Rob Rohrs

@grok, please list the top 10 scholars of the ancient Middle East for about the time of Christ. Weigh these top 10 scholars by those who are most published in secular journals as well as those who are most cited in secular journals.

@mcsquared34 If someone is good at creating wealth, which means employing multitudes who support economies of even more people, why put a cap on that?

On the contrary, Jesus who said that not one jot or bottle would fall from the law and prophets demonstrated what He meant by that. This was the sermon on the mount, and in the sermon on the mount, He went to deeper principles of the law or used the law as a starting point to assert His greater authority (quoting Moses who would always say “Thus says the Lord, but Jesus would say quoting Moses “you have heard it said… but I say to you…”) The New covenant was anticipated by Moses who said another would come like him, another law giver. And Jeremiah 32 said that this New Law, a New Covenant would “not be like” the old one which was written on stone. Instead it was written on the heart. And that’s the transference we see in the sermon on the mount, a shift from the external of the old law to the internal of the New Law. So Jesus said that while the law says “don’t murder” He said that hating a brother is like murder. While the law said do not commit adultery, Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery. The shift is toward the inner life, the heart. Paul continues to spell things out articulating what Jesus could not, as Jesus said that He couldn’t tell His disciples everything and they’d have to wait for the Holy Spirit. Paul says the Law is like a former spouse now that we are released from as this spouse has died. And yet Paul still mentioned that his Bible, the Old Testament was “God breathed,” and still “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." We don’t follow the law literally, we look to it for deeper principles. And sometimes the expectations of the deeper principle and literal law overlap. We aren’t ever justified in murder after all. As for “cherry picking,” no, what I told you is still precisely in scripture, Paul said that whether or not one observes the Sabbath or every day as Holy is personal conscience. You are cherry picking to ignore this.

@RobRohrs @bklnfin3st Nice.....but jesus said he came not to change laws but fulfil it.....he himself taught in synagogues on Saturdays.....you guys Cherry picked the one time he did not and thought it was a standard......that's why people never take your religion seriously sin 6 days pretend on one

It’s also a sin to work on saturdays, have sex before marriage, wear multi colored cloth etc

It is an affront. The very next thing that is said in the book that tells us we are created in the image of God is that “male and female created He them.” God’s design for marriage is a relationship that reflects Him most deeply. And that is not ours to alter according to our broken desires or identities.

@RobRohrs @masonmennenga @rcgwelsh Nothing about being LGBT is "brokenness" or a sin in any way. Oh, and delete yourself. You're an affront to God honey. 😘

100% of LGBTQ people are created in the image of god

Just what do you think historical evidence even is? It’s some text written by ancestors. ALL OF IT. And that’s not our only consideration. We can talk about so much of the historical coherency with archeological and other historical texts, we can move beyond history and deal with the metaphysical and psychological claims of said text, and abundant documentation and examination has been written to the affect of all of this, such that when an atheist says “prove the Bible is true,” it’s like where do we start, we’re not going to prove the entire thing in a short post. (And of course, this is so often in the context of atheists who can’t even stick to their own topics and move the goal post when some challenge falls flat on its face.

By evidence you start quoting some text witten by ancestors?

There are several hundred to a thousand experts, secular or otherwise in this field and you choose the vast minority. I’m all for challenging consensus, but why an atheist, whose primary means of advanced knowledge is through scholarship would pick the vast minority is nothing short of bias. And not all these people listed even take the position that Jesus didn’t exist, only that His existence is a legit question… which it isn’t given all the people historians take seriously with far far less evidence for their existence. Had Jesus not existed, people would’ve known. People talked in the ancient world, they remembered, they had records beyond that, and their orally communicated memory was far better than ours since it was a far more important and constant and practiced means of remembering. Jesus lived a very public life, was said to have had a ministry that drew multitudes of people, the wealthy, had the attention of religious leaders of the time including those named, and had incidence with governing authorities. That’s not the kind of person you can make up and get away with it. People would know that no one had ever heard of this person. And then how far does this circle go? Were the disciples made up? Where their protégés made up like Irenaeus? Polycarp? Clement? I saw one of these people already challenged the existence of Paul. But it’s exactly like the flat earth theory. it is a conspiracy theory and would have to have too many people in on it… a theory with zero evidence. And so much of the evidence we have seen from this camp actually can’t even be traced back further than the 1800s from skeptic grifters of that era. Some of it even more recent.

@RobRohrs @Murray_2nd @AtheistTakes You've read nothing on this subject. richardcarrier.info/archives/21420

Jesus is just a copy

@Atomixion2 @Murray_2nd @AtheistTakes No. This is the scholarly equivalent of the flat earth theory for skeptics. No real or leading scholars take it seriously. x.com/RobRohrs/statu…

@Murray_2nd @AtheistTakes Zeitgeist is crank, but legitimate scholarship does have real examples on which christianity was modeled (Osiris, Inana, etc)..

@masonmennenga @rcgwelsh Okay then. LGBTQ Is brokenness and a predisposition to a specific sin. That they are created in the image of God does not change this, and BECAUSE they are created in the image of God, LGBTQ is an affront to that image, just like all sin. NEXT.

@rcgwelsh agreed! we all are :)

He most certainly left us His teachings which the apostles wrote down or their protégés. And what didn’t come from Jesus directly still came from Holy Spirit. As is a common theme in scripture including Jesus’ ministry, earthly religious leaders can be corrupt and get scripture wrong. What often was Jesus’ response? Over and over He’d say “it is written.” He didn’t defer to the interpretations of the religious leaders of His day, and to this day, we can still follow His example and go to the Word of God.

Jesus didn’t leave us the Bible. He left the Catholic Church.

Except it’s a false dichotomy. There’s no reason not to be a Christian 100 percent of the time including when we vote, when we are elected, when elected Christians do public policy, and when we campaign. If politics is downstream of Christian discipleship, great. That means when we are disciples, then we ought to take that into politics whenever we are involved in that. As Paul said, pray for rulers, for their salvation that we may live in peace. That clearly means that he expects rulers to bring their faith into their policy.

@RobRohrs @GuyStorz @maklelan I know all of that, and none of it refutes my position. The OT is political, but the US is not ancient Israel. I don't oppose Christians engaging in politics, but politics is down stream from discipleship. Descipleship firs, then politics.

There is no sense in which the Constitution was based on the Old Testament or the New. "Judeo-Christian" is a mid-twentieth century neologism developed to gin up a sense of an American civic religious identity first against fascism & then "godless communism."

Why is this connection made if concluding atheism makes you a terrible person? It undermines our very humanity, that we are far more than just bags of chemicals. We are morally responsible creatures with intrinsic human worth, created in the image of the Creator entailing our ability to know the universe and manipulate the elements, with an eternal hope. Atheism undermines all of this and has enabled the worst dehumanization the world ever saw in the last century. You offer dross in place of Gold with a big smile and false hope of freedom, so yes, that’s why people would conclude atheism might make someone horrible because it the most horrible conclusion about life.

@TheSkepticWiz Yeah, you keep the faith buddy. Because that’s what that statement is. People have been saying that for centuries.

You can google it yourself. You want us to fly you there? Peter’s house is well supported archaeologically and the non-Christian Jewish authorities don’t dispute it. Or did you mean show you the general claim that archeology backs the Bible? What? You mean you want a whole Ph.d coarse in an x post?

@Zadokite Prove me wrong by showing me

This is just the claim.

@Ernest1588761 Oh no, that’s your pure bias. It’s content is certainly what we have to examine against other historical, logical, metaphysical, and ethical considerations, it helps us to clarify what exactly is the Christian message, in other words, it’s part of the massive body of evidence.

The Church, under the authority of His teachings and the Holy Spirit’s teachings which the Church preserved in the scriptures. Putting the Church over that is the tail wagging the dog and ignores one of the constants of scripture, that religious authorities can go astray. And How did Jesus refute corrupt religious authorities? Often He quoted scripture.

Jesus didn’t leave us the Bible. He left the Catholic Church.

People all through history and all throughout the world have been devising torture methods, the Christians were not special and they did it less. If the inquisition was involved in your case, they were most likely going to find you innocent. While the op example is horrific, Native Americans had equally horrific practices like tying their enemies down at an ant hill to be slowly consumed by ants. Or forcing someone to march around a pole with their entrails tied to the pole so they’d disembowel themselves. Romans crucified people which was an extremely slow and agonizing way to die as the back was flayed, and to breath, people would have to push down and straiten up, pushing down against their feet that was nailed to the cross, and the legs had to be in constant tension which was tiring. When they’d go slack to rest, they couldn’t breath, so they’d have to constantly push up to breath or rest which caused the wooden cross to scrape their raw open backs. Before Christians got here (and loooong before the corruptions of faith that lead to the worst of the inquisition or even the witch burnings of the early modern period) people were fed to animals for entertainment in the so called civilized world or given to the bog for good crops. Not only did Christianity put an end to that, they also put an end to witch burning which the Romans did but Christians knew was unnecessary in light of their superior supernatural power. It didn’t come back until an anachronistic application of the Old Testament, which was briefly lived when they realized current witch burnings was misapplied in the New Testament era.

Funny how most of these horrible torture and execution methods were developed by Christians and the Catholic Church and used on heretics and unbelievers. Today they get pissed when all non believers do is tweet and ask questions 🤦🏽

Yeah, if only Christians had focussed on discipleship and not politics when they drive the abolition movement against slavery. In fact, Christianity is very political, huge portions of the Old Testament are on politics which remains a standard of principles for Christians. Bad politics was involved with the removal of Religion from schools. Yet one of the men who helped us get the wording of the establishment clause Fischer Ames, said explicitly that we need the Bible is School. They wanted the government to not have an official position to promote because compelled or favored faith of a government did not aid sincere devotion, many of them reasoned. But that doesn’t mean they compartmentalized Spiritual concerns from Government and George Washington’s farewell address explicitly said do not separate government from religion: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.... Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Ben Franklin who was supposed to be a deist also argued that they needed prayer at the constitutional convention because God judges nations not in eternity (as He does individuals in eternity) but judges them while on earth.

@RobRohrs @GuyStorz @maklelan The people that wrote and passed the constitution were part of the culture. That culture did not want a national government forcing religion on people by force of law. We would do better if we concentrated on decipleship more than politics. Politics is downstream from culture.

@daviste41 @GuyStorz @maklelan They legally embedded the voters with spirally informed consciences into the constitution whom they expected to continue on in the culture.

@GuyStorz @maklelan Our Constitution is a combination of Enlightenment and Protestant ideas. The Founding Fathers had religious people in mind, but they did not legally embed any religion in the US Constitution.

@Mgillis29 @GuyStorz @maklelan And they still told us off the mindset and intentions of the authors of the Constitution and founding government officials who put it into practice.

@GuyStorz @maklelan While there is much to admire about the federalist papers, they were argumentative essays, and not actually a part of any government practice or rules.

@lessofJonathan @CherylSchatz I’ve been around to know there’s lots of unrepentant unthinking time wasters like yourself who say nothing of substance about the op, aren’t sincerely and honestly dealing with the topic, and best to stop talking to them rather than engage in their quarreling.

@RobRohrs @CherylSchatz You must be new here lmao

Why the Lord's supper is symbolic. He has good points.