Worldviews

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

So you agree then that the bible is not exactly overwhelming in its endorsement of marriage, especially in the majority of the books of the NT?

Paul is pretty clear on his support for celibacy; no surprise that the Catholic church teaches the same for their priests.

No I don't agree. Please read my entire post. It is dependent on God's will for a person, for He is the one that must provide the Gift that Paul speaks about in
1 Corinthians 7:1-7. No two people will share the same walk, this was Pauls time.

Your right, that the Catholic Church teaches the same to their priest, but do you really want to go there? I'm not Catholic, nor do I promote their rituals or many of their practices. I simply believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, and Lord of all. And that he manifested Himself in the flesh (the Word became flesh). Study the history of the Catholic Church and come to your own conclusion.

Nor am I protestant, for that was a movement, at most I would say I'm Christian in accordance to the title that was label those who followed Christ in Antioch.

By the way I still waiting to see if you will ever give me a more direct, Yes or No answer to my previous question as to whether you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and manifested Himself in the flesh? You seemed evasive in your answer. Maybe is an acceptable answer also, it lacks evasiveness .

If you did give a direct answer previously, I apolagize that I missed it in all this awesome insite. Please direct me to any such post.

[covey ridge]

30 cal.
You pose and interesting question. Was Paul married? When Paul says I wish you stay unmarried as I am......
that statement opens up a whole bunch of questions.
Why did Paul not use Jesus or Christ as the ultimate example? He could of said as Jesus was unmarried, or as Christ was unmarried or as our Lord was unmarried? He did not say any of those? Why?
Was Jesus unmarried? Did Paul know anything about Jesus? In all of Paul's writings is there anything to indicate that Paul was talking about a real person who was central figure of ministry in the not to distant past?

You seem to be very learned in this are. What's your take?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

30 cal.
You pose and interesting question. Was Paul married? When Paul says I wish you stay unmarried as I am......
that statement opens up a whole bunch of questions.
Why did Paul not use Jesus or Christ as the ultimate example? He could of said as Jesus was unmarried, or as Christ was unmarried or as our Lord was unmarried? He did not say any of those? Why?
Was Jesus unmarried? Did Paul know anything about Jesus? In all of Paul's writings is there anything to indicate that Paul was talking about a real person who was central figure of ministry in the not to distant past?

You seem to be very learned in this are. What's your take?

This is going to take some time to answer...please be patient, I believe I do have an acceptable answer to all facets of your question.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

.........
By the way I still waiting to see if you will ever give me a more direct, Yes or No answer to my previous question as to whether you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and manifested Himself in the flesh? You seemed evasive in your answer. Maybe is an acceptable answer also, it lacks evasiveness .

If you did give a direct answer previously, I apolagize that I missed it in all this awesome insite. Please direct me to any such post.

Like I said, to believe that one would assume one had to believe that the bible represented a literal and historical story, would it not?

I don't. At all. Not even in the remotes sense do I believe that the bible is:

• The literal word of God
• God inspired
• Historical or
• Factual

Where it matches known history it is accidental; most of the events described in the bible are not shown in other written history (yeah, I know about the 157 words of Josephus), nor can it be shown by archaeological sites and certainly it contradicts itself over, and over, and over again

Try using it as a spiritual guide, and not a factual one.

Perhaps, like the Persians who believed in Mithraism or Zoroasterism, the Egyptians who believed their Horus stories, Hindu's believe in Vishnu or Krishna, believers in Buddha and a plethora of other spiritual guides for a true manifestation of what you call the Christ.

Spirituality is a human need, but all the anthropomorphic gods and sons of gods are a human invention.

Look inside, don't look outside for justifications cobbled together over 2000 years ago, and then codified 1600 years ago, and promulgated to control society, not to truly raise a spiritual awareness.

I HAVE answered your questions, right?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by avb3

Like I said, to believe that one would assume one had to believe that the bible represented a literal and historical story, would it not?

I don't. At all. Not even in the remotes sense do I believe that the bible is:

• The literal word of God
• God inspired
• Historical or
• Factual

Where it matches known history it is accidental; most of the events described in the bible are not shown in other written history (yeah, I know about the 157 words of Josephus), nor can it be shown by archaeological sites and certainly it contradicts itself over, and over, and over again

Try using it as a spiritual guide, and not a factual one.

Perhaps, like the Persians who believed in Mithraism or Zoroasterism, the Egyptians who believed their Horus stories, Hindu's believe in Vishnu or Krishna, believers in Buddha and a plethora of other spiritual guides for a true manifestation of what you call the Christ.

Spirituality is a human need, but all the anthropomorphic gods and sons of gods are a human invention.

Look inside, don't look outside for justifications cobbled together over 2000 years ago, and then codified 1600 years ago, and promulgated to control society, not to truly raise a spiritual awareness.

I HAVE answered your questions, right?

religion will always be around for 1 simple fact, people are afraid of death and want to belive there is something after this lifetime, if you look at all major religions they all include and afterlife for this very reason, and hey whatever gets you through the day I say, but when people start wars based on it, and tell me what and how to eat and all the other ways the get involved in my life then that's gone too far for me, it's time for a pushback, keep your religion to yourself is what I keep saying to the jehovas that knock on my door.

[Okotokian]

East, you're trying to punch above your weight class. Let these two with the divity degrees go at it for 10 or 20 more pages.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

East, you're trying to punch above your weight class. Let these two with the divity degrees go at it for 10 or 20 more pages.

Divinity degree? LOL... naaa, once being married to a fundie cured me of that. Figured if I was going to be able to discuss anything of consequence of held beliefs, I better know what I was talking about and not be subject to the inevitable, "well, did you ever read the bible".

The more I looked into it, listened, read and studied, the more I figured, "Wow, there is some serious disconnect with reality here". Much of what is in the bible makes the Harry Potter series look like a documentary in comparison.

I find it amusing that all arguments made by fundies fall back on "because it was written". So was "Mein Kampf". That's not a reason to be guided by every word, phrase, page or chapter of either book.

Twisted as it was, at least "Mein Kampf" didn't contradict itself over and over again.

No offense intended to those of faith, but the world would be a much better place with out fundamentalist religious beliefs.

If all those fundies of all the various faiths could only see the spiritual side inside of themselves, as opposed to being told by others and the external of what their faith should be an represented, we would never have the wars and sorrow organized religions have caused.

[avb3]

I'm sure many have seen this before, but this is an appropriate thread to post this.

Now, if one is going to promulgate one part of the OT, why not all of it? Yeah, yeah, I know all about that Jesus made up new rules and said only endorsed some of the OT, but really, one can't find a whole bunch about that in the NT. Just a little, and most of it has to do with trying to prove prophesies.

At any rate, this is a good read and asks valid questions.

Dr Laura and Leviticus
Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer Simpson-Caldwell

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

30 cal.
You pose and interesting question. Was Paul married? When Paul says I wish you stay unmarried as I am......
that statement opens up a whole bunch of questions.
Why did Paul not use Jesus or Christ as the ultimate example? He could of said as Jesus was unmarried, or as Christ was unmarried or as our Lord was unmarried? He did not say any of those? Why?
Was Jesus unmarried? Did Paul know anything about Jesus? In all of Paul's writings is there anything to indicate that Paul was talking about a real person who was central figure of ministry in the not to distant past?

You seem to be very learned in this are. What's your take?

Q. Why did Paul not use Jesus or Christ as the ultimate example?

A. Paul did. "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). Paul did not say try to be Christ.

Q. He could have said as Jesus was unmarried, or as Christ was unmarried or as our Lord was unmarried?

A. Yes Paul likely could have said this, but he didn't because Paul knew that no man could be Christ. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us". Paul would have accepted that Jesus was God, therefore no man could be Him, although they could imitate Him (1 Cor. 4:16)

Q. Was Jesus unmarried?

A. Accepted Biblical teaching gives no indication of Jesus ever being married. However, it is generally accepted that He is preparing for a bride for Himself. (Eph 5:26-27) (John 3:29)

Q. Did Paul know anything about Jesus?

A. A bit of History on Paul.

As Paul speaks or writes he would be drawing from this wealth of knowledge that he has gained from his experiences. A question one might pose is why Paul was adamant in his faith of belief? It should remember that Paul was a Pharisee (religious teacher), a man studied in law and the spiritual application of the law upon the Jewish People. Paul initially did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and joined with his peers in trying to stop the new covenant or new way that Jesus had started. This included persecuting and killing Christians, not personally, but he was an accomplice to the fact (Acts 22:2, Gal 1:13). This would make Paul equally guilty as the person who actually had blood on their hands. However, Paul believed that God was on his side (he was zealous) and that nothing could stop him to quash this movement (Gal 1:14). Thus, while travelling on the road to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, with the intention of punishing or possibly executing them, his journey was interrupted when a bright blinding light shone down from heaven on him. Paul (or should I say Saul at that moment) falls to the ground and then begins to speak with Jesus (Act 22:6-8). Could you imagine what kind of impact that would have on your mind (theology). The god that you thought would protect you from Christ was absent, and all of a sudden every sense in your body becomes subject to Jesus, the One you're trying to destroy. Not something you're going to forget very easily. For three days Paul was blind, and did not eat or drink anything (Act 9:9). Then a man named Ananias, lead by the Spirit to Paul, laid his hands on Paul who immediately was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18). From that point on Paul began preaching about Jesus. Now considering that he was a Pharisee Paul would have had a pretty good life, money, position...etc. However, he was now about to suffer for what he believed (Acts 9:16). Paul went on to write most of the remaining books of the New Testament. Subsequently, Paul through reflection on his life could see he was designed specifically for this task before birth (Gal 1:15)

Now back to the original question.

Q. In all of Paul's writings is there anything to indicate that Paul was talking about a real person who was central figure of ministry in the not too distant past?

A. If you are referring to a real person, like in flesh and blood...Paul spoke with those who witnessed the accounts, being Peter and John (Gal 1:18-19). Otherwise, Paul's encounters with Jesus were directly, in a blinding light and by Spirit.

I have not proofed this yet so please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Divinity degree? LOL... naaa, once being married to a fundie cured me of that. Figured if I was going to be able to discuss anything of consequence of held beliefs, I better know what I was talking about and not be subject to the inevitable, "well, did you ever read the bible".

The more I looked into it, listened, read and studied, the more I figured, "Wow, there is some serious disconnect with reality here". Much of what is in the bible makes the Harry Potter series look like a documentary in comparison.

I find it amusing that all arguments made by fundies fall back on "because it was written". So was "Mein Kampf". That's not a reason to be guided by every word, phrase, page or chapter of either book.

Twisted as it was, at least "Mein Kampf" didn't contradict itself over and over again.

No offense intended to those of faith, but the world would be a much better place with out fundamentalist religious beliefs.

If all those fundies of all the various faiths could only see the spiritual side inside of themselves, as opposed to being told by others and the external of what their faith should be an represented, we would never have the wars and sorrow organized religions have caused.

I had the same mind set that you are expressing, until I began to seriously study it and found that it is the only book or combination of books that flows together to portray one central figure who is Christ. Each book being written hundreds or thousands of years apart.

Harry Potter would be a poor comparision. It's here today and will be gone tomorrow, when another interesting books or movies come about from which our children might desensitize themselves with.

The Bible, it's here to stay, biggest selling book in the world. Do a web search and see how many songs, poems, paintings, ...etc. have been compiled as a result of it...and "it keeps going and going and..."

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Like I said, to believe that one would assume one had to believe that the bible represented a literal and historical story, would it not?

I don't. At all. Not even in the remotes sense do I believe that the bible is:

• The literal word of God
• God inspired
• Historical or
• Factual

Where it matches known history it is accidental; most of the events described in the bible are not shown in other written history (yeah, I know about the 157 words of Josephus), nor can it be shown by archaeological sites and certainly it contradicts itself over, and over, and over again

Try using it as a spiritual guide, and not a factual one.

Perhaps, like the Persians who believed in Mithraism or Zoroasterism, the Egyptians who believed their Horus stories, Hindu's believe in Vishnu or Krishna, believers in Buddha and a plethora of other spiritual guides for a true manifestation of what you call the Christ.

Spirituality is a human need, but all the anthropomorphic gods and sons of gods are a human invention.

Look inside, don't look outside for justifications cobbled together over 2000 years ago, and then codified 1600 years ago, and promulgated to control society, not to truly raise a spiritual awareness.

I HAVE answered your questions, right?

So I guess thats a No?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm sure many have seen this before, but this is an appropriate thread to post this.

Now, if one is going to promulgate one part of the OT, why not all of it? Yeah, yeah, I know all about that Jesus made up new rules and said only endorsed some of the OT, but really, one can't find a whole bunch about that in the NT. Just a little, and most of it has to do with trying to prove prophesies.

You got it Old to New

Could you imagine me having to sacrifice a lamb for my sins in the middle of my back yard in the City. Somehow I don't think it would go over well with the authorities, considering the size of the fire and stentch.

That's why I'm thankful for the New way...in accepting Christ as that Lamb for the forgiveness of my sins

Amen

I quess God could see where we would all would be placed, as we move forward in time.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

I had the same mind set that you are expressing, until I began to seriously study it and found that it is the only book or combination of books that flows together to portray one central figure who is Christ. Each book being written hundreds or thousands of years apart.

Harry Potter would be a poor comparision. It's here today and will be gone tomorrow, when another interesting books or movies come about from which our children might desensitize themselves with.

The Bible, it's here to stay, biggest selling book in the world. Do a web search and see how many songs, poems, paintings, ...etc. have been compiled as a result of it...and "it keeps going and going and..."

Might want to rephrase that....

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by avb3

Like I said, to believe that one would assume one had to believe that the bible represented a literal and historical story, would it not?

I don't. At all. Not even in the remotes sense do I believe that the bible is:

• The literal word of God
• God inspired
• Historical or
• Factual

Where it matches known history it is accidental; most of the events described in the bible are not shown in other written history (yeah, I know about the 157 words of Josephus), nor can it be shown by archaeological sites and certainly it contradicts itself over, and over, and over again

Try using it as a spiritual guide, and not a factual one.

Perhaps, like the Persians who believed in Mithraism or Zoroasterism, the Egyptians who believed their Horus stories, Hindu's believe in Vishnu or Krishna, believers in Buddha and a plethora of other spiritual guides for a true manifestation of what you call the Christ.

Spirituality is a human need, but all the anthropomorphic gods and sons of gods are a human invention.

Look inside, don't look outside for justifications cobbled together over 2000 years ago, and then codified 1600 years ago, and promulgated to control society, not to truly raise a spiritual awareness.

I HAVE answered your questions, right?

Pretty good post avb.3

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

Might want to rephrase that....

Enlighten me, do you know of a Book that has sold more copies over it's time span?

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Enlighten me, do you know of a Book that has sold more copies over it's time span?

The bible was never meant to be "sold". Please do some research.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

The bible was never meant to be "sold". Please do some research.

yeah it was ment to hold up uneven tables, and shove in people's face's when their lifestyle isn't exactly like ours.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

So I guess thats a No?

You would be correct.

Think about this scenario, and tell me why it makes sense?

We have to believe that the earth was magicked out of nowhere, a man was made of mud, he was lonely so his rib was made into a woman, a talking snake made them eat an apple, God found this unforgivable for some reason and decided to punish everyone for it for all time, He spent a while murdering various people and then decided to do the whole lot in with a flood, the world was repopulated by one old mans family through incest, then God decided they were all evil again and instead of forgiving them he impregnated a virgin, sired a child, tortured and killed him, raised him again and now he can forgive us our sins which we are born with because of the talking snake whose offer of a fruit was accepted.

That would be the Reader's Digest version. Oh yeah, the main promulgator of this scenario wanders to a non-Jewish city, has a vision, (you know, like Mohammed and Joesph Smith), and travels all over the middle east talking about what he thinks his vision is. Then a bunch of guys write some books based on that vision and the stories they heard.

Wonder what the great Manitou would have to say?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

The bible was never meant to be "sold". Please do some research.

Please enlighten me some more with your studies, and please correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, at one time it was not meant to be sold. The manuscripts were to be read by those in authority appointed by God (Priests and High Priest) to convey the History and Law (Pentateuch - Old Testament) to the people of God. Likewise, this was also the way the New Testament was to be conveyed. However, as time progress men not lead by the Spirit wormed their way into these positions of trust, both in the Old and the New. An excellent example of this can be seen in the attacks the religious leader leaders (Sadducees and the Pharisees) against Christ, including His crucifixion, in an attempt to maintain control over the people and keep them ignorant. This is not to say it was true of all the Pharisees, look at Nicodemus and Paul. However, these evil men who had no faith in God, sought only after power, wealth and position. They had a form of godliness but denied its power. What an elaborate way for the Devil to try and stop the sheep from being feed, by attempting to rob them of their food. How can men who deny the Spirit feed those who are born of Spirit?

History has a way of repeating itself in similar patterns.

“The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Thus, men of the Spirit (John Wycliffe and Martin Luther), who were quite able to discern and who were troubled that the truth was being distorted and kept from the people, began making copies of transcript translated into a language the people could understand, so that these evil men could no longer keep the people ignorant. This is where our current Bibles have their beginning, in respect to distribution.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...bible-history/

Therefore, if the Bible was not meant to be sold, who would be expected to pay for the ink, paper, bindings, and the cover that encompasses them? Even the scribes were paid or received an award for copying manuscripts and documents.

Now that evil men can no longer keep God’s word from his sheep, the sheep are promptly feed and some grow fat. In addition, more of them now become enabled to discern. This is a good thing since evil men are unable to stop His people. Subsequently, the evil men now try to mix things up with cult religions that sound genuine, and appear to have godly form, but are godless. Some of these religions even use the name of Jesus Christ in attempts to attract people, but it does not take long for one who is truly seeking after God to be directed by His Spirit to a place they can be fed and have fellowship with Him.

If the Bible was not meant to be sold, then how would a person who cherishes God’s word, be able to buy one with glided gold or silver edges, in a bonding or genuine leather cover, or in a slim fit and in larger sizes, with various types of prints?

Yes, there are times when a person cannot afford a Bible. In such cases God will provide one for free. Have you ever been in a Hotel/ Motel room and opened a bedside drawer to find a Bible left by the Gideons? For nearly 100 years, the Gideons have practiced their Bible ministry this way. How do you think Gideons can afford to do this...through donations? And in most churches I’ve attended I often noticed Bibles that they are willing to give away for free.

So I guess the answer to your question could be yes and no, it depends on how you approach it. I have a difficult time believing that God would not have wanted me purchasing the Bibles I have; for He blesses me every time I study them. More specifically, He made the means necessary for me to obtain them.

P.S. If you can't afford one, I'll give you one, afterall we're suppose to share the Love

[eastcoast]

don't feel bad 30cal I have one in my house, it has a few pages missing, but you have to do that when you use it for a table leveler, and the added bonus of having a bible around is if I ever run out of toilet paper I have a backup

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

You would be correct.

Think about this scenario, and tell me why it makes sense?

We have to believe that the earth was magicked out of nowhere, a man was made of mud, he was lonely so his rib was made into a woman, a talking snake made them eat an apple, God found this unforgivable for some reason and decided to punish everyone for it for all time, He spent a while murdering various people and then decided to do the whole lot in with a flood, the world was repopulated by one old mans family through incest, then God decided they were all evil again and instead of forgiving them he impregnated a virgin, sired a child, tortured and killed him, raised him again and now he can forgive us our sins which we are born with because of the talking snake whose offer of a fruit was accepted.

That would be the Reader's Digest version. Oh yeah, the main promulgator of this scenario wanders to a non-Jewish city, has a vision, (you know, like Mohammed and Joesph Smith), and travels all over the middle east talking about what he thinks his vision is. Then a bunch of guys write some books based on that vision and the stories they heard.

Wonder what the great Manitou would have to say?

Does what you wrote make sense? To you yes to me no. Why? Because we are of apposing Spirits (1 John 4:3, Rom 8:31) You have already proven this in your response.

You said you read the Book three times? I don’t read what you’re reading in the book. For I read it through the eyes of a different Spirit. For example where does it say anywhere in the Bible God murdered anyone? Subsequently, He has killed and destroyed people for just cause. I don’t recall the fruit being an apple. Proliferation by one man, consider the length of time a person live back then. And in respect to incest, we all come from the same gene pool; just some of our relations are a little further apart.

“God decided they were all evil again and instead of forgiving them" - He did forgive them through the blood of Jesus Christ, a sin offering for many.

“he impregnated a virgin, sired a child” – a Son born not of flesh and blood but of Spirit. You may be on the edge of sacrilegious behaviour?

“tortured and killed him” – God did not torture and kill Him , the spirit that you now chose to abide with did that. Likewise, I once abided with that spirit also until I came to know who Christ is, so I’m familiar in its ways.

“raised him again” – to show that he had power over death in both the physical and spiritual aspects of our existence.

“and now he can forgive us our sins” – because he paid the price for our sins/crimes. A criminal receives the punishment for their crime. However Christ was willing to take that punishment for our crimes so that we might go free. He carries the key.

No agreement on any points because we are opposites.

And I would encourage those who believe, to consider their correspondance with eastcoast as his above noted comments stems on the behaviour of blasphemy and disrespect. Pray about your interaction with him, better yet Pray for him.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by avb3

Where it matches known history it is accidental; most of the events described in the bible are not shown in other written history (yeah, I know about the 157 words of Josephus), nor can it be shown by archaeological sites and certainly it contradicts itself over, and over, and over again

Thanks for that. Hadn't realized that at all. So there really was no Roman occupation or authorities in the time of Jesus. And here I thought Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth were real places. No census, No Assyrians, nothing. Good to know.

Without commenting on the veracity of EVERYTHING in the collected works we call the "bible", I'm wondering what you would consider corroboration? Remember, the bible isn't one book. It's a collection of writings of various authors. And at various times some works have been "in" and some have been "out". The same stories are recounted a number of times. So to say "it" (singular) is not supported by any corroborating accounts isn't really accurate.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Thanks for that. Hadn't realized that at all. So there really was no Roman occupation or authorities in the time of Jesus. And here I thought Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth were real places. No census, No Assyrians, nothing. Good to know.

Without commenting on the veracity of EVERYTHING in the collected works we call the "bible", I'm wondering what you would consider corroboration? Remember, the bible isn't one book. It's a collection of writings of various authors. And at various times some works have been "in" and some have been "out". The same stories are recounted a number of times. So to say "it" (singular) is not supported by any corroborating accounts isn't really accurate.

There are many examples where biblical history and actual history do not coincide (although apologists will jump through hoops trying to explain away discrepancies).

I have already given the example of Luke who says Jesus's birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means that it could not have happened before 6 CE, the year we know he came into office. Matthew tells us Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power. He died in 4 BCE.

That is a 10 year difference of what an "inerrant" book tells us. One of those stories, even if one believes the historicity of Jesus, is mistaken.

There is a litany of others I could bring up, but in general, it is those who insist on the literal interpretation, I believe, are missing out on the larger spiritual message that is inherent in the metaphorical and allegorical interpretations.

My major issue of concern is the literalists use the bible as a crutch to propagate hate and wars, as do the literalist of the koran,as do the fundamentalists who have faith in what the torah teaches.

They all miss the large spiritual message, and because their institutions for hundreds and thousands of years have ingrained the literal message, because often they have been raised by families and schools who propagate that message, it is difficult if not impossible to have those of faith look at the bigger spiritual picture.

It's like not seeing the trees for the forest.

[TreeGuy]

I believe in God.

I also believe that the multitude of manners humans choose to formally worship him break his heart more often than not.

Organized religions may just be the greatest plague to have ever 'graced' this Eath.

We don't need a 'middleman' to talk with God folks..........

[avb3]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

I believe in God.

I also believe that the multitude of manners humans choose to formally worship him break his heart more often than not.

Organized religions may just be the greatest plague to have ever 'graced' this Eath.

We don't need a 'middleman' to talk with God folks..........

Exactly. All the slicing and dicing of "my book is holier then yours" does little to enhance one's spiritual being.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Please enlighten me some more with your studies, and please correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, at one time it was not meant to be sold. The manuscripts were to be read by those in authority appointed by God (Priests and High Priest) to convey the History and Law (Pentateuch - Old Testament) to the people of God. Likewise, this was also the way the New Testament was to be conveyed. However, as time progress men not lead by the Spirit wormed their way into these positions of trust, both in the Old and the New. An excellent example of this can be seen in the attacks the religious leader leaders (Sadducees and the Pharisees) against Christ, including His crucifixion, in an attempt to maintain control over the people and keep them ignorant. This is not to say it was true of all the Pharisees, look at Nicodemus and Paul. However, these evil men who had no faith in God, sought only after power, wealth and position. They had a form of godliness but denied its power. What an elaborate way for the Devil to try and stop the sheep from being feed, by attempting to rob them of their food. How can men who deny the Spirit feed those who are born of Spirit?

History has a way of repeating itself in similar patterns.

“The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Thus, men of the Spirit (John Wycliffe and Martin Luther), who were quite able to discern and who were troubled that the truth was being distorted and kept from the people, began making copies of transcript translated into a language the people could understand, so that these evil men could no longer keep the people ignorant. This is where our current Bibles have their beginning, in respect to distribution.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...bible-history/

Therefore, if the Bible was not meant to be sold, who would be expected to pay for the ink, paper, bindings, and the cover that encompasses them? Even the scribes were paid or received an award for copying manuscripts and documents.

Now that evil men can no longer keep God’s word from his sheep, the sheep are promptly feed and some grow fat. In addition, more of them now become enabled to discern. This is a good thing since evil men are unable to stop His people. Subsequently, the evil men now try to mix things up with cult religions that sound genuine, and appear to have godly form, but are godless. Some of these religions even use the name of Jesus Christ in attempts to attract people, but it does not take long for one who is truly seeking after God to be directed by His Spirit to a place they can be fed and have fellowship with Him.

If the Bible was not meant to be sold, then how would a person who cherishes God’s word, be able to buy one with glided gold or silver edges, in a bonding or genuine leather cover, or in a slim fit and in larger sizes, with various types of prints?

Yes, there are times when a person cannot afford a Bible. In such cases God will provide one for free. Have you ever been in a Hotel/ Motel room and opened a bedside drawer to find a Bible left by the Gideons? For nearly 100 years, the Gideons have practiced their Bible ministry this way. How do you think Gideons can afford to do this...through donations? And in most churches I’ve attended I often noticed Bibles that they are willing to give away for free.

So I guess the answer to your question could be yes and no, it depends on how you approach it. I have a difficult time believing that God would not have wanted me purchasing the Bibles I have; for He blesses me every time I study them. More specifically, He made the means necessary for me to obtain them.

P.S. If you can't afford one, I'll give you one, afterall we're suppose to share the Love

Good job.

[covey ridge]

I believe that the Christianity we have today had it's roots in a few pagan cults that became popular near the end or after the time of Temple Judiasm. The followers of Saul or Paul were only one such cult. About three hundred years later a Roman Emperor wanting to control the masses had his own ephiphany and ordered the amalgimation of these cults into one cult under the symbol of his sword or the cross. He also ordered the gatherings of several sacred writings into one book. He ordered the leaders of these cults who would later become leaders in his church to decide on thing like was Jesus man or God or both. He also charged these guys with deciding which writings were to become scripture and which were to be destroyed. It was obvious that this emperor believed that to control the masses could be done by contrlolling what people believed.

I believe that the truth is the truth if one believes it or not. I also believe that what one believes will affect his life if it is true or not. I believe that the path to God is a personal one. I believe that God is closer to me than my own breath and I have no need of anyone to lead me to God. I beleive in live and let live.

I don't believe that heaven waits for only those who congregate. word of Neil Williams.

I believe that the words of sacred books like the Bible can and are often very inspirational, but I also believe that the words are written by man with his limited understanding.

Just what I believe and do not insist that anyone changes what they believe.

[Tactical Lever]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by avb3

There are many examples where biblical history and actual history do not coincide (although apologists will jump through hoops trying to explain away discrepancies).

I have already given the example of Luke who says Jesus's birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means that it could not have happened before 6 CE, the year we know he came into office. Matthew tells us Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power. He died in 4 BCE.

That is a 10 year difference of what an "inerrant" book tells us. One of those stories, even if one believes the historicity of Jesus, is mistaken.

I did explain that a while back. Quirinius held a couple of offices in power. If you look at the original language it's easy enough to say "governor". The designers of the Gregorian calender erred when it was created. What you are saying is nonsensical. The Bible and other sources agree on time lines, yet you pick the calender made years later as the "inerrant source"?

Christian scholars don't even dispute this and even cite that Herod died in 4 B.C. Note the lack of "E". Don't you believe it's a trifle disingenous to attempt to change the historical significance of the original B.C. and A.D.? Any more history need covering up?

There is a litany of others I could bring up, but in general, it is those who insist on the literal interpretation, I believe, are missing out on the larger spiritual message that is inherent in the metaphorical and allegorical interpretations.

My major issue of concern is the literalists use the bible as a crutch to propagate hate and wars, as do the literalist of the koran,as do the fundamentalists who have faith in what the torah teaches.

Maybe you should do a survey to see how many people who believe that the whole Bible, with nothing subtracted, nor added, gives free reign to rape and pillage. And try to keep on track here. In case you didn't notice, the original topic was the Bible, not Xanadu, Shiva, Buddha, Horus, Wicka, or Paganism. You're only obfuscating the point when we start talking about Paganism being a more valid religion, because they came out with the attractive leggings first. While we're on the topic of Paganism, we all know that Christian holidays fall on traditional Pagan holidays. This is not because Christianity sprang from Paganism, it's because the Church of Rome was big on forcible conversion. They let the Pagans keep the tree, but please call it Christmas, ok? It became a common holiday and kind of stuck. Since we don't have a day down pat, Winter Solstice it is.

They all miss the large spiritual message, and because their institutions for hundreds and thousands of years have ingrained the literal message, because often they have been raised by families and schools who propagate that message, it is difficult if not impossible to have those of faith look at the bigger spiritual picture.

It's like not seeing the trees for the forest.

Hundreds of thousands of years?! But we only stood upright and started writing 6000 yrs. ago. BTW, this message that supposedly changed over the years seems to have been substantiated pretty well by the dead sea scrolls.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

I believe in God.

I also believe that the multitude of manners humans choose to formally worship him break his heart more often than not.

Organized religions may just be the greatest plague to have ever 'graced' this Eath.

We don't need a 'middleman' to talk with God folks..........

You're right on about the middleman. The Bible teaches us that we should be talking to him directly.

[avb3]

[QUOTE=Tactical Lever;1306016]

I did explain that a while back. Quirinius held a couple of offices in power. If you look at the original language it's easy enough to say "governor". The designers of the Gregorian calender erred when it was created. What you are saying is nonsensical. The Bible and other sources agree on time lines, yet you pick the calender made years later as the "inerrant source"? Christian scholars don't even dispute this and even cite that Herod died in 4 B.C.

Your early explanation on Quirinius was an attempt on reconciling known and irrefutable history with the bible. Nice try, but it doesn't fly. Historians have no problem reconciling dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendars; the differences are a known quantity.

Note the lack of "E". Don't you believe it's a trifle disingenous to attempt to change the historical significance of the original B.C. and A.D.? Any more history need covering up?

Your probaby not aware of this. The KJV of the bible came out in 1611. The first recorded use of BCE and CE was in 1708 (citation: first so-far-found use of common era in English (1708). Printed for H. Rhodes. 1708. Retrieved 2011-05-18. The History of the Works of the Learned. 10. London. January 1708. p. 513.). It commons from the latin equivalent "vulgaris aerae" first seen in 1615.

Just in case you missed that, it is within 4 years of the KJV of the bible being produced.

So, it is hardly a new term. And unless you believe that history was changed in the 4 years between it first being knowingly reference, albeit in Latin, and the publishing of the KJV of the bible, I did not change anything.

It is also religious neutral. I mean, you would agree that in a secular society, we value freedom of and FROM religion. Your faith is as valid as the Jewish faith, as is the Muslim, as is various branches of Christian sects, including, as many born-agains don't like to include those groups, Catholics, Mormons and JW's.

So, yes there is a 10 year gap between when the bible says Mary was conceived, 4BCE and when it says Jesus was born 6CE.

Maybe you should do a survey to see how many people who believe that the whole Bible, with nothing subtracted, nor added, gives free reign to rape and pillage. And try to keep on track here. In case you didn't notice, the original topic was the Bible, not Xanadu, Shiva, Buddha, Horus, Wicka, or Paganism. You're only obfuscating the point when we start talking about Paganism being a more valid religion, because they came out with the attractive leggings first. While we're on the topic of Paganism, we all know that Christian holidays fall on traditional Pagan holidays. This is not because Christianity sprang from Paganism, it's because the Church of Rome was big on forcible conversion. They let the Pagans keep the tree, but please call it Christmas, ok? It became a common holiday and kind of stuck. Since we don't have a day down pat, Winter Solstice it is.

No, the original topic was how and what shapes our worldview. The word bible was not used in the OP's post.

It is very legitimate to discuss other, and more importantly, antecedent, belief systems. I do agree that the Romans were big on forcible conversions, so what does that say about the spiritual message? Given the choice of pronouncing belief in your worldview or death, I'll chose telling you I believe, I believe. So, what was the message in that? Mind you, it was not only the Romans who were big on using violence to spread Christianity (wonder how Christ would have thought of that?), but many who followed, including Spaniards, Portuguese and British.

What does it say about a religion that uses violence and threats of violence to command use?

Why don't we ask the Taliban what they think of that tactic? I mean, the way they spread religious compliance and what Christian authorities did is EXACTLY the same. Who is holier then thou?

Interestingly enough, Buddhists have not used that tactic. Nor have Hindu's. Or Taoists. But what they are doing is not the Christian way, so how could their path to spirituality be valid? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but to deny the adaptation of other religious practices within the Christian church is denying facts.

Hundreds of thousands of years?! But we only stood upright and started writing 6000 yrs. ago. BTW, this message that supposedly changed over the years seems to have been substantiated pretty well by the dead sea scrolls.

Actually, I said hundreds AND thousands of years.

And yes, I know you deny the science that shows humans evolving, and modern man being around for a lot longer then you believe.