Think about this: A small group of long-haired, sandal-wearing, peace-niks shows up in your town preaching that “the end is near”, to sell all your possessions, and to join them in non-stop worship and praise of their leader, Bob, a carpenter by trade from Appalachia. Why? Bob claims to be the creator of the universe. Bob also claims to possess unlimited supernatural powers. When asked to demonstrate these powers to you personally, you are repeatedly told: “Bob does not like to be tested!”
However, Bob’s disciples can tell you many amazing miracles which Bob has (allegedly) performed all over the country. In a field in upstate New York, Bob fed several thousands people out of one pizza box. His closest followers swear they all saw Bob walk across the surface of Lake Michigan. A female follower from rural Alabama swears Bob raised her son from the dead during his funeral procession to the cemetery! One female disciple, (allegedly, but not confirmed) a former prostitute, washes Bob’s feet with expensive perfume using her own hair!
Most people in the towns this group passes through believe that these “Bob followers” are complete nut jobs. But invariably a few people, most of them poorly educated, emotionally vulnerable, and economically disadvantaged, believe the claims are true, sell everything they have, purchase an old VW van….and take off following their “savior”, Bob.
And religious nut jobs have been repeating this same pattern of behavior for at least…2,000 years!
Oy vey!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Well, these ad hominem articles do indeed provide laughs and giggles to the small-minded.
LikeLike
Did Jesus and his band of homeless followers not tell people to leave their father and mother, abandon all possessions, and follow after Jesus, the Creator of the cosmos?
LikeLike
Gary, Jesus indeed say that to those who became His disciples, at that time, for that purpose. What’s your point?
LikeLike
So what is your complaint?
LikeLike
Gary, no complaint, but rather an observation that articles like the one I initially assessed was the typical ad hominem nonsense that most all religious atheists engage since they can’t argue the topic reasonably.
LikeLike
Do you know what ad hominem means, SMJR? Please give us the definition you are using so we can have a more coherent conversation.
LikeLike
Why would you think that there are different definitions for that form of argumentation? There really is only one, which goes along the line, without subjective deviations, “The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent’s arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc.” Most any wiki out there has this basic definition.
LikeLike
And against whom did I make an ad hominem attack? If you say, Jesus, please give a specific example.
-Was Jesus a wandering street preacher without a home (homeless)? Yes, according to the Bible.
-Was Jesus preaching the end is near? Yes, according to the Bible.
-Was Jesus telling people to leave their father and mother, abandon all possessions, and follow him? Yes, according to the Bible.
-Was Jesus accused of being a partyer, drunkard, and hanging out with a bad crowd? Yes, according to the Bible.
-Did Jesus claim to have supernatural powers? Yes, according to the Bible.
-Did Jesus wear sandals and have long hair? We don’t know for sure, but I have never seen a Christian painting of Jesus where he does not.
So where is the ad hominem?
LikeLike
The reference to Jesus being a hippie in that article is what I’ve been pointing at all along, at the top of this list of responses.
LikeLike
I demonstrated to you that Jesus meets the modern day definition of “hippie”.
LikeLike
Well, your premises failed to adequately undergird your conclusion with enough support to keep it from collapsing. The Jesus portrayed, for example, in that crappy series The Chosen is indeed more akin to the hippies of the 60’s because he’s more akin to the Roman Catholic false Jesus than the One portrayed in scripture.
LikeLike
Answer the question: Which part of my post accuses Jesus of something untrue?
LikeLike
trying to undermine the opponent’s arguments by personal attacks … Hmmm.🤔 It sure seems the pot and kettle fits here …
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the purpose of Jesus’ miracles was to convince the people of his day that his claims about himself were true, why doesn’t he do the same today for you and me? If he is the all-powerful superhero that he claimed to be, let him perform ONE miracle for me: levitate my coffee table five feet off the ground for five minutes. That’s it. Saying that “he doesn’t like being tested” is bullshit. The entire purpose of his (alleged) miracles was to pass the test of proving his identity. The truth is, if Jesus fails to do miacles now to prove his identity he is dead and his previous alleged miracles are fictional legends.
LikeLike
If a long haired, sandal wearing, traveling preacher of peace and love showed up in your town claiming to be the omnipotent creator of the universe and tells you that if you want eternal life you must leave your father and mother, abandon all you own and follow him, what would be your initial response (after thinking to yourself that he is a delusional nut job): “PROVE IT! Perform a miracle right here, right now for me.”
LikeLike
But of course, the traveling peace-nik will not perform a miracle for you, will he? He will make up some excuse that he doesn’t like being tested or he will accuse YOU of lacking adequate faith.
LikeLike
These shorts are funny. I like them. Each one pretty much follows the same pattern of thought, ad nauseam, that is dominant among so-called “atheists.” They all seem to want a God who is subject to them and their expectations, which is no Sovereign at all. It also reflects the arrogance of the writers to think that they have the power to govern truth from falsehood.
LikeLike
Provide good evidence that you invisible, imaginary god (Lord Jesus the resurrected Christ) exists and then we might give him some respect.
LikeLike
Gary, THAT was a deflection. Touche’.
LikeLike
Behold the ad hominem. Except… no, we can’t do that. Because there isn’t one.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, don’t you, Swordie? It’s those personal attacks you make about Gary.
LikeLike
Poor Gary. He’s so beaten up…even though it’s all self flagellation. So now we have Neil, trying to turn the table on me. Well, good luck. Your anecdotal jab at me was wasted. Where it’s true that I engaged tit-for-tat with Gary, he’s a big enough boy that he doesn’t need a grandpa figure to pretend that he’s an authority over any of this.
LikeLike
You are behaving like a troll, SMJR. Discuss the topic of the post and avoid personal attacks, either against me or my readers, or you will soon be banned. Got it?
LikeLike
I was responding to a post made by the gramps dude that’s not showing up now in this thread for some reason… He stepped in to defend you, and tried to turn the tables on me in the process, sooooo…..
LikeLike
And not just leave your mother and father, but actually hate your mother and father. Very cultish.
LikeLike
Very well said.
LikeLike
Think about this: anytime we skeptics want to dispute a claim in the Bible, we should be able to call down Jesus to settle the issue. He is here pesent with us anyway if he is omnipresent and omniscient as Chritians claim. Answer the question, omnipresent Jesus the resurrected Christ! If you don’t, we know you are DEAD!
LikeLike
If he spent 40 days after his resurrection teaching the disciples essentially nothing more than what they knew before, he wouldn’t be much help now.
LikeLike
Very true.
LikeLike
It’s a good thing that Jesus never said any of the things Gary’s Appalachian carpenter “Bob” said.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
As usual, in his zest for hyperbole, Gary’s terminology is sloppy and imprecise.
First of all, technically, Jesus reigns at God’s right hand from heaven, as an embodied human being; his omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are three of the divine attributes the Word voluntarily surrendered in order to incarnate as a human being–the Son, Jesus the Christ, or Messiah.
Secondly, Jesus’ early followers came from various socio-economic backgrounds, and were hardly all poorly educated, emotionally vulnerable, and economically disadvantaged. Gary needs to bone up on his early Church statistics. Jesus’ ministry was bankrolled by several women, who actually ministered alongside him (the GK word diakoneó, from whence we get our word deacon is used to describe them) in various ways. One of these women, Joanna, was the wife of King Herod’s steward, Chuza. The NT records several middle and upper-class men and women who followed Jesus. Cornelius, described in Acts, was a Roman Centurion. He was poor, ignorant and disadvantaged how, exactly? Acts 6 says a great many Jerusalem Temple priests joined the Jesus Movement. How were they poor, uneducated or emotionally vulnerable or economically disadvantaged?
I find it interesting that such “poorly educated, emotionally vulnerable, and economically disadvantaged nut-jobs” went from 120 people in AD 30/33 to ten percent of the population in the Roman Empire by 311 AD.
Thirdly, Jesus in the gospels never makes the claims Gary’s friend Bob does. For one thing, Jesus never prophesied the end of the space-time universe. And he never told all of his followers to sell all of their possessions, “and to join them in non-stop worship and praise of their leader,” nor did he claim to be the creator of the universe or to have “unlimited superpowers.”
Finally, one can talk to Jesus; it’s called prayer. Millions of people do it every day, sometimes multiple times every day. Many of us would even go so far as to say our prayers have been answered once or twice.
But Jesus never promised to do “miracles-on-demand.” He isn’t a magic act one can book for birthday parties to wow and amaze the kiddies, less still a free ticket to winning the lottery, sending your kids to college or paying off your second mortgage.
I also wonder whether Gary and other skeptics in this forum really would believe if Jesus sat down on the sofa next to him/them; Gary would probably just convince himself he was having a “heavenly hallucination” of the type he insists Peter, James, John, Paul and the others had and which kick-started the Church. A little therapy and he’d be back to normal, right-as-rain.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Lee: First of all, technically, Jesus reigns at God’s right hand from heaven, as an embodied human being; his omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are three of the divine attributes the Word voluntarily surrendered in order to incarnate as a human being–the Son, Jesus the Christ, or Messiah.
Gary: First of all, technically, Apollo reigns at Zeus’s right hand from heaven, as an embodied human being; his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are three divine attributes which the gods of Mount Olympus have voluntarily surrendered to Apollo in order for him to incarnate as the sun god.
Blah. Blah. Blah. The stories of Apollo and Jesus are both ancient superstitious nonsense. Using sophisticated terms to describe their nature and and imaginary powers does not make these silly tales any more credible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lee: Secondly, Jesus’ early followers came from various socio-economic backgrounds, and were hardly all poorly educated, emotionally vulnerable, and economically disadvantaged. Gary needs to bone up on his early Church statistics.
Gary: This issue really hits a nerve with you, doesn’t it, Lee? Most historians agree that the overwhelming majority of Christians in the first three centuries of the common era were poor, uneducated, and of the lower classes. Only evangelical propagandists say otherwise. This is not to say that ALL early Christians were poor, uneducated, and from the lower classes. You have once again created a Strawman, distorting what I have said.
LikeLike
GARY: This issue really hits a nerve with you, doesn’t it, Lee? Most historians agree that the overwhelming majority of Christians in the first three centuries of the common era were poor, uneducated, and of the lower classes. Only evangelical propagandists say otherwise.
LEE: It “hits a nerve” because it’s not accurate. Sociologist the late Rodney Stark was not an “evangelical propagandist” and he said otherwise in three or four books on the sociology of the early church and countless interviews:
“Throughout history, most, and probably all, new religions have been initiated by people of privilege because they have the leisure to focus on existential concerns and often find the conventional answers to these matters insufficient. They thereby suffer from ‘spiritual deprivation.’ Somehow, social scientists remain convinced that religion is the ‘opium of the people,’ and ignore the obvious — such as that Methodism was not founded in the slums of London, but by young men at Oxford.”
https://religionnews.com/2017/09/18/rodney-stark-cranky-religion-illuminating-and-hilarious/
Yes, there were lots of poor, uneducated people, but there were lots of middle and upper-class educated people as well. The people the NT refers to were not uneducated peons:
“”And throughout the New Testament, you can see that these people are not the down and out. The people that Paul refers to in his letters are people of position.”
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Less than ten percent of the population [of the Roman Empire] would have been able to read and write, and only the wealthy were likely to receive an education.
Source: https://apps.lib.umich.edu/diversity-desert/literate.html#:~:text=Less%20than%20ten%20percent%20of,likely%20to%20receive%20an%20education.
Their society [the Roman Empire] may have consisted of a handful of wealthy individuals which made up 0.6% of the population, an army that made up 0.4% of the population, and the poor masses that made up 99% of the populace.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_ancient_Rome#:~:text=Their%20society%20may%20have%20consisted,up%2099%25%20of%20the%20populace.
Source after source after source on the internet repeats these same statistics. I’m not going to argue an established fact with you, Lee.
LikeLike
Lee: Acts 6 says a great many Jerusalem Temple priests joined the Jesus Movement. How were they poor, uneducated or emotionally vulnerable or economically disadvantaged?
Gary: You are quoting Acts as a reliable historical source? Give me a break. While we are at it, why don’t we use the Book of Mormon as a reliable historical source?
Come on, Lee. You are better than that. The entire issue under discussion is the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts. Don’t turn around and appeal to statements in those texts as if they are historically reliable.
LikeLike
GARY: You are quoting Acts as a reliable historical source? Give me a break. While we are at it, why don’t we use the Book of Mormon as a reliable historical source?
LEE: Still with this paranoid mistrust of anything the NT says! It’s almost pathological with you guys here. You see lies and sloppy history everywhere!
Where it can be checked against secular history Acts stands up as incredibly reliable.
As just one example, Acts 17:6, 8 mentions politarchs (πολιτάρχης) city officials from the city of Thessalonica who Luke says beat and imprisoned Paul and Silas. For a long time skeptical secular historians and NT scholars accused Luke of being a sloppy or even devious historian because no secular evidence for the term politarchs was known to exist. And then they unearthed an inscription in Thessalonica proving that Luke had been right all along. Eighteen other similar inscriptions have since been found, proving that Luke was right all along.
In the original inscription, what follows the word Poleitarchountōn is a list of names of some of these ancient “city rulers.”
“Those ruling the city: Sosipater son of Cleopatra and Lucius Pontius Secundus, son of Aulus Avius Sabinus; Demetrius son of Faustus; Demetrius son of Nikopolis; Zoilos son of Parmenion, also known as Meniskos; Gaius Agilleius Potitus, treasurer of the city; Tauros son of Ammias, also known as Reglus, the Gymnasiun ruler; Tauros son of Tauros also known as Reglus…”
Several of the names are familiar to us, because they’re names that Luke also mentions in the NT: Sōsipater, Secundus and Gaius. Granted these names may be coincidental, because of the commonness of the names in question at that particular time. Nevertheless, when it comes to a trivial detail, such as politarchs Luke got it right.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Most scholars, outside of evangelical circles, reject the historical reliability of the Book of Acts. I’m not going to debate your fringe views on this issue.
LikeLike
Lee: I find it interesting that such “poorly educated, emotionally vulnerable, and economically disadvantaged nut-jobs” went from 120 people in AD 30/33 to ten percent of the population [circa 6 million] in the Roman Empire by 311 AD.
Gary: Mormonism started with one man (a nut job, by the standards of most Trinitarian Christians) seeing an angel in 1823. Today, two hundred years later, there are almost 17 million Mormons, living in practically every country on planet earth. So Mormonism’s growth has been much more rapid and much more widespread than that of early Christianity. If rapid growth is your standard, we should all be Mormons!
LikeLike
GARY: Mormonism started with one man (a nut job, by the standards of most Trinitarian Christians) seeing an angel in 1823. Today, two hundred years later, there are almost 17 million Mormons, living in practically every country on planet earth. So Mormonism’s growth has been much more rapid and much more widespread than that of early Christianity. If rapid growth is your standard, we should all be Mormons!
LEE: The “nut job” Joseph Smith actually began as an orthodox Trinitarian; he founded a church that wasn’t much different from lots of other frontier Protestant millennial sects. The polytheism and weird theology came later. And I don’t think he was a “nut job.” I think he was a shrewd, crafty manipulator with delusions of grandeur.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
And I believe that the founder of Christianity had delusions of grandeur. In addition, both men were willing to suffer persecution and death for their delusions. Both of them were babbling nonsense (seeing extra-terrestrials) yet millions of people believed them.
Yes, Paul of Tarsus and Joseph Smith were both loons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lee: Finally, one can talk to Jesus; it’s called prayer. Millions of people do it every day, sometimes multiple times every day. Many of us would even go so far as to say our prayers have been answered once or twice.
Gary: Finally, one can talk to Lord Krishna; it’s called prayer. Millions of people talk to Lord Krishna every day, sometimes multiple times every day. Many of us would even go so far to say our prayers to Lord Krishna and Lord Ganesha (the god with the head of an elephant) have been answered once or twice.
Krishna and Ganesha be praised!
Dear Lee, just because a lot of superstitious people believe that a god with the head of an elephant heals their sinus infections and gout attacks after they have said prayers to him does not mean that this god exists. Ditto with prayers to a first century Jewish corpse! If every time most Christians come down with any health issue, even the common cold, they pray to Jesus for healing. Basic statistics tell us that most of these people will recover without supernatural assistance But instead of giving credit to their doctor or to their own immune system, they give credit to a first century corpse. Good grief. Come on, Lee. Start using good critical thinking skills!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lee: But Jesus never promised to do “miracles-on-demand.” He isn’t a magic act one can book for birthday parties to wow and amaze the kiddies, less still a free ticket to winning the lottery, sending your kids to college or paying off your second mortgage.
Gary: If some guy on the street walks up to you and claims to be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Lord of the universe what is the first thing you would say (after telling him he is
bat shit crazy)? Answer: PROVE IT!
Shit or get off the pot, Jesus. Prove to each one of us, right here and now, that you are alive and the Lord of the Cosmos, or we are fully justified to consider you just as much a nut job as the guy on the street above.
(To be fair to Jesus, I don’t believe that he ever claimed to be a god or the creator, only the Jewish messiah (a man). But that is not what Trinitarian Christians believe and my debate is with them not with the historical Jesus, for whom I have a great deal of respect for his humanism and pacifism, even though I believe he was a complete loon (delusional).
LikeLike
GARY: (To be fair to Jesus, I don’t believe that he ever claimed to be a god or the creator, only the Jewish messiah (a man). But that is not what Trinitarian Christians believe and my debate is with them not with the historical Jesus, for whom I have a great deal of respect for his humanism and pacifism, even though I believe he was a complete loon (delusional).
LEE: As I said to you numerous times in Dr. Anderson’s forum, your argument isn’t with orthodox Christianity but instead the fundamentalist caricature of it you were taught as a Baptist.
Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus made subtle yet powerful claims to deity because the gospels present him saying and doings things the OT says only YHWH can say/do, like: accepting worship; reinterpreting or overruling portions of Torah; forgiving sins; being I AM; being one with the Father; being the “Good Shepherd”; being the logos or Word made flesh; etc.
One reason we know that the earliest Christians venerated Jesus the same way they did God and the Holy Spirit is because of the very early (2nd c.) and widespread use of the nomina sacra, in which the divine names are abbreviated in the NT text any time they appear, reminiscent of the way the Hebrews abbreviated God’s name in the OT:
God , Θεόςin in GK, abbreviated as ΘΣ (nominative) and ΘΥ (genitive)
Lord, Κύριος in GK, abbreviated as ΚΣ (nominative) and ΚΥ (genitive)
Jesus, Ἰησοῦς in GK, abbreviated as ΙΣ (nominative) and ΙΥ (genitive)
Holy Spirit, Πνεῦμα in GK, abbreviated ΠΝΑ (nominative) and ΠΝΣ (genItive)
GARY: Good grief. Come on, Lee. Start using good critical thinking skills!
LEE: ROFL!
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Yes, by the end of the first century, proto-orthodox Christians were worshiping the corpse of Jesus as God the Creator (we see evidence of this in the Gospel of John, written circa 100 CE). Although Jesus does make statements inferring that God had given him divine powers ((to PRONOUNCE the forgiveness of sins), he never once refers to himself as Yahweh.
Jesus as God is an invention of non-Jewish, late first century Gentiles. James the first bishop of Jerusalem, Peter, and the rest of the Jewish Twelve (and Jesus) must be rolling over in their graves!
LikeLike
GARY: Although Jesus does make statements inferring that God had given him divine powers ((to PRONOUNCE the forgiveness of sins), he never once refers to himself as Yahweh.
LEE: John 8:58-59:
“’Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
1ohn 10:31-33:
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’
“’We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’”
No, Jesus didn’t walk around with a sign saying “I’m God” in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek but the precise language he used made no secret of of who/what he thought his identity was. John is literally chock-full of “I Am” statements made by Jesus about himself. His Jewish audience understood full-well that “I Am” is how God revealed himself to Moses in Exodus.
GARY: Jesus as God is an invention of non-Jewish, late first century Gentiles. James the first bishop of Jerusalem, Peter, and the rest of the Jewish Twelve (and Jesus) must be rolling over in their graves!
LEE: As a Jewish Pharisee Saul/Paul of Tarsus was hardly a “non-Jewish, late first century Gentile,” yet he’s our earliest witnesses to Jesus as the preexistent divine Son of God. Paul wrote 15 to 20 years before Mark.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
My bad. I left out a very important phrase in my initial response. Let me correct it:
Yes, by the end of the first century, proto-orthodox Christians were worshiping the corpse of Jesus as God the Creator (we see evidence of this in the Gospel of John, written circa 100 CE). Although Jesus does make statements IN THE SYNOPTICS (the earliest Gospels written) inferring that God had given him divine powers ((to PRONOUNCE the forgiveness of sins), he never once refers to himself as Yahweh. Jesus as God is an invention of non-Jewish, late first century Gentiles. James the first bishop of Jerusalem, Peter, and the rest of the Jewish Twelve (and Jesus) must be rolling over in their graves!
Sorry.
Yes, the author of the Gospel of John viewed Jesus as God, that is why he invented the story of Thomas seeing the resurrected Jesus and proclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” No where in the Synoptics does ANYONE explicitly refer to Jesus as God, not even Jesus himself.
LikeLike
GARY: Yes, the author of the Gospel of John viewed Jesus as God, that is why he invented the story of Thomas seeing the resurrected Jesus and proclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” No where in the Synoptics does ANYONE explicitly refer to Jesus as God, not even Jesus himself.
LEE: Paul predates the synoptics and John and he refers to Jesus in n o uncertain terms as God incarnate.
It’s true the synoptics don’t have Jesus running around yelling “I am God!” however they provide clues for the attentive reader; such as Jesus’ accepting worship; his forgiving sins (such in Lk 5:20-22, which prompts the scribes and the Pharisees to question, ‘“Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”); his claims to be the “Good Shepherd”; to be one with God; his “novel” interpretation of Torah as “one with authority,” and not simply another Jewish rabbi; in Mat. 28:19 Jesus says “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And in Mark 14″:62, in answer to the High Priest’s question as to whether he’s the Messiah, Jesus invokes the divine name of “I Am” in his response: “‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”‘ To which the High Priest responds with the charge of “Blasphemy!” It wasn’t blasphemous to claim to be Messiah but it was blasphemous to say you are/were I Am.
There are many more, these are just a few.
If you read the texts through the eyes of a first-century Jew, the synoptics’ claims of Jesus’ divinity literally screams at you.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
I agree that Paul viewed Jesus as divine and equal in power with Yahweh (because Yahweh had gifted Jesus those powers when Yahweh adopted Jesus as his son upon Jesus’ resurrection), but Paul never says that Jesus is Yahweh. Never.
Bart Ehrman, a NT scholar, says the idea that Jesus is Yahweh is a modern concept invented by evangelicals. Please provide a quote by any (proto-orthodox/orthodox/Trinitarian) early Church Father saying that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.
source: https://ehrmanblog.org/nope-jesus-is-not-yahweh/
LikeLike
I agree that Paul saw Jesus as divine, but does Paul ever refer to Jesus as Yahweh? No. He does not. If Paul believed that Jesus was Yahweh, why didn’t he say so, Lee?
LikeLike
GARY: I agree that Paul saw Jesus as divine, but does Paul ever refer to Jesus as Yahweh? No. He does not. If Paul believed that Jesus was Yahweh, why didn’t he say so, Lee?
LEE: I’m going to attempt use my feeble critical thinking skills here.
When Paul writes that Jesus was/is “in very nature God” (Phil. 2:6) and “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) I think most people would get the point. If for Jews there’s only one God–YHWH–and Jesus is “in very nature God” and “the image of the invisible God,” then logic dictates that Paul thought Jesus was YHWH.
Even I, with my my faulty critical thinking skills can connect these dots.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
I asked if Paul ever explicitly refers to Jesus as Yahweh. No. He does not.
Here is a quote from an actual NT scholar on this topic:
In my last post, I pointed out that some conservative evangelical Christians (maybe others? These are the ones I know about) claim that Jesus, in the Bible, is actually to be understood as Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh, and in this post, I want to explain why. Again, if someone knows better than I do, let me know. But I’ve never even heard the claim (let alone a discussion of it) until very recently. I wonder if there are any early Christian theologians who have this view. Or even later ones, prior to recent times?
It is not the view of traditional Christian theology, at least as I learned it once upon a time. It was certainly not the view of the earliest Christians and is not a view set forth in the Bible. The Bible, of course, does not have the Trinity, but when Christianity formulated the doctrine of the trinity, the Father was Yahweh, and Christ was his son. At least that’s what Christians who read their Old Testament said.
–Bart Ehrman
Early Christians viewed God the Father as Yahweh. They never referred to Jesus as Yahweh. Paul may have viewed Jesus as having equal power as Yahweh (because Yahweh had blessed Jesus, adopted him as his son at the resurrection, and gifted his powers to Jesus), but Paul never viewed Jesus as Yahweh. Never. Such a thing would be unthinkable for any orthodox Jew.
Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/nope-jesus-is-not-yahweh/
LikeLike
I wondered how long it would take for you to cite Dr. Ehrman. You actually went a lot longer than I thought you would. It’s been about three weeks with no invoking of the name of Ehrman. There really is an Ehrman quote for every occasion.
The Doc is right in that technically. Christians did/do make the distinction of Father (God), Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. In that Trinitarian sense only God the father is YHWH; however when Jesus answers Caiaphas’ question as to whether he claimed to be Messiah in Mark 14, Jesus responds by saying “I Am,” and that he would see the Son of Man sitting next to the Father and coming on the clouds of heaven,” to which the High Priest immediately accuses Jesus of blasphemy, because he’s just claimed to identify as God by referring to himself as “I am.”
So no, Jesus doesn’t specifically claim to be YHWH, however he claims to be and do what OT scripture claims only YHWH can be and do, and the thought wasn’t lost on Caiaphas or the other members of the Sanhedrin. Nor on Paul’s Jewish audience.
As NT Wright explains, Paul and other Jews had to rearrange their thinking about God based upon Jesus’ claims to be God incarnate. Paul in particular rearranged the Shema to center on Jesus.
” In 1 Corinthians 8:6, within a specifically Jewish-style monotheistic argument, he [Paul] adapts the Shema itself, placing Jesus within it: ‘For us there is one God—the Father, from whom are all things and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.’ This is possibly the single most revolutionary christological formulation in the whole of early Christianity, staking out a high christology founded within the very citadel of Jewish monotheism.”
https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-and-the-identity-of-god/
In his book How Jesus Became God Prof. Ehrman never once even mentions the Shema, let alone Paul’s reframing it around Jesus! Imagine a book on the deity of Christ which doesn’t even mention the Shema! Which is one reason I rated it at three stars in my Amazon review.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Lee: So no, Jesus doesn’t specifically claim to be YHWH, however he claims to be and do what OT scripture claims only YHWH can be and do, and the thought wasn’t lost on Caiaphas or the other members of the Sanhedrin. Nor on Paul’s Jewish audience.
Gary: That is because Jesus was operating under the delusion that Yahweh had adopted him as his son at his (Jesus’) baptism, giving Jesus divine powers. Again, just because Jesus believed that Yahweh had gifted him divine powers which Yahweh normally reserved for himself, such as pronouncing the forgiveness of sins, does not mean that Jesus viewed himself as the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh). Jesus viewed himself as the messiah, a human being, the chosen one of God, to deliver the Jewish people from their earthly and spiritual oppressors and to establish the New Israel. In order to do this, Jesus needed supernatural powers, and he obtained these supernatural powers at his baptism when Yahweh (allegedly) descended from heaven to bless him and bestow him with some of his (Yahweh’s) magical powers. Yahweh had never done this for any other human before. Jesus therefore felt very, very special…but not special enough to call himself “Yahweh”.
LikeLike
GARY: Gary: That is because Jesus was operating under the delusion that Yahweh had adopted him as his son at his (Jesus’) baptism, giving Jesus divine powers.
LEE: So you’re an Adoptionist as well as a “weak deist” now?
In the gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism you still have the Trinity present.
And in Matthew’s birth narrative the magi worship the infant Jesus.
Regardless, Paul, who wrote 15-20 years before Mark, claims Jesus was God in his very nature. In I Corinthians Paul reworks the Shema with Jesus at its center.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
I don’t want to wade too far into Jesus’ and Paul’s delusions. Bottom line: Neither Jesus nor Paul ever explicitly stated that Jesus is/was Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. I don’t care that Trinitarian Christianity believes they both made implicit claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There really is an Ehrman quote for every occasion.” … just as there are innumerable evangelical author quotes for every occasion. 😈
LikeLike
Lee, you certainly have a imaginative way of reasoning to ensure it fits your worldview.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bingo!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lee: I also wonder whether Gary and other skeptics in this forum really would believe if Jesus sat down on the sofa next to him/them; Gary would probably just convince himself he was having a “heavenly hallucination” of the type he insists Peter, James, John, Paul and the others had and which kick-started the Church. A little therapy and he’d be back to normal, right-as-rain.
Gary: Christians ask us to tell them what it would take for us to believe in Jesus as Lord, but when we tell them, they refuse to believe us. Honestly, Lee. If we are going to read each other’s minds, why don’t you admit that there is no evidence on planet earth that will ever convince you that the warm, fuzzy feeling deep inside you is not the resurrected first century corpse of Jesus of Nazareth.
You are delusional beyond belief, my Christian friend. It is so sad that you cannot see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He and millions of others who have been suckered into believing a corpse will give them a pass into a “heavenly” world.
LikeLike
GARY: Christians ask us to tell them what it would take for us to believe in Jesus as Lord, but when we tell them, they refuse to believe us.
LEE: Because of your blatant commitment to materialism and your almost paranoid skepticism which attempts to masquerade as critical thinking, you continually find ways to rationalize everything else having to do with faith/religion, so why not that as well?
GARY: Honestly, Lee. If we are going to read each other’s minds, why don’t you admit that there is no evidence on planet earth that will ever convince you that the warm, fuzzy feeling deep inside you is not the resurrected first century corpse of Jesus of Nazareth.
LEE: Sometimes that “warm and fuzzy feeling deep inside me” really is just the spicy chili I ate before going to bed. Other times it’s the Holy Spirit.
GARY: You are delusional beyond belief, my Christian friend. It is so sad that you cannot see it.
LEE: Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, of course.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Oh My! I just HAVE to ask … How can you possibly know the difference???!!?
“Sometimes that “warm and fuzzy feeling deep inside me” really is just the spicy chili I ate before going to bed. Other times it’s the Holy Spirit.”
LikeLike
You’ll just have to trust me on this one. After forty-odd years, you just know. You get a knack for discernment.
But unless you’ve experienced it first-hand you’ll have no idea what I’m talking about. It isn’t something you can prove; you have to experience it first-hand. If that makes me a “gullible,” “delusional” “sucker” from NW Alabama, well, I guess I resemble that remark! And I’m in pretty good company, too. If the late Mother Angelica (founder of EWTN) could refer to herself and her sisters as “Dodos for Jesus” I guess I can own the “sucker for Jesus” tag you guys seem to have stuck me with.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Millions of people all over the world experience “gut feelings” and intuitions. Most of them are not Christians. Sometimes they are correct, often they are not. Intuitions and gut feelings are NOT reliable sources.
LikeLike
GARY: Millions of people all over the world experience “gut feelings” and intuitions. Most of them are not Christians. Sometimes they are correct, often they are not. Intuitions and gut feelings are NOT reliable sources.
LEE: Sometimes they are. Not always, but sometimes. Can I prove this empirically? Of course not. But lots of things I can’t prove are true.
Again, it all depends upon your worldview. I happen to share Hamlet’s, who said, “there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in all your philosophy (science).”
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Imagine a modern, industrialized nation where major decisions are made by gut feelings and not by science and reason: CHAOS!
Gut feelings and intuitions are NOT reliable sources of information to determine universal truths.
LikeLiked by 1 person
GARY: Imagine a modern, industrialized nation where major decisions are made by gut feelings and not by science and reason: CHAOS!
Gut feelings and intuitions are NOT reliable sources of information to determine universal truths.
LEE: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Blows your mind, don’t it?
I’ve never claimed to make major life choices based solely on “gut feelings.” That’s your assumption. (Assumptions are not reliable sources for determining truth, either).
And by your last sentence might I infer that you believe universal truths exist? I would think you’d argue that all truth is relative. But maybe I made an incorrect assumption?
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Lee, please tell us the circumstances of your conversion to Christianity. When and why did you first believe in the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth as your Lord and Savior?
LikeLike
Somehow I knew that would be your answer …
Sorry, Lee, but it’s just a belief … not a “discernment.” And if you were honest with yourself, you’d admit it. But religious belief has taken over your thought processes so that special feeling HAS to be “heaven-sent.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
NAN: Sorry, Lee, but it’s just a belief … not a “discernment.” And if you were honest with yourself, you’d admit it. But religious belief has taken over your thought processes so that special feeling HAS to be “heaven-sent.”
LEE: So, you’re that certain, are you? You are the arbiter of truth here? “That’s a bit cheeky, innit?” as my Brit friends might say. (You can’t see it, but I’m genuflecting in front of my computer monitor: I’m not worthy!) Kinda arrogant and spiritually condescending, isn’t it? How can you claim to speak for millions of Christians past and present? Just because you don’t believe, that necessarily invalidates the spiritual experiences of millions of people over the past two thousand years and into modern times? You can somehow quantify such subjective experiences in order to conclusively prove them false? You should develop that power into a nightclub act or hire yourself out to the FBI as a consultant.
Sometimes a gut feeling its just a gut feeling. Other times it’s more than that.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
HA-HA! Seems I hit a nerve. 😎
LikeLike
On the contrary, it’s a typical case of skeptics overstating their case (you can’t prove whether my alleged discernment is real or not). I just find it fascinating that you make such statements almost ex cathedra, as if, because you, the skeptic, the “voice of reason,” have made a pronouncement then it must be so.
Cue Patrick Stewart as Capt. Jean-Luc Picard:
“Make it so, Number One.”
And roll the credits.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Sigh And you, Dear Lee, have also not proven whether your “discernment” is real or not. However, I’m sure Capt. Picard could “make it so” if you asked him real nice.
LikeLike
Nan, I admitted that I can’t prove my discernment is real (I can’t prove lots of things which are real); but you can’t prove it’s not, either. Your telling me above rather dogmatically (hence my ex cathedra comment) that it’s “just a belief” doesn’t automatically make it so.
Again, it all hinges on your “worldview.* to date, none of you have said anything to me to make me seriously consider materialism as a viable worldview. I could only be a materialist if I wanted to hide from reality.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
In my book, materialism is defined thus: “A desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters”,
I don’t recall ever stating my desire for wealth or material possessions. In fact, if memory serves, I don’t recall any other contributors to this blog stating thus. Certainly many of us have little to no interest in spiritual matters, but that does not make us “materialists” by definition.
The entire doctrine of Christianity centers on belief. You believe. I (and many of Gary’s followers) don’t. Simple as that. To quibble over the resurrection of that Jewish fellow when it’s so very, very obvious that such an event could not have happened (except in one’s desire to believe it did) is like saying there’s gold at the end of a rainbow.
LikeLike
GARY: I don’t want to wade too far into Jesus’ and Paul’s delusions. Bottom line: Neither Jesus nor Paul ever explicitly stated that Jesus is/was Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. I don’t care that Trinitarian Christianity believes they both made implicit claims.
LEE: You care until I show you that you were wrong, then suddenly you don’t care.
As for Jesus and Paul they don’t have to explicitly state his divinity. You can’t miss it.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Bullshit. Christianity debated and fought wars over the divine nature of Jesus for several hundred years in the first millennium CE. So don’t tell me that the Bible is clear on this issue. It is not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
GARY: Bullshit. Christianity debated and fought wars over the divine nature of Jesus for several hundred years in the first millennium CE. So don’t tell me that the Bible is clear on this issue. It is not.
LEE: Again an overstatement.
Gary, the New Testament describes Jesus in terms the OT reserved for YHWH alone; I noted several of them above. But here are several of them again:
The Logos or Word, which was in the beginning with and God and was God (John. 1:1)
“I Am” (Mk 14:62; John 6:35; 6:41; 6:48; 6:51; 8:23; 8:58; 10:7; 10:14; 11:25; etc.)
“The image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15)
“The radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb. 1:3)
“Our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1. Note: see Isa. 45:15)
“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28:19)
“Being in very nature God” (Phil. 2:6)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Rev. 22:13)
“Let all God’s angels worship him” [Jesus, the Son]. (Heb. 1:6)
“But about the Son he [God the Father] says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.'”
Do you want me to go on?
The early fathers, too, took Jesus’ divinity for granted:
Justin Martyr, ca. 150 AD: “Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man…” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)
Justin Martyr: “Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
Justin Martyr: “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” (1 Apology, ch. 63)
Tatian the Syrian, ca. 170 AD: “We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks, 21).
Athenagoras, ca. 177 AD: “The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by `the Son,’ I will tell you briefly: He is the first- begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things” (Plea for the Christians 10:2-4).
Irenaeus of Lyons, ca. 180 AD: “But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues…” (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)
Irenaeus of Lyons, ca. 180 AD: “Christ Jesus is our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King.” (Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 10, section 1)
Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190 AD: “There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.” (Fragments, Part I, section III)
Do I need to go on? I can post literally dozens of citations from each of these authors and more.
what all of this shows an unbiased person is that until Arius, in the 4th century, nobody in the Church had a problem with Jesus’ divinity or the idea of the Trinity: you can read it described in Justin; Irenaeus; Tertullian; Origen; etc.
And while the fully-articulated doctrine of the Trinity isn’t found in the NT the idea or concept of one God existing as three persons or hypostases certainly is.
Arius taught that Jesus, while divine, was not coequal with the father; he was a lesser, created being. “There was a time when he [Jesus] was not,” according to Arius.
Arius’ heresy was condemned at the Council of Nicaea and several subsequent councils. Yes, it was popular with certain groups, and no, it wasn’t eradicated for several hundred more years, and yes, Arius’ novel teaching did spark some violence, but I would hardly call that “wars.” when Philip Jenkins uses that word in the title of his book (which you should read) he didn’t mean to imply an actual war.
After the Church dealt with Arius’ heresy the issue was whether Jesus was God and man in equal measure or whether one side predominated and which one?
Nobody seriously questioned Jesus’ deity–even Arius accepted Jesus’ divinity, just not his being co-equal with the Father.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Lee. I get it. I understand that YOU believe that the Gospels implicitly state that Jesus is Yahweh. But that is not the position of historic Christianity, as Bart Ehrman so succinctly states in the article I linked. Please provide a quote from any early Trinitarian Church Father explicitly stating that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the OT. Did late first century Christians believe that Jesus was God? Yes! I have never said that late first century Christians did not see Jesus as God. They did. By the end of the first century, Jesus was God. Jesus was the object of worship. Animal sacrifices and Temple worship of Yahweh as observed by James the brother of Jesus and other Jewish Christians had ended. Gentile Christianity was now the dominant if not the only remaining version of Christianity in the Roman Empire of the second century. But even in this new Gentile Christianity, Jesus was never identified as Yahweh, the God of the Jews. The idea that Jesus is Yahweh is a recent concept, invented by modern evangelicals like yourself.
In Trinitarian Christianity, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. Each of these persons is God and all three in one are God. But Jesus was never referred to as Yahweh. Ever. The Father alone is Yahweh. Please prove me wrong.
LikeLike
GARY: But even in this new Gentile Christianity, Jesus was never identified as Yahweh, the God of the Jews. The idea that Jesus is Yahweh is a recent concept, invented by modern evangelicals like yourself.
No, Jesus is never specifically referred to as YHWH in the gospels or fathers however he more than once claimed that “I an the Father are one” and in John 8 and 10, when Jesus claims to be “I AM” this is a very clear reference to YHWH, the God of the OT. In John 10, his audience very clearly understood this, thus tried to stone him for blasphemy.
So if Judaism has only one God, YHWH, who revealed himself to Moses as “I Am”; and if the Jewish Jesus claims that “I and the Father are one,” and that “before Abraham was I Am,” then he can only be referring to who? Say it with me . . . YHWH.
It was Marcion, not the fathers, who argued that orthodox Christianity was too Jewish, and that the OT God and God the Father of Jesus, were separate deities. Marcion said that Jesus wasn’t to be identified with the God of the Jews, not Jesus, John or Paul.
GARY: Gentile Christianity was now the dominant if not the only remaining version of Christianity in the Roman Empire of the second century.
LEE: I respectfully beg to disagree. The early Church only began distancing itself from Judaism in the mid-second century, possibly in the aftermath of the failed Bar Kochba Messianic rebellion. and of course you have the Ebionite heresy (which interpreted Jesus in more traditional Jewish terms), with most of what we know about it coming from the second century.
Yet as late as In as 386 AD, in an Easter sermon, Bishop John Chrysostom in Antioch railed against his Christians for attending the synagogue on Saturday and then coming to church on Sunday.
Thus, the idea that Jesus and YHWH, the God of the Jews are one, is not a modern Protestant invention, but goes all the way back to Jesus himself.
You need to read somebody besides Prof. Ehrman on this. He doesn’t seem to understand the subtleties of Jewish monotheism and how Jesus could and did slot into it.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
“I an the Father are one” and in John 8 and 10, when Jesus claims to be “I AM” this is a very clear reference to YHWH, the God of the OT. In John 10, his audience very clearly understood this, thus tried to stone him for blasphemy.
Yes, claiming that you and Yahweh are one would be blasphemous to a Jew of Jesus’ day but not to a late first century Gentile Christian, like the author of John. I don’t believe anything the author of John said. I believe his fictional Jesus of Nazareth character has little of anything to do with the Jesus of Nazareth of the Synoptics.
LikeLike
GARY: Yes, claiming that you and Yahweh are one would be blasphemous to a Jew of Jesus’ day but not to a late first century Gentile Christian, like the author of John. I don’t believe anything the author of John said. I believe his fictional Jesus of Nazareth character has little of anything to do with the Jesus of Nazareth of the Synoptics.
LEE: Then I guess you’ll also be throwing out Mark, too, as a “late first century Gentile work”? Because Jesus describes himself as “I Am” in Mark 14: 62:
“’I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
NAN: In my book, materialism is defined thus: “A desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters”,
LEE: Nan, that word has two meanings; in philosophy, materialism (according to Webster’s, not one of my “experts”) is defined as:
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
Someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural is a a materialist. I would’ve thought such an otherwise well-read skeptic would’ve encountered the term before.
As for the resurrection, I know it sounds absurd to you, but that’s because of your commitment to materialism, to the presupposition that matter is all that exists or ever can exist (a problematic theory on several levels; for example, materialism cannot explain the existence of the human mind). Thus I don’t find it at all “very obvious that such an event could not have happened.” It’s only impossible if you’re a diehard materialist. I’m not.
As for “belief,” like Mark Twain, you guys seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that being religious, in this case a Christian, necessarily involves “believing something you know ain’t so.”
My commitment to Christianity centers on evcidence. As far as belief and Christianity are concerned, belief does not–and never has–mean checking your brains at the door in service to a blind faith devoid of evidence or even asking questions. Maybe in the church where you grew up, but not in the ones that I did. Certainly not historic, orthodox Christianity.
I’ve said many times that reason leads me to faith. or belief. I stand by that.
Yet again, it all hinges on your worldview.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
I do wish people would stop telling what I am and what I think. Also including me in what others think.
LikeLike
You and Gary are continually telling me what Christians believe, think and do all the time.
But I apologize if I misunderstood you to be a materialist.
So you believe the transcendent or supernatural exists? Or just that it may exist? Or no, it doesn’t and can’t exist (you were pretty categorial, after all, that resurrection’s a no-go)?
I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. We can’t communicate well if we’re misunderstanding each other. A lot of what you’ve said is identical to what my atheist friends would say.
Maybe this miscommunication will serve to make us clear on one thing; just as one-size-fits-all doesn’t apply to non-Christians that label doesn’t really apply to all Christians, either.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
When referring to Christians, you are absolutely correct when you say one size doesn’t fit all! And therein lies part of the problem that many non-believers have.
-IF- the bible is true … -IF- there is a supernatural god … -IF- a Hebrew man named Yeshua died and was resurrected … then WHY must there be (literally) thousands of denominations
LikeLike
And let me add (I hit the wrong key and my comment was posted before I was done) —
From MY personal perspective as a non-believer, there are no other “sizes.” A supernatural god does not exist. The book that so many revere was written many eons ago to satisfy a need of ancient people to explain “life.” And the stories in that book about an itinerant preached named Yeshua was written by desperate people who were looking for relief from Roman control. And I don’t think my perspective is all that different from most other non-believers.
I only participate in blogs like this and respond to folks like you because I think you’ve been bushwhacked (as I was) by folks who (apparently) are unable to simply face life as it comes without needing some sort of “outside help.”
LikeLike