Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I do take the what experiences others have as being very real.

Its not a question of being real. They are by definition real.

The question is if they are what the person claims they are. Using the greek gods example do you believe that an oracle in Athens in 600BCE (for example) was actually recieving messages from the god athenia when he/she claimed they had experience such a meassage?

BrianCalgary wrote:

One must discern the source of the experience. I have a friend who used to be a fortune teller. She could touch someone and know something of their life, she would get a message from some real physical presence. She came to understand that the physiacl presence was actually a demon taking the focus away from Christ.

How did she come to this conclusion?

BrianCalgary wrote:

What are the fruits of the God whom you worship?

I don't worship a god, or anything for that matter.

But the fruits of a belief in a secular humanistic outlook can be seen all around you, from the secular social democracy you are currently living in (Canada right?) to the scientific and medical advances that you use everyday to live and to keep you alive.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What makes Christianity better?

I didn't ask what makes Christianity better, I asked what makes it different.

You seem to believe that the reported cause of christians experiences (ie God) are more worthy of serious scientific consideration over say the experiences of the oracle in Athens (ie the god Athenia).

Think of it this way. There are two opinions.

1 - Everyone in the history of humanity who believed they were talking with a god or goddess was incorrect.

2 - Everyone in the history of humanity who believed they were talking with a god or goddess was incorrect, except for those who believed they were talking to the Judeo/Christian God.

The question I'm asking is why should I, looking at this from an outsiders viewpoint, accept statement 2 over statement 1? And why would I accept this but I shouldn't accept say talking to Apollo, or Thor etc (I assume you don't actually believe in Greek or Viking mythology)

Why is your religion different?

BrianCalgary wrote:

As a result of Christs work I see the changed lives, the drug addict who is now clean and being a productive member of society. The girl who was born into a pagan family and was sexually abused and fed drugs, and how she is now ministering to street kids.

Thats truely great, that you are helping people and that your religion is giving people strength to over come difficult times. But then you also see that in Tibet, or on the streets of Palestine. I have no doubt that religion can offer strength to a person, but it doesn't seem to matter what religion actually that is. That is decided largely by geography. If I was a homeless person in New York Christianity might give me strength, but equally if I was homeless in New Deli one of the Hindu religions might give me strength.

This would lead me personally to believe that religion is a human physchological defense system, a produce of our personal and social consciousness, used by people to get themselves through troubling or difficult times, to provide a direction in their lives.

The details of the religion, what to actually believe, who to worship, don't seem that important to this aspect. A Muslim will gain the same inner strength as a Hindu, or a Jew, from following the religion.

So, working on the assumption that while the effects are the same the actual details can't all be correct (if the Jewish God exists it seems illogical to suppose that the Greek gods also exist), the question is why is the Judeo/Christian belief structure worthy of more serious scientific consideration than any other supernatural belief structure, past or present?

bmoferrall

JimiTime wrote:

PS. I've just realised I'm now a 2 star user. Is that good or does that mean I've got too much time on my hands

Well, you've been mauled by a couple of sheep in wolf's clothing here and you can still smile, so you've probably earned your stars. Just remember that the stars are awarded for quantity and not quality!
As for having too much time on your hands, the omnipresent/omniscient Wicknight appears to own that particular gold star .

BTW, it's perfectly healthy to have doubts (e.g. apostle Thomas) and question your faith, or challenge parts of it (even to extent of watching programs like 'the Bible Unearthed' with an open mind!). Paul tells us to study scripture for ourselves and test all spirits, i.e. not to sheepishly swallow what has been handed down from generation to generation. One only has to look at the success of doctrines like Marianology and papal infallibility to see how false ideas can take root and propagate through the ages to fool even intelligent people (I'm aware that skeptics say this mechanism equally applies to all of judaeo-christianity). Thanks in part to the impact of style-over-substance televangelism, I believe a generation of unthinking, and even brainwashed, Christians is emerging today.

I'm still not convinced on the absolute necessity of believing that the entire bible is inerrant. For example, when the apostle Matthew is recording what Jesus would have said many years earlier, must we believe that it's verbatim (I suppose the apostles could have been early-day 'rain men' of some sort)? I accept the danger that false doctrines can and do creep in when you question the authority of scripture, and I would absolutely refute the notion (as Jesus himself did) that human tradition of any kind could supercede scripture.

As for the Trinity doctrine, I can understand why and how it was forumulated, but that's surely what it is - a formulation to explain the conundrum of God's nature as depicted in the bible. For me, the essential part of it is the divinity of Jesus and his 'union' with the father.

babyvaio

IFX wrote:

Hawking for example once described God as the laws of the universe.

Hawking - no matter how smart he might be and no matter how great scientific achievements he has accomplished - has still a much bigger arrogance for not accepting Almighty God as His Creator and Creator of all these laws and Creator of the universe Hawking has been researching for the last decades.

Surely he must be a disbeliever if he thinks that Almighty God is a set of laws of the universe. How stupid statement. :cool:

And BTW, just to make it clear - if I said something like that - I would most definitely be a nonbeliever.

IFX

babyvaio wrote:

Hawking - no matter how smart he might be and no matter how great scientific achievements he has accomplished - has still a much bigger arrogance for not accepting Almighty God as His Creator and Creator of all these laws and Creator of the universe Hawking has been researching for the last decades.

Surely he must be a disbeliever if he thinks that Almighty God is a set of laws of the universe. How stupid statement. :cool:

And BTW, just to make it clear - if I said something like that - I would most definitely be a nonbeliever.

You first call Hawking arrogant and then stupid. I can't take that post seriously, sorry.
Brian if you are out there, I may disagree with some of your views but I just want to point out, at least I find most your posts challenging and I was actually replying to an earlier post from you, which I think this is still in line with the OP.
I don't know what adjectives to use to describe the above post without causing offense.

robindch

> Hawking [...] has still a much bigger arrogance for not accepting Almighty
> God as His Creator and Creator of all these laws and Creator of the universe
> Hawking has been researching for the last decades.

And I suggest that your own arrogance far exceeds anything that you attribute to Hawking, in claiming that Hawking is stupid without going to the trouble of understanding, or even apparently wanting to understand, what he is saying.

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> Hawking [...] has still a much bigger arrogance for not accepting Almighty
> God as His Creator and Creator of all these laws and Creator of the universe
> Hawking has been researching for the last decades.

And I suggest that your own arrogance far exceeds anything that you attribute to Hawking, in claiming that Hawking is stupid without going to the trouble of understanding, or even apparently wanting to understand, what he is saying.

I respect his scientific work except those parts where he involves God in an atheistic way. That certainly I do not respect.

And it's his own choice not to admit that there is God. His choice with his own free will. Too bad geniuses like him just dont want to accept that God is. And they hurt none with that but themselves.

BTW, the statement posted by IFX is explicit. God is not the laws of the universe. Now, unless his statement means something else than what I just said?

babyvaio

IFX wrote:

You first call Hawking arrogant and then stupid. I can't take that post seriously, sorry.
Brian if you are out there, I may disagree with some of your views but I just want to point out, at least I find most your posts challenging and I was actually replying to an earlier post from you, which I think this is still in line with the OP.
I don't know what adjectives to use to describe the above post without causing offense.

And I'm very sorry to disappoint you - I never said Hawking is stupid - re-read my post. I said How stupid statement.

Now that's different. Learn to read first of all. I attacked his statement, he is a genius BTW and I have no problems with that, just with that (and similar) particular statement.

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> Hawking [...] has still a much bigger arrogance for not accepting Almighty
> God as His Creator and Creator of all these laws and Creator of the universe
> Hawking has been researching for the last decades.

And I suggest that your own arrogance far exceeds anything that you attribute to Hawking, in claiming that Hawking is stupid without going to the trouble of understanding, or even apparently wanting to understand, what he is saying.

My previous post applied to you too. I said How stupid statement, I did not say Hawking is stupid. What happened to reading practise?

PS It is absolutely useless to discuss anything further with two of you cos your putting things I never said in my mouth. How convenient. And fair.

Schuhart

After reading the last few posts, I found myself wondering if any religion is capable of detecting irony.

IFX

babyvaio wrote:

My previous post applied to you too. I said How stupid statement, I did not say Hawking is stupid. What happened to reading practise?

PS It is absolutely useless to discuss anything further with two of you cos your putting things I never said in my mouth. How convenient. And fair.

What is your logic for someone being a genuis?
Someone who issues a stupid statement?
I don't get it.

babyvaio

IFX wrote:

What is your logic for someone being a genuis?
Someone who issues a stupid statement?
I don't get it.

I'd say there are definitions of who is a genius everywhere on the net.
But since you asked for my opinion, I would say that genius is a person who can outperform the vast majority of other people in the same field, not necessarily meaning with brainpower or intelligence. To me, IQ or some natural talent is not the only factor that would define somebody as a genius, however I would say genius people exist also in other, non-mental fields. A genius would be somebody who finds the most ellegant and smart way to the solution and at the same time is (usually) not able to compete (I probably am using the wrong word compete, but you'll get the idea) in simple things in life, i.e. I heard that A. Einstein wasn't able to remember his home address when driven home by a cab and yet everybody would admit that he was a pure genius.
So in his case, i.e. that would be a stupid statement or expression (not being able to remember his own address like his mind was working in higher levels and somehow making a gap between ultra complex and very simple).

This is only my thinking, so don't eat me alive now.

IFX

babyvaio wrote:

I'd say there are definitions of who is a genius everywhere on the net.
But since you asked for my opinion, I would say that genius is a person who can outperform the vast majority of other people in the same field, not necessarily meaning with brainpower or intelligence. To me, IQ or some natural talent is not the only factor that would define somebody as a genius, however I would say genius people exist also in other, non-mental fields. A genius would be somebody who finds the most ellegant and smart way to the solution and at the same time is (usually) not able to compete (I probably am using the wrong word compete, but you'll get the idea) in simple things in life, i.e. I heard that A. Einstein wasn't able to remember his home address when driven home by a cab and yet everybody would admit that he was a pure genius.
So in his case, i.e. that would be a stupid statement or expression (not being able to remember his own address like his mind was working in higher levels and somehow making a gap between ultra complex and very simple).

This is only my thinking, so don't eat me alive now.

Your Hawking / Einstein analogy contains a logical fallacy.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html
There's a bit of a difference between disagreement on something that is sciencetifically unprovable and your home address.

Anyway we are going off the point here, can someone get us back to OP please.

babyvaio

IFX wrote:

Your Hawking / Einstein analogy contains a logical fallacy.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html
There's a bit of a difference between disagreement on something that is sciencetifically unprovable and your home address.

Anyway we are going off the point here, can someone get us back to OP please.

Those "rules on ur link" are most probably made for kids so therefore they wudnt apply to me, wudnt u think so? :cool:
See, Im more like extraterrestrial anyway...

IFX

babyvaio wrote:

Those "rules on ur link" are most probably made for kids so therefore they wudnt apply to me, wudnt u think so? :cool:
See, Im more like extraterrestrial anyway...

Sorry I sent you the wrong one.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html
No,they are the rules of logic. I might take this in a separate thread as it is going off the post.

babyvaio

IFX wrote:

Sorry I sent you the wrong one.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html
No,they are the rules of logic. I might take this in a separate thread as it is going off the post.

Don't bother opening a new thread 'cos I ain't gonna participate. I don't really agree with what's on that link anyway.

JimiTime

bmoferrall wrote:

BTW, it's perfectly healthy to have doubts (e.g. apostle Thomas) and question your faith, or challenge parts of it (even to extent of watching programs like 'the Bible Unearthed' with an open mind!). Paul tells us to study scripture for ourselves and test all spirits, i.e. not to sheepishly swallow what has been handed down from generation to generation. One only has to look at the success of doctrines like Marianology and papal infallibility to see how false ideas can take root and propagate through the ages to fool even intelligent people (I'm aware that skeptics say this mechanism equally applies to all of judaeo-christianity).

Couldn't agree more, indeed I recommend not taking anything you've been told for granted. Even though I claim to be trying to expel untruths that have been instilled in me through the years, I still find myself arguing from a certain perspective and then thinking, 'hang on, even that perspective needs to be checked'. Not to sound all 'holy' but I am going through a very Joyous time of putting to bed some of the things I used to believe as solid. I think some are afraid of loosing their faith if they do so, you know what I mean?

Thanks in part to the impact of style-over-substance televangelism, I believe a generation of unthinking, and even brainwashed, Christians is emerging today.

Don't know about that. I think more and more people are leaving Christianity and religion in general. In my experience we are left with the fundamentalists, the older generation who seldom venture far from the tree, the younger generation who out of tradition do certain things but are spiritually asleep and then there is ones that are comfortable enough in their spirituality to question their faith, and are not afraid to find answers that go against what they have believed for years. From an irish perspective and experiencing a Catholic country, I think that years of false doctrine and fear politics by the catholic church has brought reproach on Christianity. Almost made a mockery of it. Very sad, but very true.

I'm still not convinced on the absolute necessity of believing that the entire bible is inerrant. For example, when the apostle Matthew is recording what Jesus would have said many years earlier, must we believe that it's verbatim (I suppose the apostles could have been early-day 'rain men' of some sort)? I accept the danger that false doctrines can and do creep in when you question the authority of scripture, and I would absolutely refute the notion (as Jesus himself did) that human tradition of any kind could supercede scripture.

I don't think it does any good to call it inerrant or the word of god, I must agree. It just makes people try catch it out. At the end of the day, my faith is not in the bible, its in God and Jesus Christ. The apostles obviously recieved Gods Holy Spirit, and that would certainly make their accounts worthy of belief. As Wolfsbane wrote earlier also, Jesus himself approved the scriptures which is the finest testimony it can recieve. After all is said and done though, I wouldn't go touting it about as the word of god, I would give people the message through the testimonies within the scriptures, simple as that. People can choose to be stumbles by questions of prove it true etc, but I try not entertain that type of questioning. I do my study, I am secure in my spirituality and I know I can get it wrong sometimes, but I have the honesty to question myself. When I believed all that I was spoonfed, I argued with people, and I was convinced I was right. I also thought I was making my own decisions, but therein lies the lesson.

As for the Trinity doctrine, I can understand why and how it was forumulated, but that's surely what it is - a formulation to explain the conundrum of God's nature as depicted in the bible. For me, the essential part of it is the divinity of Jesus and his 'union' with the father.

I must agree again. I have found nothing substantial suppoting the trinity doctrine. For every trinity scripture, there seem to be 5 that would contradict it. If I am not mistaken, one of the popes added a line to scrpture that was later retracted, in which it supports the trinity. That in itself should set alarm bells ringing. Also the beginning of the catholic church had I think his name was arian, cast out as a heretic for not agreeing to go along with the trinity. I don't think there is any doubt about the divinity of Jesus. He is the being that is most like God Almighty as he is from God or God-like, but he is not the 2nd part of a 3 person Godhead. Some say divinty means you are God, but nothing I have seen suggests this. God Like or from God are the definitions.

bmoferrall

JimiTime wrote:

bmoferrall wrote:

Thanks in part to the impact of style-over-substance televangelism, I believe a generation of unthinking, and even brainwashed, Christians is emerging today.

Don't know about that.

I suppose I mainly had in mind the US, where most of these personality-driven megachurches are based. It probably doesn't (and hopefully won't) apply here, though such pastors are popular with many in the African-based church I attend. A pastor visiting our church from the US put it well when he said that many of today's church-goers are more interested in receiving the product, than in learning the process; their short attention span needs instant gratification, or they'll move on.

robindch

> It probably doesn't (and hopefully won't) apply here, though such pastors are
> popular with many in the African-based church I attend.

Personally, I imagine it's quite likely that more US-style churches will set up here, as the traditional (catholic) religious outlets die off naturally. Though I can't imagine it quite taking off here to the degree that it has in the USA.

> many of today's church-goers are more interested in receiving the product,
> than in learning the process;

Well, that's not much of a surprise! All the recently arrived religious variations do indeed provide instant gratification in the form of some simple thing that has to be "believed", so that the person can receive all the benefits that the religion confers: guaranteed life after death, fully-justified self-aggrandising opinion of self, sense of community etc, etc. In the old days, you had to *do* something in addition to believing the right thing. Now, all you've to do is just believe. Instant eternal life with a single thought -- all gain, no pain!

IFX

JimiTime wrote:

Jesus himself approved the scriptures which is the finest testimony it can recieve.

Incorrect, the entire NT was written after Jesus died by at least 30 years or so. This is accepted by nearly all theologians.
In fact, we don't know what Jesus approved off as he never even wrote anything himself. We are going on other people's word not Jesus' and hoping some magic spirit helped get it right even though they contradict each other and accepted Science.
Most of the stuff written about Jesus was written in another language that we are not sure if Jesus even spoke. Furthermore, any author of the NT was simply just that. They wrote nothing else as far as I know. Also we are not sure of who wrote what scripture, there is some debate as to whether they attributed authors are in fact correct or someone else or a collection of people. All we can be sure of is that the scriptures is a snapshot of how a particular part of a particular community at a particular time was feeling about a particular issue. Nothing wrong with that, it's quite interesting to have a record of how some people were feeling 2,000 or so years ago, just like it is quite interesting to have some information about Greek, Roman or Celtic Gods.
As for the veracity for any scripture, modern, historic or ancient it's a very subjective call.

JimiTime

IFX wrote:

JimiTime wrote:

Jesus himself approved the scriptures which is the finest testimony it can recieve.

Incorrect, the entire NT was written after Jesus died by at least 30 years or so. This is accepted by nearly all theologians.

I did know that:rolleyes: He approves of the hebrew texts, but if we then carry on the fact that the hebrew texts spoke of his coming, and the only record we have of his coming as The Messiah is the testimonies in the greek scriptures, then I would tend to take that as the continuation. You may not agree with that, but we've already established that by your definition of 'evidence' none exists.

In fact, we don't know what Jesus approved off as he never even wrote anything himself. We are going on other people's word not Jesus' and hoping some magic spirit helped get it right even though they contradict each other and accepted Science.

Once again, whats the point in this line of arguement with a believer? I don't agree with the contradiction statement but if you want to give me examples?As for accepted science, that doesn't really bother me, 'accepted' being the operative word. Just because something is accpted science does not make it fact in my eyes. The line about 'some magic spirit', well why not go to the science forum and discuss things with your scientific peers instead of trying to convince me that I am blind to the facts.

Most of the stuff written about Jesus was written in another language that we are not sure if Jesus even spoke. Furthermore, any author of the NT was simply just that. They wrote nothing else as far as I know. Also we are not sure of who wrote what scripture, there is some debate as to whether they attributed authors are in fact correct or someone else or a collection of people. All we can be sure of is that the scriptures is a snapshot of how a particular part of a particular community at a particular time was feeling about a particular issue. Nothing wrong with that, it's quite interesting to have a record of how some people were feeling 2,000 or so years ago, just like it is quite interesting to have some information about Greek, Roman or Celtic Gods.
As for the veracity for any scripture, modern, historic or ancient it's a very subjective call.

Ok, once again. Only in faith can you reason the scriptures, God and Jesus. If you are not willing to accept God and Christ you have no motivation to get to know them. If all you will accpet is a scientific formula or the testimonies of the unfaithful then you will never know. Its frustrating for someone like yourself when you hear us talking about faith and for want of a better term 'evidence' that we see, of a creator. You deem it blind, but it certainly is not, its just that you have no faith so can not fathom people believing this rubbish. You believe that we are adhearing to a manmade doctrine etc etc etc, and do not give credit to individuals who do not just ' adhere to rhetoric. I questioned my faith to its very core some years ago, and here I am, with more faith than ever, and still more questions. Don't assume that I am blinded, for I certainly am not.

ISAW

babyvaio wrote:

And I'm very sorry to disappoint you - I never said Hawking is stupid - re-read my post. I said How stupid statement.

Hmmm. maybe.... because self-referencial answer.

Learn to read first of all.

Hard to read, when message unclear.

I attacked his statement, he is a genius BTW and I have no problems with that, just with that (and similar) particular statement.

Yeah I was once banned from the politics for replying to a mederator that his statement was "silly". He claimed I was calling him stupid and banned me.

By their deeds...

babyvaio

ISAW wrote:

Hmmm. maybe.... because self-referencial answer.




Hard to read, when message unclear.



Yeah I was once banned from the politics for replying to a mederator that his statement was "silly". He claimed I was calling him stupid and banned me.

By their deeds...

He he
He must have been making his own superior assumptions by giving a bit different angle to your post than the actual. That was unfair.

Same thing you did to me, unfortunately I can't ban you (4 life), grrrrr!!! :mad:

ISAW

IFX wrote:

JimiTime wrote:

Jesus himself approved the scriptures which is the finest testimony it can recieve.

Incorrect, the entire NT was written after Jesus died by at least 30 years or so. This is accepted by nearly all theologians.

Incorrect. while it would be anachrinistic for Jesus to quote a book not yet written he DID quote scriptures that existed at the time. Which is why jesus is quoted in the NT on several occasions stating "is it not written that..." or "it is written..."

In fact, we don't know what Jesus approved off as he never even wrote anything himself.

Wrong and wrong.
1.You may as well assert that people dont know what is right and wrong until a law is written about it. was it wrong to kill before laws against killing existed? the original Koran has never been found but Muslims believe the copies that exist today.
2. Jesus is recorded in the NT TWICE writing something down! Also just because we dont have more evidence of his writings does not mean he didnt have them.

We are going on other people's word not Jesus' and hoping some magic spirit helped get it right even though they contradict each other and accepted Science.

Nope we are going on what people recorded about jesus. What contradiction of each other. In fact though decades and thousands of miles apart they (the gospels) concord with each other.

Most of the stuff written about Jesus was written in another language that we are not sure if Jesus even spoke.

so what? Do you think God only speaks in Arabic or Hebrew or Latin or can only be understood in that language?

Furthermore, any author of the NT was simply just that. They wrote nothing else as far as I know.

As far as you know? i.e. you dont know. And they were not JUST authors. They practiced christianity!

Also we are not sure of who wrote what scripture, there is some debate as to whether they attributed authors are in fact correct or someone else or a collection of people.

and Homer didnt write the Oddesy. they recently found it was another man of the same name. so what?

All we can be sure of is that the scriptures is a snapshot of how a particular part of a particular community at a particular time was feeling about a particular issue. Nothing wrong with that, it's quite interesting to have a record of how some people were feeling 2,000 or so years ago, just like it is quite interesting to have some information about Greek, Roman or Celtic Gods.
As for the veracity for any scripture, modern, historic or ancient it's a very subjective call.

Wrong again! It was fairly much agreed by the third century what Christianity was. So they came together and decided about what is in the NT and what isnt. The bits not put in (still around gnostic gospels) were left out. so they had three centuries to mull it over. It wasnt a snapshot. a lot of "wrong" stories were written.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Incorrect. while it would be anachrinistic for Jesus to quote a book not yet written he DID quote scriptures that existed at the time. Which is why jesus is quoted in the NT on several occasions stating "is it not written that..." or "it is written..."

I think the point IFX is making is that one does not know if Jesus approved or supported the descriptions in the Old Testement, only that the very early Christian authors of the New Testement books, who wrote the books 30 to 100 years (depending on who you talk to) claimed that he did.

ISAW wrote:

Jesus is recorded in the NT TWICE writing something down!

IFX point is that Jesus didn't write the New Testement. Others did, after he was dead (ie not around to point out "actually I didn't say that, I said this...")

ISAW wrote:

What contradiction of each other. In fact though decades and thousands of miles apart they (the gospels) concord with each other.

The inconsistencies between the books in the New Testement are long and numerous

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/gen_cont.htm
http://skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

ISAW wrote:

Do you think God only speaks in Arabic or Hebrew or Latin or can only be understood in that language?

No, but men have trouble doing so. A lot of the problems with the New Testement, such as the apparence of the virgn birth years after the first books of the Bible were written, have been put down to mistranslations from Arameic, Hebrew or Greek

ISAW wrote:

As far as you know? i.e. you dont know. And they were not JUST authors. They practiced christianity!

And as the early christians their intrest was with the PR of the early religion, making the religion more appeallig to others to increase following, not necessairly accurate historical recording.

ISAW wrote:

and Homer didnt write the Oddesy. they recently found it was another man of the same name. so what?

People don't believe the Oddesy is the infaliable word of God, and they don't base morality teachings and even laws around what is contained in it.

ISAW wrote:

so they had three centuries to mull it over.

That is kinda the point. They had 3 centuries to filter, alter and touch up the original stories, until they emerged as the teachings of the church.

So the question is when you read the Bible are you reading what Jesus did, or what the early Christians say he did.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

As per my previous posts, I still don't have any evidence of a 3 figure Godhead? Everything points toward The Son being seperate from The Father as I've mentioned. Even what was quoted by yourself, did not stand up to scrutiny in my eyes.Your thoughts?

The Son is separate from the Father - that is Trinitarian doctrine. So those Scriptures that state or imply that are correct. The issue is, Is the son separate from God? He certainly is from God the Father; He certainly is from God the Holy Spirit. But when John describes Christ in his epistle, he says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That is a very specific declaration that the Son is God.

Taken with the other Scriptures that describe Christ as YHWH and give Him the same titles as used of YHWH, I think that makes it conclusive. The only problem for us is understanding how three persons can be so united as to make one God; to understand their respective roles that involve subservience yet do not diminish their Godhood; and to understand the new thing that has happened to God - the Son now has a human nature as well as His Godhood.

Those problems will not be resolved with our understanding/intelligence: perhaps in our glorified state they will be plainer. But we are not called to understand it all; just to believe and rejoice in it.

As for Hellfire. I completely concur that we must not assume that we know better than God when it comes to Justice. However, can I ask you what purpose you think 'hell' as a place of fiery torment fulfills in Gods eyes.

The vindication of His holiness and justice?

Is it consistent with the judgements he has brought upon the wicked in the past? Sodom and Gommorah, the flood. The wicked were wiped out, but they did not suffer for eternity.

That was only the temporal part of their judgement: they will all on the Last Day endure the Final Judgement:
Matthew 10:15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

It is obvious you are a man learned in scripture, do you really think that God has created such a place?

Yes, I do, my brother. I too share your horror as I think about such a place, but since God has spoken so clearly on the mattter, sin must be more wicked that we think if it merits such punishment. The best suggestion I have heard to explain this degree of punishment is that sin is infinite in offence, as it is against an infinitely holy God.

But that is speculation. What is not speculation is that Christ is the one who most oftens mentions hellfire in the Scriptures. He it is who repeatedly warns men of the end result of their rebellion - eternal punishment in lake of fire. His apostles reinforced that in their revelations under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I note Brian tries to make it more a voluntary exile, but the force of Scripture makes it clear that Gehenna is not where anyone will want to go. They will be thrown into it; just as a criminal today is thrown into prison.

wolfsbane

bmoferral said:

I'm still not convinced on the absolute necessity of believing that the entire bible is inerrant. For example, when the apostle Matthew is recording what Jesus would have said many years earlier, must we believe that it's verbatim (I suppose the apostles could have been early-day 'rain men' of some sort)?

The apostles were imediately inspired by the Spirit of God, so whatever they remembered would be perfectly accurate.

But what they were moved to record need not be verbatim: if it is enough that the meaning is given, then that could be what the Spirit moved them to write. If it required verbatim record, then it would be verbatim. Just as we do in normal reporting today - sometimes it is the whole speech, verbatim. Other times it is a bit of verbatim, a bit of paraphrase, a bit of editing.

Only with the Bible, God is the Editor.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Well, that's not much of a surprise! All the recently arrived religious variations do indeed provide instant gratification in the form of some simple thing that has to be "believed", so that the person can receive all the benefits that the religion confers: guaranteed life after death, fully-justified self-aggrandising opinion of self, sense of community etc, etc. In the old days, you had to *do* something in addition to believing the right thing. Now, all you've to do is just believe. Instant eternal life with a single thought -- all gain, no pain!

I agree. Much of modern 'Christianity' is nothing to do with that revealed in the New Testament. In one corner we have those who seek to earn their savlation by their good works and the sacraments of the church, in addition to the grace of God received by faith. In the other corner we have those who think mere belief about Christ and putting up their hands in a meeting or walking the aisle or signing a card makes them right with God and allows them to live like heathens. Both are united against God and Christ in refusing to have God's righteousness as their only plea, and Christ to rule over them.

The real Christian is one who has turned God from idols - that includes their egos - and trust in Christ alone for their salvation. They have turned from sin and seek to walk in Christ's ways. They may not do it perfectly, but their life will be characterised by it. They are new creations.

babyvaio

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:

I agree. Much of modern 'Christianity' is nothing to do with that revealed in the New Testament. In one corner we have those who seek to earn their savlation by their good works and the sacraments of the church, in addition to the grace of God received by faith. In the other corner we have those who think mere belief about Christ and putting up their hands in a meeting or walking the aisle or signing a card makes them right with God and allows them to live like heathens. Both are united against God and Christ in refusing to have God's righteousness as their only plea, and Christ to rule over them.

The real Christian is one who has turned God from idols - that includes their egos - and trust in Christ alone for their salvation. They have turned from sin and seek to walk in Christ's ways. They may not do it perfectly, but their life will be characterised by it. They are new creations.

You speak well Wolfy (hope you don't mind the nickname? ) about certain things (I particularly meant your last 3 posts in this thread). It is about the belief and good works. Your way of thinking is actually very close to the way Lord defined things with Islam. You would - God Willing - make a good Muslim.

The only thing is to correct your belief. Since you know your Scripture well, I hope you will find - God Willing - in time - who Jesus really was. If that happens, and I honestly hope so, you will love him the right way and even more that you love him today. May Almighty guides you to the True Path.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

The inconsistencies between the books in the New Testement are long and numerous

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

as are the replies to these claims
start with claim one above
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/print.html

And please go through theem one by one. Please dont refer me to a whole book unless you endorse every single claim made by that reference.

Now the idea of a doctored geneology for Christ is explainable so the rest of that link falls.
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony/

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/gen_cont.htm

which states:

It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!" Because Peter asked Jesus where he was going, it is very clear that Jesus has deliberately lied.

Biblegateway.com American Standard Version (ASV)John 14:5

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?
John 16:5
But now I go unto him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?

Jesus was referring to his death and ressurection. It is clear from the betrayal that just happened. also Jesus continued "I am the way the truth and the light..." He also tells Peter that he is going to betray jesus.

So he was going in one sense away and in another to die. when later on they began to understand the second sense they became dejected.

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050612.htm






http://skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
Begins with : Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Mt.1:6. Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan. Lk.3:31.

Same answer as above.

People don't believe the Oddesy is the infaliable word of God, and they don't base morality teachings and even laws around what is contained in it.

Coulda fooled me. Indeed it encapsulates most of the values and customs of a civilisation. But my point is that saying "Mark didnt write that but another person also called Mark" does not really affect anything if what was written was true.

That is kinda the point. They had 3 centuries to filter, alter and touch up the original stories, until they emerged as the teachings of the church.

and they also had three centuries to record heresy. But they decided on what went in and what went out and in that intervening period went by oral tradition.

So the question is when you read the Bible are you reading what Jesus did, or what the early Christians say he did.

You are reading what the early christians say he did minus the stories the Early christians believe were wrong. Even then most of the actual life of Jesus is either not written about or the stories have not been preserved. It is believed that God (well the spitit) inspired christians (and indeed that he still does) and that inspiration was a guiding hand in writing the NT.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

It is believed that God (well the spitit) inspired christians (and indeed that he still does) and that inspiration was a guiding hand in writing the NT.

Thats grand ISAW, but the point is you aren't going to find proof of that in the Bible itself.

You need to believe in God first. Believing the Bible is rather secondary to that. This is the exact opposite of the logic used by many Christians, including ones here, that say you believe in God because you believe in the literal Bible.