The Truth About Truth (Seeker’s View) C. J. Morgan


Enjoy the podcast. This one is long:

Anchor Audio Link =–J–Morgan-e31cpa


“The Bible is a wonderful book. It is the truth about the Truth. It is not the Truth. A sermon taken from the Bible can be a wonderful thing to hear. It is the truth about the truth about the Truth. But it is not the Truth. There have been many books written about the things contained in the Bible. I have written some myself. They can be quite wonderful to read. They are the truth about the truth about truth about the Truth. But they are NOT the Truth. Only Jesus Christ is the Truth. Sometimes the Truth can be drowned in a multitude of words.” Richard Wurmbrand

This would be the base of my understanding and case. Now to expand on this there are a few extensions we could expect to see if this was true. If God is the Truth we should expect Him to make true statements. True to life, true to history, and true to the governing mechanisms of the universe (the laws of Nature).

True to life: God chose a family, made it a nation, set standards for that nation to live by, all things that set them apart from other nations. First the Law took care of God’s people. It set up a quarantine system nearly 3 thousand years before the Black Plague.(Lev. 13:2 to Lev 14:8) It set up a charitable system so people would be allowed to gather food to survive(Lev. 22:23). It prescribed a diet so that people could avoid diseased foods(Lev. 11.) It gave people inalienable rights that no one should take away(Exo. 20.)

True to history: Atheist archaeologist Sir William Ramsay had expressed his intent to disprove the gospel. Starting with Paul’s travels he went on an expedition to Asia Minor and Palestine. After 15 years of study he wrote a book St. Paul the traveler and Roman citizen. After 20 years of more study and many more books Ramsay had become a believer and wrote: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.”

Christians have good reason to believe the biblical sources are reliable. As time has gone on and we have learned more on the subject, the Bible has been proven to be more reliable than first expected. There was a time where we believed none of the gospels were written before 200 years after Christ died now thanks to archeological discoveries, and critical analysis of the text: we can argue that no gospel was written after AD 70. And that Mathew, Mark, and Luke were written before AD55 only 25 years after Christ’s death.

Now if God is the truth then we must believe in objective truth. There are true facts that regardless of opinion or bias remain true. We must also believe that this universe would adhere to reasonable rules. These rules would be discoverable and appear to be programmed. So that these truths would lead us to understanding more about God.

When we look at mathematics and DNA, we have both described as a language in complexity, and thus, they both point towards a designer. Or as astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle put it:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Without God being true we have some fundamental questions we need to ask ourselves. Why is it our universe adheres to simple discoverable laws? Why is it we have a universe at all? Why is it we have life? Why is it we are such creatures that can discover truth? What makes one person’s rights equal to my own? Where do we get a sense of morality?

And that’s the view from the seeker.

C. J. Morgan

The Truth About Truth (Skeptic’s View)

C.J. starts out by reporting that the bible is a wonderful book. Already, I disagree. The bible is a hideous book that should be rated unsuitable for children and young teens. His next line in the piece just seems like sophistry of the sort that just leaves me scratching my head. He says that the bible is not the Truth, but the truth about the Truth. A sermon is the truth about the truth about the Truth. And at one point, we get four truths deep.

If you follow his capitalizations, you will discover the clue that C.J. finally pays off. The truth with a capital T is none other than Jesus. Lately, Christian apologists have shifted from stating that Jesus is the central figure in the bible to stating that he is the only thing in the bible that matters. They often take the additional move that the resurrection of Jesus is the only truth that has to be proven.

I believe this is an attempt to free themselves of the baggage that is most of the bible. No Christian wants to have to deal with the obscene acts of god writ large throughout the vast majority of the book. So by refocusing on Jesus, they only have to deal with the parts that are relevant to them. I call shenanigans.

First, the Christian would not have to deal with the Old Testament at all if they hadn’t stolen it from the Jews. Remember that the vast majority of the bible is the Hebrew scriptures. Not a single orthodox Jew would agree with the claim that Jesus is the central figure. He plays no part in those scriptures, not even in prophecy. So for Christians to claim that the Old Testament is all about Jesus is a theft and misappropriation of intellectual property. The Jews should sue.

Second, the Christian claim is largely about Jesus. But it is not entirely about Jesus. One still needs the bible to support the corpus of the Christian creed. It is cute to say the bible is not the truth. But it is factually incorrect to imply that you can come up with the Christian god, the Christian Jesus, the Christian plan of salvation, and the Christian religion separate and apart from the bible. If the bible is not true in all its parts, then Christianity is not true in all its parts.

Proving truth

C.J. goes on to the heart of his case. So I will aim my dagger there. He believes that he can prove the bible is true because it bears certain markers of truth. He makes the following statement:

If God is the Truth we should expect Him to make true statements. True to life, true to history, and true to the governing mechanisms of the universe (the laws of Nature)

This is bad epistemology. He suggests the bible must be true because it makes true statements about life, history, and physics. He goes on to give examples of each. I could spend the balance of this article disputing his points. But it wouldn’t matter. I can grant them all for the sake of time. The bible says some true things about life, history, and physics. So what?

By way of contrast, I say many true things about life, history, and physics. That does not make me the essence of truth. It does not even mean I make mostly true statements. And it certainly would not stand as proof for any untestable truth claim that I happen to make. Just because I tell the truth about gravity does not mean I am telling the truth about universe-creating pixies.

One of the best examples of this is Sir Isaac Newton. It is an under-reported fact that Newton was an alchemist. In fact, is laws of motion came from his alchemy work. Most of his work was deemed unsuitable for publication. So while we owe much thanks to the father of modern physics, he was something of an unreliable nutter in other matters.

The last way that C. J. attempts to prove truth is through the appeal of ignorance. He ends by asking a litany of questions he thinks are currently beyond the reach of modern physics. Again, I could engage with those questions to no avail, or simply point out that my lack of knowledge on a subject does not make a god any more probable than universe-creating pixies.

With my remaining space, I will give some positive reasons why the bible is an unreliable conveyance of truth:

  1. Creation story – C. J. is a young earth creationist (YEC). I happen to agree with his assessment that this is the bible’s position as well. On this point alone, I can dismiss the bible as having nothing worthwhile to say about how the universe actually works.
  2. Morality play – Almost everything god does in the bible is something I would consider immoral. Look no further than the 10th plague, or the command too Abraham to kill his child. The bible can be dismissed on these points as well.
  3. Sketchy history – The bible plays fast and loose with the details. In one book, Luke places the ascension of Jesus one day after he rose. In another, it was 40 days. There are too many examples like this to recount in this space.

In conclusion, C. J. offers no good reasons to trust the bible’s extraordinary claims. And I have provided three reasons not to trust them.

And that’s the view from the skeptic.

David Johnson



33 thoughts on “The Truth About Truth (Seeker’s View) C. J. Morgan

  1. Well, well its interesting being the listener for a change as opposed to taking part in the show itself.

    I just wanted to say great show, I was taking notes to leave in the comments but there was so much ground covered that I literally have close to 2 pages worth of notes and I won’t be punishing you guys by posting all of that on here lol.

    I wanted to say congrads and good job on here C.J. (assuming your reading the comments), despite you being a little nervous (same deal with me when I first started on here), I thought you presented some very substantial points and I could tell that you have taken the time to research some of the issues involved, so thanks for sharing those with the audience. Also some points that David brought up were also interesting to listen to when not on the other side having to respond but instead just being able to listen to it and reflect.

    I think we largely agree on many of your positions, though I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on some topics where we may have a disagreement. I also appreciated your honesty and sincerity in the Podcast, you didn’t pretend to know something when you didn’t and I think that shines through in the interview but by the same token you remained steadfast when you were sure of something and didn’t bend to David’s evil pressure (hahaha just kidding David).

    There was one thing from my notes that I wanted to provide for you C.J.- as you said you were not sure about the nature and/or duration of Hell. Personally, I take a “Quarantine” view/model of Hell (so it is a place where some people will experience eternal conscious torment) though I disagree with you about the use of flames as I take that to be more a metaphor for God’s judgement just like “darkness” is used as a non-literal metaphor for the relational absence of God in Hell. Anyways, as this was an area you are still researching and looking into yourself, I just thought I provide a helpful source on that front which desribes 4 views of Hell and the duration , et as per the Bible, hope its helpful to you in some way = .

    Alright well once again welcome to S&S, thanks for coming on to share your views and discuss these important topics 🙂

    Your fellow brother in Christ,



    1. Thanks Dale I’ll be sure to check out your resources. I always do feel I learn a lot when I do these things. Wether it’s how to relay my case or ideas I never thought of like for instance I never applied the Abraham challenge as David did so I never thought about it. Regardless I learn the questions and accusations I need to be prepared for.
      When I listen and hear arguments different then my own it’s like shadow boxing I always win because the counter points never actually touch my view. So I love the true spare


      Liked by 1 person

      1. .

        . I was very pleased to hear you ‘waffle’ over killing your own child CJ. Deep inside, you are striving to be a moral young man. How about this follow up question then. Would you kill ME if your God asked you to do so?

        Dale has repeatedly told me he would kill me, if the morally perfect Christian God asked him to do so.

        Ahhhhhh …the minds of young Christian men today. Somewhat twisted up in confused unethical knots wouldn’t you agree CJ?

        Love and Light


        1. C. J., Tara does not need anyone to defend her. But I believe Dale has made an unfair characterization of her. She can be a pill to be sure. But all she is doing is challenging you in the same way I did on air with the Abraham test. It is frankly one I wish all Christians would take honestly. You showed hesitation, which is a good thing. But Dale has said categorically that if god told him to kill for him and Dale could be absolutely certain it was god giving the order, he would do it.

          What Tara says is true on that front. Dale is proud of his willingness to obey god no matter the cost. So it is fair to point that out. Tara acknowledged that you would probably not kill your kid. But it is not unfair for her to ask if you would kill her like Dale has said he would.

          I hope you can get to a point where you don’t need to hesitate. I hope you would tell god NO to his face and suffer the consequences. I would call upon you to be moral, not obedient. IMO, Dale’s fear for the safety of the kingdom is over the top. Then again, he has had a tough weekend on the boards.

          Be well, my friend.


          1. .

            .”you mean well unlike Tara”

            I care next to nothing about SS or SU ….as in comparison to how much I truly care about you Dale. That’s the truth whether you like it or not son.

            Your problem has always been your lack of emotion. I have no idea if you were born this way, or whether it was only through ‘coming to Christ’ but you seem incapable of empathy.

            CJ …phewweee….. is not yet too far gone. He could not bring himself to say he would kill for his God. I also heard David say that upon reaching adulthood he knew he would not kill his own child, if he was to ever have one. That is emotion… emotion… emotion driving one’s personal choices. It was one of the first nudges out of Christianity for David, or so he said? So I don’t buy into the logic argument.

            Other than to say it’s not logical to overide one’s conscience.

            Love and Light


        2. .

          .You want to block me Dale, I’ve never ever wanted to do that to you? Even after you’ve repeatedly said that you would kill me. I’m truly a forgiving person, aren’t I Dale and CJ? ; )

          I have thought, and still think, it’s extremely unwise to hand a solo microphone to a person who would murder upon command for his God. The debates you have with David J. are both beneficial and extremely entertaining…. but ….your independent episodes are neither. Your long unchallenged monologues could lead to ‘warping’ the minds of random people tuning into to listen. Not a good thing. : (

          What’s done is done.
          So be it.
          Not my show….I’m merely a huge fan.

          Ohhhh and Dale. Heads up. I’ve been talking to Gary Habermas again. I told him you said he was upset! I’m trying to straighten out any confusion he may have. I’m sure he’s welcome to come on air and repair any preceived imbalance.

          Btw, if I had to chose between SS and SU it would be like trying to pick a favorite child. I don’t have a favorite child….. or even a favorite show at this point.

          Love and Light


          1. .

            Gary Habermas and I have been chatting as friends all morning……none of your business son. NONE of you business.

            Love and Light


      2. Hi CJ,

        I’m pretty sure both you and I have great respect for David Johnson…..correct? He’s a kind and intelligent man. I’m wondering since he did you the favor of hosting you on Skeptics and Seekers, perhaps you would like to do him a favor in return?

        Are you aware of Still Unbelievable? It’s DJ’s new podcast series, and he is looking to connect up with past Unbelievable guests like David Smalley. How about you give Smalley a link to your wonderful chat here on SS, as well as a note telling him about Still Unbelievable trying to reach out to him as a prospective guest?

        I’ll email Smalley as well, but I know Smalley knows and respects you. He will give your email more of his precious time.

        A HUGE thanks ahead of time….for connecting up the Davids. Just like Justin Brierley helped you out once, pay it forward buddy! xoxoxo

        Love and Light



  2. I always love that Christians need to take credit for everything. We will know that the LGBT community have come in to their own when Christians start taking the credit for the LGBT community gaining equal rights to everyone else.


    1. Hi Darren
      I’m just wondering which country the LGBT community brought an end to the slave trade in? Do you believe being sexualy gratified the only thing that makes someone human? Canada has had Gay marriage most of my life. The main thing I have seen the LGBT community doing is to limit the congregation and freedoms of those who do not believe what they believe.
      Recognize I believe in the separation of church and state. Debating of what is best for a nation is how we grow. But assuming the side that doesn’t agree with you is evil and oppresive does not lead to laws that represent the people.

      I really do welcome a response I know the fist question is a bit aggressive and as a Canadian I have to say sorry bout that.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. Darren
        I read what you were saying wrong I thought what you were conveying was that the LGBT community was were equal true equal rights had come from. Hence my first question. My wife read it out loud and I realized the mistake I made. But there doesn’t seem to be a way to go back and fix it.



        1. “But there doesn’t seem to be a way to go back and fix it.”

          Sadly there is no edit button on the forums. Is there another response you would prefer to offer for me to respond to?

          The point I was making is that Christians had institutionalized slavery for 2000 years in the countries they held sway in, but because a few churches decided to stand up to the vast majority of churches in the US, that was still teaching that slavery was ok, Christians like to take credit for ending slavery and claim that the bible says slavery is wrong. Even though there aren’t any passages that say owning another human being as property is wrong. And lots of passages that say it is ok and give rules on exactly how to do it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Though I made a mistake and I have a hard time being so accusatory. I would be more willing to leave it as stands. I am not perfect nor do it try to have a veneer if that.

            a couple of things. What sway do you think Christianity had while they were being fed to lions for not bowing to the accepted beliefs of roam? Christianity has yet to become 2000 years old. What were the Beliefs and motives that the people who abolished slavery and the slave trade sites opon themselves? What nation or people sited any other beliefs for there abolition?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I always love that christians try so hard to avoid taking responsibility for anything.

              “a couple of things. What sway do you think Christianity had while they were being fed to lions for not bowing to the accepted beliefs of roam?”

              The same one that keeps Muslims Muslim as they are being persecuted and murdered by Christians. Martyrdom is baked into the christian message so much that if christians don’t think they are being persecuted for their beliefs they don’t think they are doing it right.

              “Christianity has yet to become 2000 years old.”

              Its called rounding. Its close enough to make the point.

              “What were the Beliefs and motives that the people who abolished slavery and the slave trade sites opon themselves?”

              Enlightenment ideals actually. There were as many secular and non-christian people fighting to abolish slavery as there were christians. Even MLK was heavily influenced by eastern traditions. And of course the fact he was black so that he could empathize with the slaves, which the slave owners couldn’t because they didn’t see the slaves as people. Which of course is why they didn’t feel the all men are created in gods image counted, since slaves weren’t viewed as people.

              “What nation or people sited any other beliefs for there abolition?”

              I love this, completely ignoring that the justification FOR slavery is completely biblical.

              I would highly suggest you read some secular history books on slavery. You obviously have only read the christian sources, and they are the ones that are trying to take credit for stopping slavery, so they completely leave out the part where the bible was the justification for slavery in the first place.

              Here is a question for you. If slavery was so obviously marked as wrong in the church, why did it take almost 2000 years for them to figure it out, and why did they have to fight there own religion with a war to make it stop?

              Liked by 1 person

    2. Dale,

      From what he presented? No. He pretty much hangs on to the worst of the Christian talking points.

      C.J. himself? He seems like a genuinely thoughtful and introspective person, which is vanishingly rare to see in an apologist or preacher. So that is nice to see. And I think once he gets out of his Christian bubble I think he will be quick to see how inadequate the christian religion and his current talking points are.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. .
        ” He seems like a genuinely thoughtful and introspective person”

        .I completely agree Darren. CJ has a conscience, he’s trying hard to ignore it…but Pheewwwweee it is still there. I heard it very clearly in the tone of his voice.

        He’ll likely listen to this episode a few times, and there will be this nagging nudging inner voice going, “How could a truly moral God ask someone to kill their own child? That doesn’t make any sense? ” Then there is slavery, and genocide, and capturing virgins, it’s all repugnant through and through. CJ is more receptive than Dale, probably because he hasn’t had Habermas telling him to ignore his emotions for the last 8 years? We have emotions like empathy, love, compassion for a reason! When you block all of that off, you end up saying the most horrendous things.

        A huge thanks to David Johnson for making sure it’s not recorded for all history that CJ would kill his own son. He won’t want to hear that years from now, when he is more morally mature.

        Love and Light

        NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and “kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”


  3. As a side note, I like the long form podcasts. The conversation seems more complete with the extra time.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. .Hey all you ‘Sciencey’ Folks….how exactly does that cloning thing work ??? Because we need to clone David Johnson and place one of him on every street corner…like NOW.

    C. J. you are a beautiful human being, are you First Nations perhaps? I’m a healthcare worker in Canada, and I work with Indigenous folks frequently. All these horrendous ideas you have roaming about inside your head were shoved into the minds of your ancestors upon colonization. Then they passed them on to you. 😖

    You need stop that cycle.

    No truly moral God would or could create a Hell. No truly moral God would or could command the slaughter of children. No truly moral God would or could give ‘etiquette’ rules in regards to how much to beat your slaves etc. etc. etc. etc.

    Deep down you know that. Think buddy…. think, think, think, and please don’t pass those unloving ideas on to your children. That does not mean you default to Atheism, it’s not either/or…. and I’m not advocating for any particular spiritual path.

    I just know for 100% certainty, you are on the wrong path. xoxo

    Love and Light


    1. Hi Tara
      I hope you don’t hold this against be but I’m lily white. I am a 1/4 native but apparently my body never fuigured out how to show it.

      Thanks for saying I’m beautiful tho my nose and five head refuse to admit it.

      I am not a victim of colonization. Non of my relitives are Christian and I was introduced to sex, drugs, alcohol, and karma before I ever had a conversation about Christianity.

      If you followed the news at all this summer. My wife’s cousin was one of the leaders of the group walking across Canada talking to people about the missing and murdered indigenous woman. We talked a lot on the issues but defaulting to telling people there skin makes them a victim. Or just that they are a victim and it’s not there fault will never build people towards success.

      My Christian faith came from me spending time with people who genuinely cared who I was and treated me as I was responsible for my own actions. It made me respect them. And I wanted to understand what made that happen.

      This happened in tandem with me learning in school native traditions and spirituality. (That is not separation of church and state. But my mom signed me up to go.) I have seen many world views I have seen them put to practice and that is how I got to my beliefs.

      Thanks for your care Tara and for your work.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks so much for answering. It’s impossible to be a Canadian and not be influenced by Christianity. After all….I don’t know a single Canadian who believes in Zeus, do you CJ? All cultures have popular ‘God stories’ and ours happens to be Christianity. So please don’t fool yourself into thinking Christianity has seeped into your brain by happenstance. You, like me, have been living in the same ‘religious soup’ since our births, although my family has been Canadian for several generations, my heritage is Scottish and Irish I believe? However, I’m neither for focusing on the past…nor do I think we should ignore it. So I think the Truth and Reconcilation programs are doing the best they can with the horrors of the results of Christian colonization. Here’s a question for you. Why do you think Native Canadians have higher rates of drug and alchohol abuse, sexual abuse, poverty, CJ? This forum is tricky. Hopefully this link works for you…this may help you to think about my question. Love and Light Tara


        1. Hi Tara
          The difficulties Natives face is something I think about a lot. I will spend time talking about it with friends, coworkers, and family who have spent time living on reservations. I don’t know if you have Tara but it is hard to explain in writing for me. Mostly because I’m not good at writing and extreamly uncomfortable with posting my thoughts on the internet. A little ironic I know, some things are worth getting over that discomfort.


          1. .

            Indigenous Canadian people are Christian today because their country was colonized by Christian Countries.
            Native children were stolen from their families, stripped of their traditional clothing and forcibly taught Christianity day after day in residential schools.

            So how would feel CJ if Islamic countries now invaded Canada and took YOUR two children away from you? If Muslim Mullah stripped your children of their clothing, dressed them in Niqab and Turban and forcibly taught them Islam day after day in residential schools.

            Then….when they grew up ….they went onto a podcast and espoused the glory of Allah?

            I find it rather telling that you couldn’t answer David’s question. Would you kill your child if the Christian God asked you to do so? Why couldn’t you just say NO? Why? Because your ancestors were force fed Christianity.

            Btw, I’m English, Scottish, Irish and god knows what else…. but I would not even dream of killing my child for any God.

            I have chosen not to be religious.

            That does not neccessarily make me an Atheist.

            Love and Light



  5. Question of the year: “Why am I in a cell with an arsonist who lights fires and catches me on fire…for 1000 years!!?”

    That made my day David!

    Great podcast, well done guys. Got through all my housework while listening. Quite a contrast to Raymond Tallis & David Bentley Hart on Unbelievable. Listening to both discussions after each other reaffirmed again why I left evangelical/bible Christianity – such an impoverished worldview.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. All the positive attributes of Christianity can be found in other spiritual paths. However as far as I know, only the Abrahamic God created an eternal place of torment that non believers will spend eternity in. He’s the only God that advocates for slaughtering defenseless noncombants….women, children, elderly. He’s the only God that tells you precisely who to enslave and how much you can beat them. He’s also the only God today that requires you revere a human sacrifice (Jesus). So on the scale of UGH, YUCK, VILE, ATROCIOUS, PATHETIC….. the Christian God is tip top of the pile. And anyone who chooses to revere such a immoral God (real or fictitious) is also choosing to be immoral themselves. That’s is why CJ was squirming uncomfortably throughout this interview. David had grabbed hold of this young man’s conscience ……and he shook shook shook shook shook it……. trying to get it working again. I heard you CJ, you were struggling weren’t you? You would NEVER kill your own son…never never never never never would you do that! So why do you use your gift a free will to revere a God that would such a heinous thing? Love and Light


    2. Dale,

      I found the discussion very enjoyable and commend CJ on his courage to do it. His nervousness was evident early and it was great that he fought through and persisted.

      You have to remember that this sort of stuff has been a decades long obsession for me so it’s unlikely that I’m going to hear anything new or gain fresh perspectives outside the thoughts of an experienced theologian/philosopher. So on that front CJ had an uphill battle with me.

      CJ was eaten alive on the slavery issue. He showed a minimal familiarity with his scriptures and wasn’t able to address the challenges presented (while still fighting nerves it seemed).

      He faired little better on the child sacrifice issue.

      He did a bit better on the historicity of Luke. He had a couple of opportunities to gain some traction but allowed David to slip away..

      CJ did not fair well in the worldview/ethics section. I think David could have been challenged on his assertion of not having a worldview.

      CJ said some weird stuff in the hell section, not representative of orthodox Christianity. He could have represented the binary afterlife options available under Christianity better, and challenged David on wanting a third option. He allowed David to re-frame things in terms of “scare tactics” and “turn or burn type of guy” which was a debating error.

      Those are my “biased” perspectives.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. .

        .I think it’s a brilliant move not to talk about Scientific Materialism as the default worldview. This isn’t an either, vs or question.

        Because David did not fall for that trap, he could then focus almost solely on the immorality of the Christian worldview. That is the only important thing.

        A person needs empathy, compassion, love….. EMOTION…. to address moral questions and there was a lot of that on this episode. Well done all around.

        Love and Light


  6. This question is generally to CJ, but is open to anyone who knows the answer:

    What happens after the 1,000 years of burning in hell? I am not familiar with the 1,000 year time limit theory. So I really don’t know how it is supposed to work. Does god let the devil go and we do it all over again? Does god kill the devil once and for all? And if so, why didn’t he just do that in the first place? Does god let everyone out of hell and into heaven now that they know the error of their ways? Does god just annihilate everyone after the torture?

    I honestly have no idea how this doctrine is supposed to work. Enlightenment, please?


    1. “I am not familiar with the 1,000 year time limit theory.”

      I don’t know any details, so don’t have any answers to your questions, but I have run across someone once who thought that the passage about everyone bending there knee to god meant that hell wasn’t eternal. The reasoning was that people couldn’t submit to god while they were in hell. Perhaps the 1000 years was just a random number thrown out to represent that it wasn’t for eternity?


    2. Hi David
      The idea came from Revelation 20 and 21 the 1000 years of messianic reign then the final judgment the end of the world as we know it and a new world without pain worry or death. That judgement is based according to what you have done. Romans 2 points out that our intentions and our conscience are apart of this.

      I will say I made a mistake arguing that point not only does it not line up with the rest of my beliefs, but also doesnt line up with what it says. But I allowed myself to get into defending what I said not going back to what I believe.

      I have read this before and only had that as a idea because I looked at the second death as the destruction of those judged to it. But I also believe that time and eternity are separate. the dead are not waiting for judgment, for a time in human history but when you die you are taken outside of time to the moment of Gods judgment. Some that will be joy others dread. The idea did not line up with this part of my belief. Nor a plain reading of the text.

      Where I should have said my internal debate was is if they are destroyed by the second death and only the devil, the beasts and the false prophet receive eternal torment. Because Death and Hades were thrown in there and it would seem death is destroyed. That is where I place my back and forth or for all it is eternal which in all reality was what you asked.

      Hell its self is not something I have spent a lot of my time trying to understand. But now that we have talked about it I’d like to spend some time reading differing views. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

      I apologize for the confusion


  7. arthurjeffriesthecatholic January 27, 2019 — 9:15 pm

    “Not a single orthodox Jew would agree with the claim that Jesus is the central figure.”

    So what?

    On page 266 of “Not the Impossible Faith” by Richard Carrier, we read:

    “There was no ‘orthodoxy’ but dozens of competing sects. They all differed and often fell into heated debate over the proper beliefs and community values, yet they all thrived. Not only did some reject the Torah, but some credited an angel with the creation, some worshipped Moses as Christ, some permitted obeisance to idols, some practiced astrology, some accepted baptism as an atonement for sins, some rejected a literal interpretation of the scriptures, some scorned the Jerusalem Temple, some may have believed Herod was the messiah, some denied the existence of souls or angels or spirits of any kind, and some denied resurrection altogether.”

    The sect that was the Jesus Movement saw Jesus the Messiah in the Israelite scriptures. That wasn’t a Gentile innovation, it was an Israelite interpretation of Israelite scriptures, and “Not a single orthodox Jew would agree” today with the first-century Israelite Messianists because what we call Judaism in 2019 developed out of Pharisaic scribalism.

    Carrier again, this time on page 252:

    “Therefore, we can prove nothing un-Jewish about what Christians taught in the first century. Certainly there would be Jews opposed to any Christian idea, as there were numerous Jewish factions all opposed to each other—the Pharisees against the Sadducees, the Essenes against the Pharisees, the Scribes against the Baptists, the Jerusalem rabbis against the Galilean rabbis, and so on. In the words of John Barclay, “there was no universal template of ‘normative’ Judaism,” even in Palestine, but especially in the Hellenized Diaspora.10”

    Like Carrier, David is an atheist. Can he make a secular argument that Pharisaic scribalism’s interpretations of the OT were more “Jewish” than that of the Israelite Messianists who found Jesus the Messiah in the OT? One can argue that Pharisaic scribalism represented “true” Judaism while the Israelite Messianists were apostates, but that’s a faith-based argument, not a secular one.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. arthurjeffriesthecatholic January 28, 2019 — 1:34 am

      There’s an excellent essay by Bruce Malina on Christian-Jewish dialogue in “Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context.” In it he reminds readers of a couple of facts that are worth mentioning here:

      “The fact is Ben Zakkaism and its organized scribal Pharisaism emerged after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jesus groups already existed quite independently of Jerusalem. Jesus groups saw themselves as Israel awaiting the theocracy proclaimed by Jesus, while later Ben Zakkaist groups saw themselves as Israel awaiting the restoration of the Temple. Because Jesus groups were earlier in time and some of their number laid claim to being true Israel, it is historically false to consider Jesus groups as the ‘younger brother’ of ‘older brother’ Ben Zakkaism. Jesus groups were in historical fact older.”

      Now, on what secular basis can it be argued that the rabbinic Judaism that eventually emerged from the Ben Zakkaist scribal Pharisaic tradition have more of a claim to the Old Testament than the Israelite Messianists did? Orthodox Jews believes that the Talmud is the hermeneutical key to the Old Testament. The Israelite Messianists, and Christians today, believe that Jesus the Messiah of Israel is the hermeneutical key to the Old Testament. David could claim that the Talmud is more valid, but that would sound very much like a Jewish faith claim to me.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. arthurjeffriesthecatholic January 28, 2019 — 5:40 pm

        “So, I was agreeing with your quotes and point”

        Oh yes, I understood that and should have mentioned it.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Just got the the end of this one, yes the Englishman is always late!

    On the young earth thing, C J, you need to be aware that the science in no way supports the young earth and there is definitely no concept of science “moving that way”. The young earth is utterly rejected by science, in every discipline.

    Oh, and Andrew and I would very definitely welcome you onto AAAA, just give us the question that burns you. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website at
Get started
%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close