re: Jimmy Carter was NOT a Christian

He was a cultural Christian

Jimmie was a 1st class a hole and an idiot. His daughter has to be the ugliest women to ever live.

quote:

---

I think it’s awesome that someone can be so firm in their belief of words, spoken by a dude 2000 years ago, written around 30 years after he spoke them, with such conviction.

Can you possibly recall a convo about anything, even 5 years ago, and quote it verbatim? The fact that people, 2000 years later, can be so assured of their interpretation of this is folly.

---

First of all, the evidence strongly suggests that the first Gospel writings were written down more like 12-15 years after Christ, not 30.

Second of all, it is very clear from the writings of Paul and other apostles that the VERBAL recitations of events and sayings were taught verbatim (80% of the population in that region could not read back then, which is why the verbal record was prioritized first). And historians generally agree that you can trace those verbal recitations back to around a few weeks after Christ. Very few dispute this.

Third, there are multiple Gospel writers...three who were eyewitnesses (although not necessarily of every event they wrote about) and one who was not. Which means that various eyewitnesses were interviewed and questioned by probably all of them, and the result is exactly what you would expect of that were the case...small and insignificant variances among them with much more agreement than not.

Fourth, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls prove how accurate the methods of the Hebrew scribes and later the Masoretes and monks were in copying the manuscripts. They literally counted every letter, every word, and every sentence to ensure accuracy.

Fifth, we have between 5200 and 5500 manuscripts or partial manuscripts (depending upon whether any given historian considers some fragments substantial enough to count) to compare. No other ancient document has anywhere near that much available information to compare for accuracy. Like, not even close.

Sixth—and you may not be assuming this, but a surprising number of people do—but each manuscript copy is not a copy of the copy before it. Each Biblical translation is not translated from some translation that came before it. It's NOT like the "telephone game." It's like if you were going to make a bunch of copies from one original document. When you laid it on the copier, it didn't make each copy from the copy before. It makes each copy by referencing the source copy that is face-down on the copier.

So the copies were mostly made from source documents, not copies. The translations were all translated from the original Hebrew or Greek, not previous translations in other languages.

Seventh, Jesus was often quoting the Old Testament, even when the average reader is unaware of it. That is not the case with the passage in question here, but that is one way that you can be sure He said what was reported (unless the whole quote was fabricated 100%).

Eighth, "great multitudes" of people heard that Sermon On The Mount, and we have very strong evidence that at least the Gospel of Luke was considered "scripture" and was being widely distributed while Paul was writing his letters to the various churches, so believers were reading it and at least a few of the people present for the sermon must have come across Luke's account. Luke's verbiage is slightly and insignificantly different than Matthew's but the meaning is clearly the same. If there had been a factual discrepancy someone would have objected.

Now, is it possible, even with everything I typed above, for there to be errors? Sure. But with so many manuscripts to compare, if there are passages that are suspect, we can easily spot them. Off the top of my head, the one that comes to mind is the story of the adulteress whom about whom Jesus challenges her accusers to cast the first stone if they are without sin.

We know that the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain that passage. So that means that it was likely added later at some point (doesn't mean it didn't happen—it still could have and the person who had that information wasn't available to report on it when the oldest manuscripts were being copied), but that's the whole point. We know. Because we have so much information to triangulate with.

The standard in those cases is to ask the following questions:

1. If it is removed, does it alter the general theology of Christianity?
2. Is it consistent with other teachings that we are more confident are reliable? In other words, is it something Jesus would likely say?

If #1 is a no and #2 is a yes, it stays, but with an asterisk and an explanation in the footnotes.

quote:

---

We cannot judge his heart. Yes, his opinions ran counter to the word of God, but he also professed faith in the blood of Christ alone for his salvation.

He may have truly been saved in spite of his ignorance or even outright rejection of true and godly teachings. I hope God had mercy on him, because if he is in Hell, he is suffering greatly at this moment, and as an image-bearer of God, I would pity him if that is the case.

---

I don't disagree with anything you just posted.

However, it's also true that we are to correct those who claim to be Christians when they act like non-Christians.

I get it...Carter is gone from this earth and there's no correcting him anymore. You're right. I can't dispute that. I also can't dispute that we shouldn't opine on who is genuine and who is not. You're right.

But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have corrected Carter while he was still here. As you point out, depending upon which way that went for him, he may be really wishing someone had right wbout now.

There are Christians out there that carry these bastardized beliefs. It is our jobs as Christians to love them regardless and pray for them. Their skewed understanding of the Bible may be the only view they have ever known, meaning that they could have been brought up in a church that severely misinterpreted the Bible. It may not be their fault. It may be, but it still isn't brotherly and sisterly of us to judge.

Call out the sin. Not the sinner. Carter believed in keeping government out of abortion. Free will. Free country. And The Lord gives us free will.

Carter had a lot of flaws and was a crappy President so I think this is a strange flex. More like a leftists pumping BS for reactions. Nothing new for you communist/marxist trash.

quote:

---

think it’s awesome that someone can be so firm in their belief of words, spoken by a dude 2000 years ago, written around 30 years after he spoke them, with such conviction. Can you possibly recall a convo about anything, even 5 years ago, and quote it verbatim? The fact that people, 2000 years later, can be so assured of their interpretation of this is folly.

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

quote:

---

What is your definition of a Christian?

---

Someone who believes salvation lies in Christ alone.

Carter believed in salvation outside of Jesus.

[img]Jimmy Carter was NOT a Christian[/img]

Finally, someone has the guts to say who Carter really was!
Carter also never met a tyrant/dictator who he didn’t support.

Go and sin no more.
John 8:11