needed to take care of. I wiped off my face as secretly as I could because I didn't want anyone to see me crying. I had not associated the crying with the Holy Spirit because I wasn't expecting it. I went straight home and deleted everything. I shredded my hard drive which had many many thing I had purchased and downloaded but I couldn't bring myself to look at or have around anymore. I was tempted quite a few times over the next 2 years and even less so for about anoth 3 years after that. But then the temptation became not so tempting anymore and now, after 8 years from then, I rarely consider it and am usually digusted by the notion. I haven't seen anything for years now.

When I pray, my prayers are answered. I was helping out some people who had to move their propane tank in order to have heat, stove, and hot water. They had filled it previously and it was heavy. I used a 4x4 to try and roll it on its side thinking we could used a vehicle to move it like a sled on its smooth side. Wihld not budge. Took me all day and some of the night. It seemed like such a simple task that I never considered turning it over to God. By the end of the night I was totally beat. So as I went to bed I prayed that God would help. I did feel like I was supposed to but I kept failing. The next morning a flood came up to the height of the propane tank and I was able to roll it over on its side nd push it to where it needed to go. The rains started at 4am was high enough by 9am and was dried up by 1pm and they were able to cook dinner over propane by 5pm. The rain got worse everywhere for the following week but we didn't see anymore flooding. Not even a puddle.

That was shortly after I was filled with the Holy Spirit. My prayer life has alway been like that. It isn't so miraculous seeming when it happens all the time but I still recognize God's hand.

If you actually knew Christ, it would have been more than a feeling. You would have had conversations with him. I have. Many I know have. If you were in a church where speaking in tongues was common then they were probably an immature church which lends to your total lack of understanding of the relationship with God. You never knew him and are trying to make yours out to be like mine. Not so. Have you ever been filled with the Holy Spirit? It does not look like jibberish coming out of a man. It can be better defined by the response you have to sin. If you can't stop sinning, you have never been filled with the Holy Spirit. September 30 at 4:23pm · Edited · Like

 Sam Collier What gives you confidence that eyewitness accounts are not true? I would think you would have to have evidence of that and not just a philosophical bias. Or is philosophical bias a satisfactory form of reason to you? September 30 at 4:33pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Bear with me. I am just getting off work. My kids will be home soon and we are having company for supper. September 30 at 4:42pm · Like

 Sam Collier No problem. September 30 at 5:19pm · Like · 1

 Vicki Thomason Great conversation guys - intelligent and polite, so nice to witness September 30 at 6:09pm · Like · 1

 Amy Wilson- Pineda Gerhard, I've also thought a lot about what does it mean that we need to be born again. In addition, what does it mean that Jesus is the way the truth and life, that it's by his name that we are saved. I've still managed to cling to these things, but they mean something entirely different than they once did. I now think the focus of so much of the bible is on the heart, choosing love, and abiding in God, the source of love, for this purpose. Faith in Jesus, embracing love, is what I think it means to be reborn. We all can choose love or something else. September 30 at 9:23pm · Like · 2

 Vicki Thomason Faith in Jesus is the key for Christians to find this all encompassing love, but for other faiths the key may lie somewhere else..with the same source and end result. September 30 at 9:26pm · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh Gerhard, what was your ultimate goal in producing TMFG? September 30 at 10:16pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Rami, Would it be ok if I shared a link to a Blog I wrote in response to questions about TMFG and made myself available for any follow up questions you might have? I mean no disrespect, but it would just be easier. I believe the answer to your question is in the third post, but you might find some of the other questions that have come up interesting as well.http://themiraclefreegospel.weebly.com/tmfg-blog

TMFG Blog On a Facebook thread a friend of mine asked me the following question; "Why is it that you don't accept the... THEMIRACLEFREEGOSPEL.WEEBLY.COM September 30 at 10:45pm · Edited · Unlike · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Amy Wilson- Pineda, I wholeheartedly believe that our actions are infinitely more important than our beliefs. A lot of Christians believe (weather they admit it or not) that believing the right thing trumps doing the right thing. Love, regardless of the motivation behind it, trumps indifference.

September 30 at 10:41pm · Edited · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Sam Collier. First off, I think it is worth mentioning that I do not believe in sin in the Biblical sense of the word; that God disapproves of some things for no good reason except 'cause' makes no sense to me. I believe that there are things that are harmful and I believe in an evolving morality. This is shown throughout the Bible and the standard for what is right and wrong has progressed up until today. We no longer believe that slavery is good or that homosexuality is wrong.

With a history of forgeries and mistranslations, I am skeptical of Gospel accounts. Original copies do not exist, and the ones that do are riddled with errors and contradictions. Bart D. Ehrman estimated, in his book Misquoting Jesus, that among the existing manuscripts there are more discrepancies than words in the Bible.

A world view, in my opinion, based upon a book as fallible as the Bible, is bound to have major flaws. Mine was riddled with them. I was convinced of my relationship with Jesus, in the same way that you are, so it does not surprise me that you would view my conversion experience the way that you do, and view yours as completely differently. I can relate. I too believed that I was 'filled with the Holy Spirit'. I felt convicted when I was doing things that were harmful. I experienced real emotions. I accepted what I was being taught - that I was a sinner and that I needed a savior. When my life improved, I believed it was because God was intervening in my life. This is, in my opinion, a form of wishful thinking where one sees evidence because one desperately wants to see evidence. I used to believe God answers prayers, and I had stories just like yours. But what makes more sense, that the rules of the universe were altered in my favor, or that I was mistaken in some way? Is it right to believe that God is overly concerned with your neighbor's propane tank, but continues to neglect starving children and cancer victims? And if God were more concerned with your propane tank than the immense problem of pain and suffering, around the world, could it ever be said of him that he is good?

For a long time I held onto a belief in God, and a hope that he was good, even after I had seen though the traditional perceptions of who he is. Acknowledging the problem of pain, I admitted that it troubled me greatly. When asked, by an atheist friend, what it would take for me to give up my belief in God, I replied, "It would have to be shown that it was harmful to myself or my family. In that case, a belief in God would not be worth having." And eventually it came to that place. It occurred to me that, believing something for no better reason than I want it to be true, is unhealthy in and of itself. What would I be teaching my children if I did? September 30 at 10:50pm · Like  Leonard Curtis Bart Ehrman...... SMH September 30 at 11:19pm · Like

 Sam Collier I will have to address each point separately in order for my points to make sense.

Gerhard: "Sam Collier. First off, I think it is worth mentioning that I do not believe in sin in the Biblical sense of the word; that God disapproves of some things for no good reason except 'cause' makes no sense to me."

So I guess I am correct in saying that your answer to my question regarding whether or not you accept philosophical bias as a valid form of reason is "yes"? Now, I follow the Bible and believe that it is accurate. I hope you know that what 'makes sense to you' actually has no bearing on truth or reality. Nor does it establish that you speak from knowledge and a leadership position. It "doesn't make sense" to a horse with blinders on, why his owner says go or stop. But it is not necessary because the one with blinders on is not in the lead. If we should assume that the Bible is incorrect, we will have to start with the "why" it is incorrect. After all, Jesus was raised from the dead which validates everything.

Gerhard: "I believe that there are things that are harmful..."

Subjective, therefore circular. "Harmful" does not mean "sinful". That is a logical fallacy called the "non sequitur". Fire can be harmful, but to burn oneself was not a sin. You will find that is the case throughout the bible. Now, if your intending to present the "why's" regarding your turning from churchianity, I am beginning to see a clear picture of what you thought was Christianity and why you would turn from it. The fallacy of the "straw man" is the act of setting up a false representation of a view and then knocking it down, so to speak, and claiming victory as if you have made a case against that view. I know you are presenting in laymen's terms wat you believe and that we are not having a debate, per se, but if we are going to discuss our growth and beliefs, I'd like it if we use logic and reason or else we are not transferring information about anything really. We are just beating around the bush.

Gerhard: "...and I believe in an evolving morality. This is shown throughout the Bible and the standard for what is right and wrong has progressed up until today. We no longer believe that slavery is good or that homosexuality is wrong."

First, the Bible displays no change in morality. I have memorized the whole bible and morality is consistent from beginning to end. Second, slavery is not bad: kidnapping, murder, beating without cause, and mistreating others is wrong and that is what made the American slavery so bad. The Bible speaks about all of those. Slavery, was a very beneficial relationship that is not immoral. It is illegal which makes it no longer possible, but I would have become a slave a few times if it were available. Third: homosexuality is a sin. This was never done away with on the Bible. Jesus spoke against it, Paul spoke against it post New Covenant. Sin is behaving outside of the creative intent of God. Homosexuality does that. That does not make homosexuals beyond saving or more sinful than any other person, but it does make them sinners in need of a savior; like you or I.

If morality has no standard then when we "revolve" around to letting pedophiles have things their way, are you going to just assume that it is moral and not stand up for the victims? Morality is not a majority vote. I'm sure there are many prisoners that could out vote certain communities. Does that make us criminals and the prisoners moral? Is rape wrong to you? And if the whole world was for rape, would you alone stand opposes to it? Or does the majority decide? Yesterday at 3:17am · Edited · Like  Sam Collier Gerhard: "With a history of forgeries and mistranslations, I am skeptical of Gospel accounts. Original copies do not exist, and the ones that do are riddled with errors and contradictions. Bart D. Ehrman estimated, in his book Misquoting Jesus, that among the existing manuscripts there are more discrepancies than words in the Bible."

Gerhard, my area of study is textual criticism. I retranslated the majority text, the textus receptus, and most of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Those are only 4 of the 5,400 Greek texts in extant but they are separated by nearl 600 years. I've seen and documented the differences. I've read the Church fathers who quote at length from the manuscripts within 70 years of the events of which they record and the entire NT can be reconstructed from their quotes all within a short time of their writing. You wanna know how different they were? I'm going to let you in on a little known secret: all of the differences...I repeat...ALL of the differences are found as footnotes in any study bible. Bart Ehrman was right.... but read the footnotes at the bottom of every page and then tell me if you think Bart Ehrman really even had a clue what his numbers even meant. He said it because people don't think for themselves. They just wanna live immoral lives and evolutionists paint a more sinful model of man acceptable to society than God does. Philosophical bias will always turn off brains. Bart Ehrman is a talented Historian but when it comes to Christianity, he shuts off his brain and repeats what has been regurgitated for centuries now. It was probably the best money making decision he ever made. I expect more from people writing books from a position of leadership. But he turned out to be a follower.

Gerhard: "A world view, in my opinion, based upon a book as fallible as the Bible, is bound to have major flaws. Mine was riddled with them. I was convinced of my relationship with Jesus, in the same way that you are, so it does not surprise me that you would view my conversion experience the way that you do, and view yours as completely differently. I can relate. I too believed that I was 'filled with the Holy Spirit'. I felt convicted when I was doing things that were harmful. I experienced real emotions. I accepted what I was being taught - that I was a sinner and that I needed a savior. When my life improved, I believed it was because God was intervening in my life. This is, in my opinion, a form of wishful thinking where one sees evidence because one desperately wants to see evidence. I used to believe God answers prayers, and I had stories just like yours. But what makes more sense, that the rules of the universe were altered in my favor, or that I was mistaken in some way?"

The former. So how do we know who is right? Let's see, I get mine from eyewitnesses living at the time. You get yours from people living 2000 years later who love their sin. I'm going to go with the witnesses. You haven't witnessed anything. Nor have you presented a case that has merits of a leader but of one being led.

Gerhard: "Is it right to believe that God is overly concerned with your neighbor's propane tank, but continues to neglect starving children and cancer victims? And if God were more concerned with your propane tank than the immense problem of pain and suffering, around the world, could it ever be said of him that he is good?"

First, "starving" and "cancer" are evils to your philosophical bias but not evil by any real standard. It tugs at your heart strings but you are not a standard. That is the "straw man" again. Second, he could have left the people I helped alone and they would have to come up with the money themselves and it would not have been wrong for God to do either.

If I give my oldest son a gift and not my youngest son, it is my prerogative. It is not good that I gave or bad that I didn't. If my Oldest asked for a certain thing and I gave it to him and my youngest asked someone elses dad and neither I or the other dad gave it to him, it might tell you something about whom should he have asked. I agree with the shameful implication, but it is not God who is guilty, but man. We have all the resources we need but have decided to squander it on ourselves. The rich ignore the poor. God has given the earth to us. We are supposed to steward it. It sounds like you believe that but you are as powerless as I am to do something about it. Yes God could step down and help but why? We are currently being tried for our works which is being represented in the way we spend our money and time to participate in this cycle using faith, hope and Love. This isn't a test for God but for us. You have things all backward if you are thinking this life is all that there is. I can expect you to arrive at the end result of your belief which you have by that mix up, but there is no logical reason for it.

It is funny that you would agree with the principles and morals set forth originally in the Bible and yet then make God, who first displayed your disgust, out to be the bad guy. Do you commonly used biblical arguments to try and prove the bible false? Yesterday at 3:19am · Edited · Like

 Sam Collier Gerhard: "For a long time I held onto a belief in God, and a hope that he was good, even after I had seen though the traditional perceptions of who he is. Acknowledging the problem of pain, I admitted that it troubled me greatly. When asked, by an atheist friend, what it would take for me to give up my belief in God, I replied, "It would have to be shown that it was harmful to myself or my family. In that case, a belief in God would not be worth having." And eventually it came to that place. It occurred to me that, believing something for no better reason than I want it to be true, is unhealthy in and of itself. What would I be teaching my children if I did?"

I agree. Your children would be just as distraught as you in the end. But that is because you knew not what you were to believe. It isn't knowledge about a man that saves us. Knowledge of his death on a cross and resurrection on the third day does not save anyone and reliving it for the sake of tears every Sunday kinda makes me think my Pastor just wants my money and crying is the right emotion to get wallets opened (that is just an example. my current pastor doesn't do that). No it was as you keep saying really: Jesus was a positive example for us to follow. However, if we believe him, we will behave like him and if we ruminate on his words we will not only have life but be able to share that life. You seem to have left churchianity for atheism (or whatever) over Christian principles only you have grouped them and tossed out the baby with the bath water. Yet again, you reject the original place in history where you find your view and are attempting to prove that it is bad as opposed to you. That is called self contradiction and is also a fallacy.

Honestly, if we were supposed to be discussing why you are not a believer like me, your answer as you see it may be "because it isn't credible" (paraphrase) but from my perspective, it seems you are saying "I don't know what that is. I got caught up in something else along the way".

I haven't heard you represent Christianity accurately when finding faults and yet you believe a few of the same doctrines that originated in the Bible and have only been spread to the world, and consequently to you, through the effects of Christianity. You should try the Bible again. I bet if you read a good book on logic and reason and rules of debate, you would think Ehrman is a complete moron when it comes to Bible study too.

Well it is 11:44 here on the west coast. I think I will go to bed. If my candor starts to get you upset at me, just give it back to me. I can take it. I really feel a need to address your means and methods though. You are coming accross as someone who was more than a little off center on your understanding of Christianity . Maybe you want to know that, if you are wanting to actually address the issues, but I think you are having a hard time accepting that you and I had, and have, different reasons for thinking we were saved. An "improved life" is not what I experienced at all. You are still not pointing at anything that I would say was an actual relationship with Christ. I truly believe you were in a churchian church where very little education takes place. I've been: I know. You just seem to be coming from that perspective with your knowledge of church. Although your arguments are characteristically atheistic in origin. Those guys really have no clue; Bart Ehrman for example. He can string together logical fallacies and atheists will swallow all day long. You haven't gotten too crazy with the logical fallacies but if we get to much further, you will either have to acknowledge your fallacies and rethink your arguments, or start stringing them together yourself. If you are reading Bart Ehrman, I think you may feel abandoned by him if you try to quote him here.

Anyway, I'm out. Looking forward to some strengths of your position next time. Take care. Yesterday at 3:20am · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Sam Collier, I am thinking that we should continue this dialogue, focusing on whether or not the Bible is reliable and returning to the rest in a roundabout way. Some things, unless one of us has a complete change of thinking, are unlikely to be resolved. We can examine the Bible and seeming inconsistencies, but it seems unlikely that either one of us would be able to convince the other of the legitimacy illegitimacy of the others conversion experience. That being said, if it were to be shown that the Bible is consistent and inerrant, it would greatly strengthen your case. The reverse is also true, in favor of my argument. Although I have read the Bible many times and believed, as you do, that it is The Word of God I will readily admit that you appear to know it better. You may also, be a stronger debater. That being said, these things do not make you smarter or your logic more sound. I may not have memorized the Bible, but I am not completely ignorant either. Bart D. Ehrman was the first person who turned me on to the reality that the Bible is fallible, but I did not accept this easily. I wrestled with it. I lost sleep over it. I checked his references, going back to the Bible again and again. But he checked out. It is one thing to say, " Bart Ehrman for example. He can string together logical fallacies and atheists will swallow all day long." It is another thing to prove him wrong! Ehrman is not just another schmo with a schtik. Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a leading scholar in his field, having written and edited over 25 books, including three college textbooks! I have read a lot of his books and they have had a great effect on me, that being said, he is not alone. Nor are his books the only that I have read that come to the same conclusions. That being said, we should need to look to only one book to prove the Bible fallible, and that is the Bible itself. Yesterday at 10:23am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Let's talk about Judas. This is actually kind of fun. It has been a while since I've done a good Bible study. Who bought the 'Field of Blood' where Judas died? In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field, but in In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field. Furthermore, how did he die? In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself, yet in In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out. These may seem like trivial details, but in order for a book to be inerrant, it stands or falls on the details. Yesterday at 10:38am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Who found the empty tomb? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple. Which was it? They cannot all be right. Either, only one is right, or they are all wrong. And the Bible is riddled with these types of inconsistencies. You asked, "Do you commonly used biblical arguments to try and prove the bible false?" Yes. Particularly when I am speaking with Christians. After twenty years, walking the walk and talking the talk, it is the language that I know. I may not believe in the Bible in the same way that I used to, but I still hold it dear. I treat it as a history of a people who believed in God. They got some things right (do onto other, and so on) and they got some things wrong (morally deplorable). Accepting the reality that the Bible in not the Inerrant Word of God, it opens up a new hope and we are able to learn from the Bible in ways previously unimagined. Yesterday at 10:50am · Like  Sam Collier Touché. However, for 2 statements to be contradictory, they can't both be true. Let's see if there is a contradiction;

1) Who bought the field. Were the priests using their own money? Nope. Judas bought the field posthumously by way of the priests' decision. Let's say somone asked you for money to buy a coke and you say, "sorry, all I have is debit", and then shortly afterward I gave you money to buy you and I a coke and you came back and we drank together. Now say the person comes back ands says, "liar". Would it not be accurate to say, "Sam bought this". I didn't do the transaction but it was my money. Both can be true. No contradiction there

2) can a man hang himself in a field and then sometime afterward his body fall headlong and burst open? Seem possible to me. No contradiction exists. Yesterday at 10:58am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick You said that it is funny that I would agree with the principles and morals set forth originally in the Bible and yet then make God, who first displayed your disgust, out to be the bad guy. There are many fallacies in this statement. It is easy to point these out once we recognize what the Bible actually is. I human effort, penned and collected by multiple authors, either to share a story, an opinion, or to manipulate the masses. In some cases, what you hear will be pleasing, and most people would agree with the morality in these instances. Who would find fault with John's statement, "beloved, let us love one another"? Most people would not. However, as commanded in Deuteronomy, most father's, after discovering that their daughter had been raped, would find it objectionable to sell their daughter to the rapist. Some of the Biblical writers, I would find little objection to, while others appear to be completely corrupt. For most, the line is somewhere in the middle. Better to read the Bible as you would anything by C.S. Lewis or Richard Dawkins, with a grain of salt, chewing the meat and spitting out the fat, Yesterday at 11:00am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick So, according to your 'Judas Logic', if you click on my website, and I get paid per hit, and I use that money to buy The Satanic Bible, it would be completely logical - and you would not take objection - for me to past everywhere, "Thank you Sam Collier for buying me The Satanic Bible". If someone gives you money and you buy something with it, it is not the same as if that person bought it themselves. Judas, in this instance, was essentially asking for a refund. He had bought 30 pieces of Silver and the price was Jesus. After tasting the silver, he found it bitter and discovered that he wanted Jesus back. It was too late for that, but he still didn't want that which he had bought. He wanted no part of that money! Therefore, it is not logical to say that, that which was purchased, was done by him, at least not with the 30 pieces of silver. Yesterday at 11:09am · Like

 Sam Collier Who found the tomb? I don't see key words like "first" and "only" or "no one else" in any passage that makes it sound contradictory. Instead it kinda sounds like it is being told from different witnesses. That is what I would expect. I don't see a contradiction. I see different sides of the story being pieced together. Yesterday at 11:10am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick That doesn't surprise me. It appears to me that you are too invested in seeing things the way that they have been taught to you to see it clearly. I was kind of expecting the 'Car Crash Analogy' that so often comes up when these kind of discrepancies are pointed out. Kinda disappointed. I was looking forward to blowing it out of the water... Yesterday at 11:13am · Like

 Sam Collier You should also know that I see that Bible as written by witness. No the magical, inerrant word of God that most do. It doesn't have to be and never says it is. i would expect some of the stuff to not lign up. But the gospels don't seem to contradict as others do. Yesterday at 11:13am · Like

 Sam Collier But the contradiction is in your head. How was that supposed to blow anything out of th water. If both can be true then there is no contradiction. Are you disappointed that your supposed contradictions are not actually contradictions because I have presented anything false. This is where logic plays a huge role. Do you have any actual contradictions? Yesterday at 11:16am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick There is no good reason to believe that the Gospels were written by witnesses. Glaring contradictions would be the biggest evidence of this. If they were all witnesses, shouldn't they have all seen the same things. For example, Who did the women tell about the empty tomb? According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone." According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples." as in Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest." Again, it cannot be both. You cannot simultaneously tell everyone and no one. Each Gospel was written decades after the fact, and for specific reasons. Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke are forgeries of Mark with some addition and commentary. John was written last. None of the Gospels, within themselves, make the claim to be eyewitness or to be written my Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. These are traditions, and were not originally claims of authenticity. Yesterday at 11:20am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick There is a video circulating of a pastor. I wish I could find it. But he says that if the Bible says that 2 + 2 = 5, he would believe it, without question, and begin to try to understand how this were true. I admit, I am getting frustrated, because I am beginning to get the feeling that you are in this camp as well. It is ironic that you compare me to the horse with blinders on. Because I am the one looking at the whole picture whereas you appear to be like the child with eyes squeezed shut and their fingers in their ears going, "La la la, I can't hear you. No contradictions. No contradictions." It is possible that, after hanging himself, the head popped of and the body fell, but it is not probable that an 'eyewitness', after witnessing a hanging, would not mention the hanging and only say that he fell. There are many 'possibilities', but in order to accept them you must overcome many (inconceivable) improbabilities. Yesterday at 11:30am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick When did the ascension happen? According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection. According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Were there two ascensions? I suppose you might say, "It is possible. I see no contradiction." Yesterday at 11:33am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a staff. Which is it, or did he do both, contradicting himself, but maintaining the integrity of the Bible? Yesterday at 11:35am · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1UbSw9Wcjs

Penn & Teller - The Bible is Bullshit - Best 10 Minutes The best 10 minutes of Penn and Teller explaining why... YOUTUBE.COM Yesterday at 12:01pm · Like

 Sam Collier Gerhard: "There is no good reason to believe that the Gospels were written by witnesses. Glaring contradictions would be the biggest evidence of this. If they were all witnesses, shouldn't they have all seen the same things."

That is not logical. They did not all witness the same things. Neither does the bible say they did.

Gerhard: "For example, Who did the women tell about the empty tomb? According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone.""

From what was witnessed, this is true, at first. You can't take a statement that could have a time stamp and make it universal especially when the Greek does not imply that this is statement which must be true forever. Instead, if they didn't say anything to nyone 'at first', it would still be true even if the 'at first' does not exist. This was common sentence construction.

Gerhard: "According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples.""

So we see the time limit was 'until they got back to the disciples'. Your supposed contradiction is still in your head. You can't be disappointed if you decided to make conclusions that you do not have thewhole story behind. As you said, you don't know Greek, you don't know the whole Bible, and debating may not be your thing. That is okay. You don't need to be, as we concluded in previous posts. What can't do is then, while having so little knowledge of the bible and the texts, make assumption about the text, especially if you going to eliminate time as a variable and limit the witnesses to your standard that only you and others with a philosophical bias use; and only with reliefs that you disagree with apparently.

Gerhard: "as in Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest." Again, it cannot be both." You cannot simultaneously tell everyone and no one."

True. But can tell no one and then later tell someone and still later everyone.

Gerhard: "Each Gospel was written decades after the fact, and for specific reasons. Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke are forgeries of Mark with some addition and commentary."

Now you are quoting someone else's bias. There is no evidence of that anywhere. That is why I doubt Bart Ehrman. He may be educated but university doesn't teach you to think. It teaches you to regurgitate. If you say what your professor doesn't agree with, you get an 'F'. Not only that but most everything he says is regurgitated from someone before him. It is all very embarrassing when you consider his bias and quoting other's bias and then putting out in publications so that people can feel they have learned something. What he should teach is classes on 'denial'.

Gerhard: "John was written last. None of the Gospels, within themselves, make the claim to be eyewitness or to be written my Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. These are traditions, and were not originally claims of authenticity."

So what? I guess you believe that the only way that the books by witnesses can be true is if the person claims he wrote it and witnessed the events described and wrote them as they happened. Great. This is not new. If this was an adequate standard of practice, then we can all forget history because the Bible is one of the closest witnesses to events in history which it professes to record. Your objections may have affected you but they are are not based on logic. They are a philosophical bias.

I think you have used personal feelings and people like Bart Ehrman who regurgitates what makes money and just accepted it because it is easier than actually learning the history of the texts and how history is actually recorded and the language, parlance and vernacular. I can read people who I agree with too and conclude what they do. It ia not a surprise that we will not see eye to eye or that we will not change our opinions about each other's view because you have way too much subjective reasoning which only results in fallacies (this is true with the practice) while I approach the evidence with logic and reason. One of the biggest evidences of this is that I have not made any assertions about the text but only what is stated and what is not stated while yoi on the other hand have concluded much and admittedly without knowledge of the text, and for some personal reason that no one would consider valid, disallowing any reasoning and asserting that your opinion is yhe right one and to one who is willing to be open minded you say that you are "disappointed".

I am still interested in this conversation and would like to actually see if you have new info. I used to debate the same exact arguments before the advent of internet debates and you have not presented anything that wasn't a half century old then. Was it so easy to believe bias? Bart Ehrman got money. what is your motivation if not really good evidence? Becuse so far I haven't seen any. This is just from what I am seeing. Yesterday at 12:47pm · Like

 Sam Collier Okay I am going through and commenting slowly. To the "2+2=5" comment/question, no. If the Bible stated that something is true that clearly is not, I'll be the first to discredit it. I don't have the "magical word of God" view though. I see the Bible as written by men and inspired by God. I am inspired by God and it doesn't make me infallible. I am very unorthodox but very logical. Orthodoxy was creates to control the masses and it still does. The Binle does not lend to controlling corrupt men and dicourages it. So assuming the Bible was for that purpose is mistaken. If yiu knew the Bible, you'd realize that it was against the corruption that it was used to perpetuate. Anyone can see that when positions of power are created, corrupt men weasle their way into it. The US tried to take it out of the government and now corrupt men are repeating the same things only not under the name of Christ. It is growing to be a corrupt and lethal and evil as before but the "church" won't have anything to do with it. It is a whole new orthodoxy and it is trying to get into the church now just like it did then and it won't be much longer before christians are arrested for not complying as before. Evryone blames Christianity for the crusades but over 50 million biblical Christians wete tortured to death by the nominal "Christianity" of orthodoxy of that day. It was not Christianity and neither is blind adherence to the "2+2=5" crowd. I am not you average Churchian. Yesterday at 1:08pm · Like

 Sam Collier Gerhard: "Because I am the one looking at the whole picture"

How so? Present the whole picture to me. My eye are open and my ears are open. Be logical though. I don't have a philosophical bias so i am going to ask for evidence.

Gerhard: "...whereas you appear to be like the child with eyes squeezed shut and their fingers in their ears going, "La la la, I can't hear you. No contradictions. No contradictions." "

Is there a contradiction? Because if so, all you have to do is explain it no matter what I say. I am all ears. But alas...

Gerhard: "It is possible that, after hanging himself, the head popped of and the body fell, but it is not probable that an 'eyewitness', after witnessing a hanging, would not mention the hanging and only say that he fell. There are many 'possibilities', but in order to accept them you must overcome many (inconceivable) improbabilities."

Um...your definition of improbable and inconceivable are very different than mine. Plus, that is a bias. Did you know that Esau was covered in red hair when he was born and throughout most of his life? His name was also called Edom which means "red". Esau means "hairy". In the Bible, when Esau said to Jacob "give me some of that "red stuff" it says he was called Edom for that reason. Hebrew names always had meaning. Matthew describes the events of Judas's death and the priests saying that they could not take blood money so they bought a field with it. They called it ground of blood for that reason. But later Luke says it is called field of blood because his guts spilled out on it. So that means the field was also bought for two reasons: it was defiled by blood which was a big deal, and to bury Judas seeing that it was useless now. So Judas's money was used to buy his burial plot posthumously. Not the first time or last time this has happened. I know of several buildings and parks that were said to have been purchase by men who only left behind the money for the surving members of his family to do whatever with. And you exclude that from your "whole picture" which you claim to see. And now you think that it is inconceivable that Luke would say that it was called field of blood because of Judas's blood spilling on it because Matthew said it was also called field of blood because of the blood money used to by it. Peter eas called by three names for three reasons. Do you think you should take that out of the "whole picture" too seeing that you have no real evidence? You are still moving forward on bias. It is not bias to remain open minded. It is bias to close your mind even when there is no evidence for a contradiction. Yesterday at 1:43pm · Like

 Sam Collier Gerhard: "When did the ascension happen? According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection. According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Were there two ascensions? I suppose you might say, "It is possible. I see no contradiction." It is common to sum up events which are not important per se. You see the Bible as something where every phrase has to have a specific meaning and told exactly the way you would. Luke is obviously summing up the events as he does at the end of Acts in which he tells us he summed two years of material. I do not see that it says it was on the same day so ut is not accurate to say that he intended to mean the same day, especially when he also wrote Acts as well. I only see you desire for a contradiction. The common practice in all of contemporary Greek writing of summing up events in a succinct paragraph tells me that you don't have a case unless Luke says, it was the same day. He stopped saying it was the same day before verse 44. Yesterday at 2:13pm · Like

 Sam Collier Penn and Teller? I generally don't get my history or theology from a sideshow act. There was a lot of bias, circular reasoning and straw men. It takes practice to see logical fallacies and it is apparent that you have a long way to go. I would venture to guess that your book is full of the same made up standards and philosophical bias and probably none of it original material as well.

I don't know how you can make conclusions on zero information whatsoever but it appears to have something to do with the bias. A bias is a very powerful thing. I will talk with you later. Take care Yesterday at 2:32pm · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I think I am done now. Ciao Yesterday at 3:28pm · Edited · Like · 1

 Leonard Curtis But not done hocking your blasphemous rag you call a gospel.

Your war against the One you don't believe in is telling.

You are more interested in listening to the likes of Ehrman and Penn than a thoughtful response by someone who knows the Christ.

I guess royalties from a book can be an alluring god. Yesterday at 4:49pm · Edited · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh Actually Leonard it appears your engagement against Gerhard's rewrite serves as the greatest advocacy of the work, intentional or otherwise. People are drawn to controversy. 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Lol. My stalker returns. Leonard Curtis, welcome back. Didn't you say, "At this point, I will go back to where we have been for many months, in that I am not going to continue to discuss it."? It is unfortunate that you are not as good as your word. 23 hrs · Like  Gerhard Jason Geick It is as you say, Rami Kuttaineh, I am reluctant to admit it, for fear that he stops, but Leonard Curtis' attack against The Miracle Free Gospel has increased traffic to my site. www.themiraclefreegospel.weebly.com 23 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh blessed are the 'persecuted'. 23 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh I wouldn't be so hard on the fellow. He is, after all, helping you out! 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick It is without a doubt, a parasitic relationship. I could cut the guy some slack, but the way he dishes it out, I can't help but hit the ball back. Not only does it take little effort, but it is also pretty hilarious. 23 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh There is new testament scripture which provides guidance for this kind of relation. 23 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis My discussion is certainly not with you. Anything I post is strictly with the intent of exposing you, until you repent 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick You are correct Rami. In response to the Pharisees, Jesus said, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" I generally try to be a little more civil, when dealing withLeonard Curtis, but I hear what you are saying. 23 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Rami, anyone with any genuine intent of truly knowing Jesus will clearly see his heresy.

The others will seek such evils regardless where it is found.

And don't let this viper fool you. He tries to sound so kind, but his actions tell the truth. He is at war against all that is of Christ.

He serves only his wallet by aligning himself with his father. 23 hrs · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick It is worth pointing out that Leonard Curtis just found me in another group that I am a part of, and is harassing me there also. Perhaps this is part of the reason that I get annoyed so easily.

23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick And then he insults me in a private message. Leonard Curtis, do you not know that there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

23 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis And I gladly stand by that statement. I didn't post it publicly because of the rules, but since you posted it, I want to affirm that this is exactly how I see you. 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick This is getting embarrassing. Why not call a truce? Turn the other cheek? Pray for those who offend? Forgive? Do unto other? I would be more that willing to not be doing this with you any longer. 23 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis My intent is and will continue to be, exposing your blasphemies until you repent and end the distribution of that filthy book. 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Jesus dined with sinners. By his response to them, as humans, he called them to repentance. You, privately, call me 'utter filth', and expect me to respond by repenting. Didn't Jesus call his followers to love their enemies; to pray for them? 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick If I am 'the lost sheep' of the parable, how do you imagine your actions are perceive, as an embassy of The Good Shepherd? 23 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Leonard Curtis, I am extending an olive branch here. I have lots of friends that I don't, theologically, agree with. I would rather count you as one of these, than continue this juvenile back and forth. 22 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Repent.

You are in open hostility toward Christ and His ministry and teachings. Huge difference between that and those who sin but are drawn to Christ.

When you have stopped your war against my Lord and ended the furtherance of that book, we will have no enmity between us. 22 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I find your response disheartening. 22 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis I find your blaspheming Christ as reprehensible. 22 hrs · Like

 Vicki Thomason I am inspired to read your book now Gerhard...thanks to Leonard Curtis. 22 hrs · Like · 1

 Leonard Curtis Go ahead. You fill your heart and mind with filth and blasphemy and that is what you will get back out.

If what you can see of his book are not enough to show you how loathesome it is, then maybe you desiring to read it are merely a symptom of a much larger problem.

I understand there are those who really have no genuine commitment to Christ that may want to experience this book. My efforts are not for those. My efforts are to benefit true followers of Christ and warn them of devilish tools designed to destroy the faith they really have.

Enjoy your read. 22 hrs · Edited · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh Not the scripture I was referring to 22 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I know. I apologize. I got a little carried away. 22 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Regardless of any revenue Leonard Curtis might send my way, it gets frustrating having an internet stalker... 22 hrs · Like

 Vicki Thomason Leonard Curtis, you assume that other Christians are not able to discern false doctrine when we see it. Would your time not be better spent praying that the truth will prevail? The spirit of God promotes love and grace, not division. 22 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Prior to releasing this book, I released it to a primary Christian audience, reaching out to people of many denominations, to people around the world. And the reviews (called Testimonials on the web page), were overwhelmingly positive. I understood how easily a project like this could be misconstrued, as has been done by Leonard Curtis, a man who has not even read the book and is disinterested in an open dialogue about the concerns that he has. Since it's release, in April, I have not received resistance like this from anyone other than this individual. 21 hrs · Like  Gerhard Jason Geick Even when I think I understand it, I don't... 21 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Vicki, have you bothered to look at the filth that he lays on the back of Jesus and the Gospel narrative?

I will not be united with such as him. He is in open hostility toward Jesus. He is openly blaspheming Him and profiting from it. And all this at the hands of gullible, name only Christians.

Division is EXACTLY what needs to happen with this man, and any that name the Name of Christ.

Paul said to cast the one sleeping with his mother in law out and hand him over to Satan. This man is engaged in something far more grave than that. He should be shunned from the Christian community and given over to the destruction of his flesh that he might learn not to blaspheme. Then, and only then, should he be allowed fellowship.

We are told not even to sit at meal with such as him. I for one will have no fellowship. No friendly interaction. No communication aside from exposing his blasphemy.

Jesus is THAT important to me. He is my life. He is my Savior. He died for me. Am I now to sup with those who spit in His face, and gloat while they do so?

If Gerhard wants to repent, he will be brought in fully. Until then he is a heathen and a devil. His actions are those of his father, Satan. And I will not just overlook that. 21 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Gerhard, repent of your blapshemy and turn toward Christ to be healed. 21 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Leonard Curtis, I am firm on this; I DO NOT INTEND TO ALLOW YOU TO RUN ME OUT OF ANOTHER FACEBOOK GROUP! 21 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Not this one, or any other. Shalom, Brother. 21 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Your caps are meaningless to me. I will not stop trying to expose you. You can get riled up by that if you want. My message is the same.

To the world; Beware of this wolf who does not even bother to try and cover the fact that he is a wolf.

To you; Repent and turn from your war against God and be healed by His Son. 21 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Shalom, Brother. 21 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Repent and turn from your war against God and be healed by His Son. 21 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Rest easy, brother. If you are correct, than God is in control. Shalom 21 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis You are not my brother. You have not been adopted as of yet. You are still of your father and serve him well.

Repent and turn from your war against God and be healed by His Son. 21 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Shalom 21 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Repent and turn from your war against God and be healed by His Son. 21 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Meow 21 hrs · Like

 Robert Distefano Leonard, where in the scripture does it state that we should stalk people into believing in Jesus? Why don't you leave this man alone and let the Holy Spirit do His work? Just pray for Gerhard instead of badgering him. 20 hrs · Like  Leonard Curtis Where does it say to just look away while a wolf attacks the sheep?

If someone was attacking and maligning my family, I would act upon that. How much more when it is an attack against my Lord? And how much more when his attacks are also designed to destroy the faith of my family in Him? 20 hrs · Edited · Like

 Robert Distefano Leonard, I understand your zeal because I was where you were spiritually at one time. Then the Lord showed me how to have gentleness and respect for others when we share the truth. It is hard, but with the Holy Spirit's help, you can do it. 18 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis And I know what you are saying as well. I engage in a great deal of witnessing, and 99% is all about gentleness and respect. Gerhard has rebuffed all efforts and continues to further his war against God. He has been given the gospel a thousand times and not only does he reject it, but he actively blasphemes Jesus in order to pad his wallet. At this point I believe exposing him and protecting his victims is the only option left.

I would absolutely love to be able to delete the page exposing him and have Christian fellowship with him. He has made that impossible, at least for the time being. I hope he does repent and stop hocking his blasphemies, but until then, I will continue to make efforts to expose it for what it is.

If I knew someone wanted to burn down someone's home, I would try to convince him of how wrong that is. But if he continued to go forward with this plan, I would do whatever I could to warn the people in the home to protect themselves from this attack. Gerhard is trying to burn the house down around those who follow God. I can't stand idly by and pray he changes his mind. 15 hrs · Edited · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh What seems to be Gerhard's motivation ( and note I don't buy bibles, at least not since I paid $89.99 for a leather bound slimline silver-leaf edition of Peterson's the Message around the turn of the millennium ) is to fit Logos into the context of physicalism in order to expand the chance of those in that trap to hear the word. I have not been as well versed in the work, however I recognize it has possessing a certain level of quality ( whether it is possibly universally appreciated or not ).

So there are competing interests: 1) the desire to create something new 2) the potential harm caused in misleading readers away from the original text in terms of trading the initial authors words for those of a single man's human, which as we know is fallible, understanding 3) John's admonition at the end of his Gospel.

Part of this is actually a tradition going back to the Phillips translation, because during the time of buzz bombs being dropped on England, people were questioning how does an ancient text like the Bible have anything to do with, or how is it at all recognizable, to my life today in the seemingly very different world? 15 hrs · Like  Leonard Curtis Maybe peruse some of what he has written into his book and called a gospel. There is nothing on the market that even comes close to such blasphemy. 14 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh Now you are speaking of its novelty. What do you think Leonard of Muggeridge's A Third Testament?http://www.plough.com/en/ebooks/a/a-third-testament

A Third Testament Based on an acclaimed TV series, this illuminating collection of portraits brings to life seven men in search of... PLOUGH.COM 14 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

 Leonard Curtis Having never looked much into it, I would have to get back to you on that one.

But I don't see saying God evolved from primordial sludge with a foul mouth or saying Jesus was a murderer as novelties. 14 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29Pfy70YlE

The Third Testament-Trailer A Third Testament is the highly praised television documentary presented by noted author and Christian... YOUTUBE.COM 14 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

 Vicki Thomason Leonard, I haven't read his book yet and will reserve judgement until I have had a chance to. Are there any particular quotes you would like to mention which concern you specifically? 13 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Has anyone read (or heard of) The Good Man Jesus and The Scoundrel Christ by Phillip Pullman or Lamb by Christopher Moore, or even The Jefferson Bible? I assure you that the market place is ripe with this tradition or re-writing the Gospels, going back 2000 years. Check out the Gospel of Phillip, or The Gospel of Truth, or The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. 7 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick There are hundreds of Gospels out there; four of them are generally accepted, yet all contain the tradition of the teacher using the narrative as a vehicle to explain their understand of things. This is what I am doing, and have never claimed to be doing anything more. This is why the book is subtitled, a Testament to Hopeful Theism. 7 hrs · Unlike · 1

 Sam Collier Gerhard, the other so called "gospels" are not accepted because they are known to be pseudepigraphal and written much later by those who were not witnesses. You have done something similar and so may share their sympathies but their writing 150-200 years later is no more accurate than your assertions 2000 years later. The intent of announcing some as "acceptable" or canonical was a sim0le service by those who knew the origins of which gospels were by witnesses. I believe that these "committees" as a service was later looked at by the corrupted church to be "authoritative". It never had that intent. I don't even totally agree with the 66 books as being a complete set. I would add some and take away one or two. That is what the "committee" wanted; to give you a good idea which ones were edifying and were not tainted with rising gnosticism.

Two of the accepted four were written by apostles who Christ, if he was who he says he was, gave authority to them as witnesses to speak on his behalf. The other two were written by Peter's amanuensis. And the other was written, most likely as Paul's defense when he was at Rome on trial after appealing to Caesar. And the author of that defense states that he got his information from all those who had witnessed the things hebwas writing. So it serves as a collective with the intent to write them in an orderly account.

Recorded history explains all of this and it is all accessible to anyone who wishes to read it. I find that bias is so strong that most in your position would rather not read it for themselves but find some teacher who shares that bias and read their book. But they are not so honest and quote-mine what they want to hear just like churchians. So you have selective hearing battling selective hearing and neither has the whole truth but has heard enough words to make up the rest. 6 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

 Leonard Curtis Vicki, if you even just look at his site, he displays passages from the book that are enough to show how bad it is. 6 hrs · Like · 1  Gerhard Jason Geick Sam Collier, I agree with nearly everything you wrote above, and where I might disagree, the point is moot. It was my intention to follow a tradition of pseudepigrapha, and that is what I have done, with a modern twist, and the humor of it easily betrays its inauthenticity. Not to mention, the multiple places where it is explained as a work of fiction. 6 hrs · Unlike · 1

 Rami Kuttaineh Ever check the vote which fixed the canon in it's present form? I have faith in its inerrancy however, read the notes and minutes to the Diet of Worms sometime. 5 hrs · Like

 Leonard Curtis Ah yes, his humorous modern twist all at the expense of the Savior.

5 hrs · Like · 1

 Sam Collier Sure, I expected that you probably didn't see them as being truthful. I just wanted to say that they really aren't on the level of the four that was considered "acceptable" in their recounting of history. In fact, all of the pseudepigraphal rely upon the reader's knowledge of the four. So they are clearly not recounting history but are rearranging accounts of history and providing new meaning based on religious beliefs that were discounted by Jesus and the apostles, yet attributing them to Jesus and the apostles. So not quite the same level of trustworthy material in juxtaposition. 5 hrs · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Interesting, none the less. Wouldn't you agree? 5 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier It might fall into the category of interesting for some, but I actually look for truth in history and not entertainment. Just wired that way I guess. 5 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I have been fascinated by the Gnostic literature for many years - have been working my way through The Gnostic Bible since I received it last year; a Christmas present from my Mother. It might just be, that this interest lies at the root of The Miracle Free Gospel. The Gnostic scriptures generally do not contain truth, but they tell a historical truth about the people of the times (a select group, at least), what they believed, and how they responded to those beliefs. Many people today, they do not believe in miracles or creation stories. They believe in evolution and scientific reasoning. They believe in morality outside of religion. The Miracle Free Gospel is a testament to that, and to what I call Hopeful Theism. The book presents the truth within the history of today, wrapped up in a parable. And what is wrong with that? Isn't this the model, set out by Jesus, to speak in riddles? 5 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier Jesus said that he spoke in "riddles" so that those who were listening would not hear. In other words, if I said "the kingdom of God looks like a pearl which a man having seen the pearl, goes and sells all his possessions." Next parable "the kingdom of God is like a treasure buried in a field, etc, etc, etc". If you were listening to me but you did not care what this kingdom of God was, you would dismiss all of that because it did not concern anything you were interested in. That is what Jesus was trying to do: to get rid of those you didn't want to hear it. For those who were interested in what he just said, knowing he was someone important, it had a different affect: it made them wonder "why?" and made them ask the question. Well now they are students; translated "disciples". So "to [them] it was revealed the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" he says in Matthew 13 when they asked "why do you speak in parables?" 5 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier His "riddles" where for the purpose of weeding out the rabble. 5 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier He used their motivations against them. But I explained all things in private to the Christians. 5 hrs · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I would say that The Miracle Free Gospel does the same. Extreme religiosity takes offense to it, claiming that morality in and of itself is not enough, in fact it is inferior. In one instance, Jesus says (TMFG 3:17), "See, I did not come to shame anyone into submission, but to offer an alternative view of God, free of ritual and pomp." In the next 2 verses Jesus continues, "Whoever rejects what I say, in favor of submission, is a dumb ass. This is what I see: Light has once again shone upon the primordial sludge, but the sludge loves the darkness and refuses to evolve." It is no wonder, presented with these types of accusations, that the Leonard Curtis' of the world cry, "Repent and turn from your war against God..." Their actions betray them. And the parable exposes them. And they do not understand. 4 hrs · Edited · Like  Leonard Curtis "Whoever rejects what I say, in favor of submission, is a dumb ass.

It's like a child on the playground has gotten a pen and paper. Sure hope mommy doesn't hear little Gerhard using potty words, but the rest of his little school chums thinks he is so coooool.

Grow up. 4 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier I can appreciate the spirit behind the message, after all, Jesus was very caustic in Matthew 23, however, not at the expense of those who loved God but his words were for those who did not know or car to know God but to control the masses. Leonard is offended by your "blasphemy" as Jesus calls it in Matthew 12. He loves Jesus and has only approched you with the same caustic words of Matthew 23 and Paul in Galatians 3; wishing the Judaizers would have cut their own penis off in their circumcision for there perverting the gospel with a works doctrine. If you think about it, Leonard even loves you, calling for your repentance. It is over the top to me but I don't know his heart. I can see his motivation has an end which is good. He does not cry for your beheading; nor your life to be ruined; but for you to stop the blasphemy. His approach is different than mine but he has not gone beyond the things Jesus did. And here is wisdom, pay close attention, what he is doing is tame compared to what Jesus and the apostles sometimes did, but you are doing exactly what the Pharisees did and maybe worse. I know you believe that churchians are the "Pharisees" of today but actually they are not the only ones displaying hatred toward the Christians by their doctrines; your book, though it seems to make someone consider that Pharisee "spirit" in the church, it attributes the work of the Holy Spirit to someone or something elses which Christ called blasphemy and unforgivable. I can see where Leonard is coming from though I would not take his approach, and I see where you are coming from but I would not take your approach. One is just over the top and isn't me. The other is sin and hard for me to justify for the sake of making people think. I have identified all that you can by your book without blasphemy. I'm sure you ciuld too.

Many people had to give up what they did before and there previous works to serve God. It takes strength. But many better than yoi or I have had to give up their lives to torture. If you cared for people as you say, you would lay down your life for them and be the kind of Christian that you see Jesus exemplifying and not justify their sin through debased reasoning so that they don't believe that justification is needed. That is harmful and if you hope for God, why destroy his example in the meantime.

Destroying someone else's sand castles in their sand box to show them that their sand box is smaller than the mile long beach that exists just outside their sand box, and then telling them it is for love and humor is misguided and more hateful than the man who built that sand box for someone to play in next to a mile long beach. You are not who you claim to be. Nor is your book intent on love or good news. 4 hrs · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Sam Collier, as I penned the final words of The Miracle Free Gospel, I was near tears. I had never before connected with the person who is Jesus in such a profound and real way. As I have shared the book with people, I have received overwhelmingly similar responses. Most people focus on the supernatural aspect of Jesus, who is hard to relate to. When faced with a multitude of hungry faces, Jesus uses magic to feed them. The Miracle Free Gospel focuses on the fully human aspect of Jesus, wondering, if Jesus were not a powerful magician, how would he feed the multitude? How would he respond to poverty? 4 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick It is a multifaceted project, with many dimensions to it. 4 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier But the revelation of Christ was was that he did his father's will and the proof was in the miracle. Taking away the miracle is making Jesus human without God and support. God did not intend to convey that we are going it alone. Similar to my flood experience, he works together with us. 4 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier I know. I hear what you are saying. But the end result is teaching people that Jesus is dead and God is not real. That is more direct than the Pharisees did it; and Jesus was aginst them. You are trying to uphold the spirit of Christ be dishonoring it. 4 hrs · Edited · Like

 Leonard Curtis That was certainly not Jesus you came close to, but there certainly was one who was very pleased with what you had done. 4 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick After many years of faith, Sam Collier, I do suspect that we are 'going it alone', and I have made peace with that. Nevertheless, I do believe that (and this is where my theology might stray from that of Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens), there are aspects of the Jesus story worth honoring, remembering, sharing, and upholding. These, in my opinion, are the elements preserved in The Miracle Free Gospel. For me, walking away from Jesus would not be dissimilar to walking away from my ethnicity. It is impossible. I could no more say, "I am not a Christian," than I could say, "I am no longer of German descent." The Jesus story has become a part of who I am and the way that I think. And, yes, I could have told my story in another way, but it would have been something contrived and false. To tell the Jesus story this way, this very human story, was the story my heart had to tell, the story I feel compelled to share. I do not believe it is blasphemous or disrespectful in any way. 4 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Consider this review:http://themiraclefreegospel.weebly.com/.../i-found-this... I found this Jesus more believable and approachable and human than any before! To begin with, (The Miracle Free Gospel) was claimed to... THEMIRACLEFREEGOSPEL.WEEBLY.COM 4 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier Yes but blasphemy is not defined by feeling. It is defined by Jesus as discrediting the holy spirit. Also, Acts 11:26 says the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Disciples are Christians the word for "disciple" in Greek is the same word as "student". So a Christian is one who is Christ's student. Jesus said, "when a student is fully trained he will be like his teacher" Luke 6:40. You are using the approach of those Jesus rebuked. I would not consider your teaching Christian in nature but according to Christ it is adversarial in origin. So to say you are not a Christian would actually be accurate by Christ's own words. So you could say it or not but Jesus said to "judge righteous judgment" Jn 7:24 and he said "anyone who denies me before men, I will deny before the Father" and Paul said there are some who profess Christ with their mouth but "deny him by there deeds" Titus 1:16. "Deny" there is the same in Greek in both passages. You are not what you claim to be and your words are not teaching what you claim they teach. 3 hrs · Unlike · 1

 Sam Collier I don't doubt that people want to hear and agree with you so the reviews don't help your facade. They are seeking to have their ears tickled. This is not evidence of a good book. It is evidence of a debased society. 3 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 2

 Gerhard Jason Geick Because I no longer bow to the authority of any book, in the way that you do the Bible, it is not surprising that we see things differently. Nevertheless, I am glad that we are able to discuss these things in a somewhat civil manor. I would argue, though, that if you can get a person's attention, tickle their ear, get them thinking, and make them laugh while they do it, then you have written a good book. 3 hrs · Unlike · 1

 Rami Kuttaineh Anything that gets people talking in this direction has got to possess some positive aspect. Consider Paul's statement regarding Apollos. https://www.google.com/search...

Paul's statement regarding Apollos - Google Search GOOGLE.COM 3 hrs · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview  Sam Collier I do bow to an authority which exists and is written about. You bow to an authority which you created yourself and to another whose opion of the term "a good book" is different than mine. So we don't agree there either. It is nice to be able to discuss and demonstrate motives as well. 3 hrs · Unlike · 2

 Sam Collier Yes, consider Paul's statements regarding Apollos. They are unlike Gerhard's in many respects. 3 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

 Rami Kuttaineh I think the lesson, and I am young in learning this, is not to rely upon my own understanding... 3 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh https://www.google.com/search...

Even Eugene Peterson's The Message which has been wildly popular runs the risk in that and Gene has the backing of being a professor in biblical languages and a pastor of two score years.

rely not on your own understanding bible - Google Search GOOGLE.COM 3 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

 Sam Collier Rami, the only place that idea is biblical is when we are supposed to trust God and not relynon our own understanding. So taking position which trusts in God cannot be said to be relying on my own understanding. However, Gerhard has admittedly rejected God and has joined what can only be called the illogical view of relying on his understanding of feelings.

But in trusting in God he wants us to "test all things" and the "test the spirits" so we must rely on our understanding to the degree at which we come to trust him. He tell the Israelites in Isaiah "come let us reason together". God is not opposed to our "seeking" and "groping" after him. This takes reaskning and understanding. Itnis the parts about God's methods that we need to trust in though we do kot understand. Not his existence or his capability or the logical reasoning which always confirms scripture. These take reason and understanding and limits Gerhard's position to smoke and mirrors; entertainment to replace reason and logic. 3 hrs · Like  Sam Collier I read Greek and Hebrew nearly fluently and Eugene Peterson came nowhere near a translation of meaning or intent. That is another story altogether. I will say that he may have had good intentions but what do you lose when you change the actul words and idioms of a language to match your own. And do we know the importance of those idioms. You may not understand the importance but that is the time we should trust in God and lean not on our own understanding as Eugene did and as you may as well. You contradicted yourself there. 3 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 1

 Rami Kuttaineh Well then Gerhard it would appear you are failing to admonish the devil in the way Jesus did when being tempted prior to starting His own ministry.

What have you to say to that? 3 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh Speaking of course of the second temptationhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/? search=Matthew+4:1-11 where Jesus quotes back to Satan Deut 6.16

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 4:1-11 - New International Version Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness - Then Jesus was led... BIBLEGATEWAY.COM 3 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

 Rami Kuttaineh That's the thing that we don't have very often and perhaps what stands as missing in our efforts to explore and or share the good news: forty days in the wilderness 3 hrs · Like

 Sam Collier 1 Corinthians 10 compares our lives to that 40 years. So we are currently living in them now. They are just a figurative lifetime. Jesus did 40 days because the Israelites received a year for each day they tested God, it says in the OT. Jesus made it through his 40 days for us. 2 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 1

 Rami Kuttaineh Again, Sam et al., it is easy to be critical of other's work ( as the followers of Paul were no doubt with regard to Apollos ) however it was through the ease and approachability of The Message that I was able to tear through the four Gospels (where in prior translations it was not so easy) and then have a softening of the heart experience while reading Paul in Romans ( as translated by Peterson ).

There is an argument for promoting the King James Version even to the exclusion of lesser translations. Then again we live in an age, as Bill Dembski states, which calls for progressive and generative faith. 2 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick Rami Kuttaineh, I would say, "I don't believe in the devil." 2 hrs · Like

 Rami Kuttaineh Of course, there is nothing [of worth] to believe there. But that is another topic. I am delving into the background Deuteronomy 6:16 “Do not put the Lord your God to the test, as you did at Massah." GNB-UK which I'm finding fascinating! https://www.google.com/search?q=Massah

Massah - Google Search GOOGLE.COM 2 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

 Gerhard Jason Geick Wouldn't it be safe to say that Christians put God to the test, every time they pray? You assume that you are entitled to more then you have, and so you put forth your request? 2 hrs · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick As a side note, I think this is one of the most interesting threads that I have been a part of. It is like a living, organic thing, going this way then that. 2 hrs · Unlike · 1

 Leonard Curtis Who cares if some random guy found Gerhard's jesus more approachable and believable? It is a false Christ invented in Gerhard's mind and has no power to save. Gerhard is leading people to a false christ through a false, blasphemous gospel. And we are supposed to be excited when he tricks another fool into drinking the kool aid. Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Many false Christ's will rise, along with their false prophets who further their cause. Gerhard is merely a false teacher in a line of many before and after him, destroying the faith of all they can.

It is people like him that make me lean more toward being a hopeful universalist, as I wonder if such pride and hate toward God will ever be repented of. The gates may never be shut, but maybe some will cling to their love of the dark and not enter in. 1 hr · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick So you say... 1 hr · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick It is conversations with people like you, Leonard Curtis, that push people towards Atheism. They say, "If this is Christianity, I want no part of it." 1 hr · Like

 Leonard Curtis Rami, while I truly think the "Message" bible is a horrible example of the scriptures, I do not think it fair to compare it to this travesty that Gerhard has created.

The huge difference is that Eugene Peterson is a committed Christian who never set ...See More 1 hr · Like

 Leonard Curtis Gerhard, I am sure you and your father will be glad to have them in the fold.

Further, I was not conversing with you. That is a pointless endeavor. My only words for you are to repent of your war against God and be healed by His Son. 1 hr · Edited · Like

 Gerhard Jason Geick I have found that a belief in devils reduces a person level of accountability. It is too easy to say, "The devil made me do it." 1 hr · Like

 Leonard Curtis I am sure your father is very proud of you furthering his ploy to make the world think he doesn't exist.

Now repent of your war against God and be healed by His Son. 1 hr · Like  Gerhard Jason Geick I think you overestimate my sphere of influence, but I will take that as a compliment. 1 hr · Like · 1

 Sam Collier Lol. Touché 34 mins · Like · 1

 Gerhard Jason Geick Bwaaa ha ha ha ha! 30 mins · Like

Load more

  44

Copy Link