Okay, I haven't actually read the Bible in a very long time especially since coming to a belief in UR. Why? Well first off I've been set free from the condemnation of not reading the Bible, but more so ...
When I want to read it, as I read I hear that old ET mindset and just seem to get confused.
Any suggestions as to how to approach a "re-reading" of sorts?
The best way I know of is to pray before reading. Ask God to open your mind to His truth, and free you from that mindset. Works for me! :2c:
:cloud9: Amen to that Jenna. And try praying and asking Father to remove every seed the ministry of condemnation that ministers death to the hearer, planted in you while you were under that ministry of tutors and govenors. Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed! Worked for me! Blessings to you.......
Thanks, I SO appreciate this forum. I feel hope to hear the truth freely without fear.
It also helps if you read Young's Literal Translation or Rotherhams's Emphasized Bible. :thumbsup:
Paul
And, always, keep in mind the "aion" word. And, the fact that all men must repent(Acts 17)....that fact alone should help keep you on the restoration track instead of the ET one.
God Bless :grin:
Debbie
Hi and welcome. Keeping in mind 3 things helps me 1) aion 2) mistranslations of hell and what they really mean and 3) being careful to see much (all?) of Jesus' earthly ministry prior to His crucifixion as being to the Jews, and realizing He was speaking of the Jews about to lose their inheritance of privilege wrt Lazarus, "outer darkness", "worm dies not and fire not quenched", etc. The other thing is to read a good translation such as (already mentioned) Young's, Modern Young's (available through Amazon.com) Concordant Version, or the Christian Bible (available from the Christian Bible Society in Mammoth Springs Arkansas [can Google it and mail order directly from them]. I have the Christian Bible and like it quite a bit. It's touted as the the absolute most accurate to the Greek, but is very readable. I highly recommend it. I think when reading our "common/popular" translations that it is difficult to not see ET, because it's very much presented and reinforced in those versions. I can understand why people have a difficult time with UR, given the way most people's translations read. I won't read them anymore. Anyway, God's blessing, James.
The Lord has been teaching me the importance of being led of the Spirit in all things- including Bible reading.
Bible reading- sounds religious doesn't it? How about reading the Bible? Yes, that's better.
Many of us have to go through a cleansing of sorts to rid our minds of religion. We've heard so much hype... We've heard stuff like:
Let's read through the Bible in a year! :cheerleader:
But if you miss a day then you're "behind" in your Bible reading and you have to catch up. And if you don't have time for your complete reading, then you really get behind! And what is meant to be a spiritual blessing and refreshing becomes a religious burden! Can you imagine Jesus sweating over the scriptures trying to get "caught up" before He could leave for Samaria? ~ Groan~ No! He did what the Father told Him to do and I think that's what many of us are learning too.
Well, gr8wuf, you've already been set free from having to catch up so maybe I wrote the above for the benefit of those who have not been set free or who don't understand where this thread is coming from.
Let's just all continue to wait upon the Lord to breathe His Life into our understanding of the scriptures that they might be light and joy to us- instead of "Bible reading".
:HeartThrob:
This really comes across to me as 'Never mind what is in in the Bible - what really counts is what you believe".
Hopeful, you wrote:
"Bible reading- sounds religious doesn't it? How about reading the Bible? Yes, that's better.
Many of us have to go through a cleansing of sorts to rid our minds of religion. We've heard so much hype... "
If Bible reading does not really matter, and the mind has to be rid of 'religion', then what actually is left?
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 12:30:24 PM
If Bible reading does not really matter, and the mind has to be rid of 'religion', then what actually is left?
Makes me think of how Christianity did just fine before/without the bible. Now it seems unimaginable to most Christians. Why do you think that is?
blessings,
- Byron
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 22, 2008, 12:45:28 PM
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 12:30:24 PM
If Bible reading does not really matter, and the mind has to be rid of 'religion', then what actually is left?
Makes me think of how Christianity did just fine before/without the bible. Now it seems unimaginable to most Christians. Why do you think that is?
blessings,
- Byron
From what i have read, it was just fine when people had the Bible interpreted to them by the Priests who were the only ones that could read it. No wonder they fought the translation into the vernacular. Since then, everyone has their own take on how they read it and Church authority goes with it.
You may be thinking back to the earlier days. It seems that the same situation obtained then. Quite apart from Paul referring to apparent rival sects in Christianity before it had even got going, there were varied sects and views - based more or less on individual readings of the Bible, until the matter was brought under control by Constantine, as a matter of political neccessity. If course, that monolithic authority divided into various Churches - Latin, Greek, Coptic, Russian - but it was the translation into Vernacular, plus, I suppose the reformation, which meant that there were places where the Inquisition had no power, that led to a variety of religious takes.
I'd suggest that what has really powered the proliferation of view os general education; what is the point in having a Bible in English if you can't read? Ture, when the preacher reads from it, you can understand it, but you can't sit down and study it yourself.
When you learn to read, you can.
So the response to your point is, I suppose, that people managed without the Bible being kept under control by a class who used Bible authority as their tool. Since then, people are free to form their own religious views. But on what, if not the Bible?
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 01:11:02 PM
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 22, 2008, 12:45:28 PM
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 12:30:24 PM
If Bible reading does not really matter, and the mind has to be rid of 'religion', then what actually is left?
Makes me think of how Christianity did just fine before/without the bible. Now it seems unimaginable to most Christians. Why do you think that is?
blessings,
- Byron
From what i have read, it was just fine when people had the Bible interpreted to them by the Priests who were the only ones that could read it. No wonder they fought the translation into the vernacular.
I was referring to the early church - first 300 years.
- byron
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 12:30:24 PM
This really comes across to me as 'Never mind what is in in the Bible - what really counts is what you believe".
If Bible reading does not really matter, and the mind has to be rid of 'religion', then what actually is left?
What is left? God! :girlheart:
For me, life is not about what "matters" and what "counts".
It's about Life, Light and Love!
Which god?
For me, there's truth in all these posts. Life, love, walking in the Spirit..but to me, that doesn't include tossing aside the Bible...I believe anything the Spirit leads us in will line up with an accurate translation and understanding of scripture...otherwise we're drifting, and as such, can easily drift into false doctrine. God's blessing.
The Concordant Literal Version brings us the evidence of the original Greek better that any other. Search however you may and you can satisfy for yourself that this is true beyond doubt. It also is an excellent translation and should definitely be used with the interlinear for detailed study. The concordance (to the N.T.) is excellent and to rave about. Among other things it offers very insightful and succinct definitions of the Greek words and tabulates how many times and with what words they were rendered by the still standard KJV. It renders "eon[-s, ian]" (and "olam[-im]") the same in every occurrence consistent with the original language without dishonestly and inconsistently substituting "eternal, for ever, the world" where convenient to be consistent with their prior doctrinal commitment, despising God's word. While finished and available in various pieces, the Old Testament portion is yet to be issued in one volume. I assume it's due to ignorance that any Christian doesn't take Scripture seriously enough to use the Concordant Literal.
Concerning what we commonly call the New Testament, (though that really is what is written by the Spirit of God in our hearts and minds) or, the Greek portion of the Holy Scriptures, Matthew through Revelation: there is no reason not to accept that it was finished being written before 70 AD. and that vernacular versions were written by the apostles themselves before the close of the 1st Century. Certainly we know many, probably those rightly considered the more important nations, had their own Bibles in their own languages with no historical reasons not to accept this was before the end of the 1st Century. Bibles were very available and in the languages of the people before Constantine. This was a grassroots hand copied phenomena apart from the false authority by officials usurping the place of the Holy Spirit in the developing bureaucracy of what became Christendom which in turn took early to destroying the vernacular versions, burning them by the cartload, killing many who possessed them as well as those manifesting spiritual gifts.
Only in the last couple of hundred years, actually mostly in the last 50 to 75 years, do we have to wonder at the motivations of some to change the dates of the N.T. and the vernacular versions to later times. This was probably due initially to their desire to attract fellow Seminarians attention by being shocking and innovative, hoping to enhance their academic careers. Of course a later gospel of John would be nice so any conviction over their salaries from being unfaithful "Doctors of the Law" can be silenced by claiming that Scriptural clash between those in bed with a religious institution and the true lovers of God is just newly developing anti-Jewish sentiment from gentile Christian communities. Certainly the idea there can be no miracles, hence, no prophecy was a motive in the 1800's to post date the Hebrew Prophets. Some lately seem suspicious because they are so strongly concerned to insist on discrediting the reliability of Scripture by this and other theories like multiple editors over the centuries (redactive criticism) and amplifying manuscript contradictions that are mostly only word order or obvious scribal mistakes. Why this "debunking the Bible" is so endeared to them, rather than just sharing insights from life or Scripture, which they dubiously claim to accept in some lesser way, is certainly consistent with wanting to possess for themselves the authority they recognize there. The emotive value in the name "Jesus" they want themselves to hold high as a banner for us to follow rather than it be firmly planted in Scripture's own authority. Why it should all be so much later and so editorialized is they want to be the definers of their own "real Jesus." Often there is a concern to be so relevant and approved by their peers they're practically assimilated into a Babylon they refuse to leave rather than that they might rebuild Zion which they'd as soon redefine as well. For some it is a personal motive of not wanting to turn from some favored sin. They expect to reverse the judgment of Scripture by popularizing approval of such sins in the minds of the people (as if there is no God to have a vested interest in all of this.)
Quote from: hopeful on February 22, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 02:42:25 PM
Which god?
I'm talking about the One I know. :HeartThrob:
And what do you know? Let me put it another way; when you hear of a god that wants people to pray five times a day or one that needs offerings of clarified butter or perhaps one that doesn't think his priests should marry or another that considers prawns forbidden food, do you think 'yes-that's the one I know.' or is this 'god' a bit more non-specific?
Hey, Transponder! :HeartThrob:
If you really want to hear about the God I know, I'd be glad to tell you about Him but I'm not into debating. We could either start another thread or talk by PM -that way we wouldn't take this thread off topic...
:happy3:
Hi gr8wuf,
I can relate - after 20 years in the mainstream, its tough to overcome the E.T. mindset. In my early Christian days, I read the Bible a lot, even read through it many times. I also took formal courses in grad school and even got my M.A. in Missions, planning to be a missionary for life. But when that didn't work out, I neglected reading, only picking up the Bible on Sundays and special occassion. Only recently, after discovering U.R., I once again became interested in what the scriptures have to say. I wanted to see if what all these U.R. folks were saying was true and I have been amazed by what I had not even noticed before. I pray the Lord would help you to read and understand His message without it being corrupted by the distorted lens forced onto us by the teachers of E.T. and other such lies. :Sparkletooth:
In the list of elementary principles or foundational teachings concerning Christ in Hebrews, the last of 6 categories the King James Version represents with the phrase: "eternal judgment." (Heb 62) I was raised to read that as meaning "everlasting damnation." In the Greek "eon" endless time is not here. The judgment pertains to the long periods of time we might call "ages." Judgment is simply to set things right. It is "the setting things right according to the age in which they occur." It is eon relevant justice. This, with the other basic beginning understandings, is to be established as a basis for going on into maturity which is "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph 4)
Something that may be helpful is to listen to various teachings from those who have Christian Universalism, which is a true understanding of God's "eonian judgment," undergirding their faith. Perhaps because of a more complete foundation, the deepest teachers I've found have this understanding. Go to the Gary Sigler's site (the link I've provided should take you there) and access the audio messages on the left of his home page or through the Kingdom Links on the right side go to various ministers sites that know this truth and sometimes find more teachings there. Maybe when you're crafting, or maybe you paint, or when cooking or cleaning, just start listening to the wonderful resources there. It is a way I'm sure many could go farther into God through His written revelation. Many keys to understanding Scripture await through that site. These are the kind of things that can make the Bible open anew for you.
http://www.sigler.org/ (http://www.sigler.org/)
I've asked God for hunger to know Him and His written word. That desire I consider one of my geatest gifts.
Quote from: hopeful on February 23, 2008, 02:27:28 PM
Hey, Transponder! :HeartThrob:
If you really want to hear about the God I know, I'd be glad to tell you about Him but I'm not into debating. We could either start another thread or talk by PM -that way we wouldn't take this thread off topic...
:happy3:
I
would like to hear about the 'god' you have in your head, not so much to debate you out of believing in it, but trying to see how this god-U-know relates to the God and Jesus of the Bible. This is what is intriguing me about the whole 'Bible is not important - faith is' line. Does it leave you with Biblegod or agnostic-god?
I can see it coming - "Well of course it is the JesusGod of the Bible, not because that is the one I was taught about but because that is the true one".
I agree it is a little off-topic so another thread might be a good idea.
Regarding the E mindset, Kratos wrote to ME on the guest board in response to 'What if you are wrong' (about UR)
"Romans says that it is the love of God that leads men to repentance. 2000 years of church history with probably less than 5% of those who have lived dying as a believer should prove that fear of Hell is not getting the job done.
So what if we portray God as all loving and all powerful and able to get His will done that all men repent and come to the knowledge of the truth? Based on scripture, we will see more people reconciled to Him and than ain't bad.
I guess even though more people will be saved by preaching the true good news, if we are wrong, there may be a few that die thinking that God loved them only to find out that He really hates them. I will take the more people saved scenario myself."
This makes two points
(1) threat of hellfire is not scaring people into faith
(2) love of God will produce better results.
quite apart from which one is going to do a more effective job of making people religious, that does not address the question of whether it is true or not.
gr8wuf started off the thread by saying that "I haven't actually read the Bible in a very long time especially since coming to a belief in UR. Why? Well first off I've been set free from the condemnation of not reading the Bible,"
That is not quite saying that freedom from belief in hellfire had led to freedom from religion but rather the odd position that gr8wuf did not care to read the Bible because it did not seem to fit what she now believed.
Jenna suggested " pray before reading. Ask God to open your mind to His truth, and free you from that mindset."
and Card added "And try praying and asking Father to remove every seed the ministry of condemnation that ministers death to the hearer, planted in you while you were under that ministry of tutors and govenors" Works for her.
It worked for Sib (or perhaps it was Earthmommy) on the Atheist Network. She prayed for guidance and the god in her head said that atheism was the truth. It seems that telling your brain what you want it to tell you in order to confirm your preferences with supposed divine endorsement is...unreliable?
Hopeful thus.."Many of us have to go through a cleansing of sorts to rid our minds of religion. We've heard so much hype..."
Couldn't have put it better myself. The difference is the selectivity about what one wants to believe and what one doesn't. Hellfire goes out of the window on the basis (it seems) of human logic and the aion thing,ut realy, because it is what you want to believe.
Jesus' resurrection should, on Bible evidence, go out of the window first because there is much more reason to disbelieve that than hellfire. But it doesn't - because you-all want to believe it, I suppose. So that is, I'd guess, another good reason for you not to read the Bible.
Well, Jeanne! You have quite a thread waiting here for you when you get back from your cabin in the woods! :winkgrin:
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 22, 2008, 12:45:28 PM
Makes me think of how Christianity did just fine before/without the bible. Now it seems unimaginable to most Christians. Why do you think that is?
blessings,
- Byron
Hi, Byron! :icon_flower:
I think it's because "Christianity" is supposed to be about our life in Christ. But for many, it is now about a system of religion and the Bible is the rule book of that religion. Supposedly, If you don't study that book just right or enough, then you are in danger of being deceived or worse yet, burned forever. What a heavy burden! I am an uneducated woman and I don't always understand written words clearly. Only HE is able to keep ME from falling- not the Bible.
Now, for the sake of newcomers or anyone else reading this, I'd like to try and clarify here that I am
not against the Bible. I have been reading the scriptures for 28 years and have much of it memorized simply through reading them and enjoying them. The scriptures have ministered life and joy to me on countless occasions
when the spirit of God illuminates them to my heart. I post many verses of scripture on my blog and I'm glad the Bible has not been banned here in North America!
The original question that started this thread was "
How do you read the Bible without ET mindset?" The question itself proves that what was meant to be refreshment for us, often turns into something else. :thumbdown: Religion has taught us to approach the scriptures with a certain mind set that is not born of the Spirit but is instead born of fear.
My original words on this thread were not meant to convey that I don't think the scriptures can be approached at all or that I think someone "should" just toss the Bible aside. But I do think it's sad to see the scriptures approached in a way that leads to bondage and if that is the case with anyone, then I'd rather see someone lay the Bible aside for awhile than continue to toil over it in fear and confusion.
If someone
wants to read through the Bible in a year or someone feels led of the Spirit to read through the Bible in the year, then I say
go for it and I know you'll be blessed! :girlheart: I know people who have read through the Bible in a whole lot less time than a year and they loved it!
But if someone is coerced into reading the scriptures through manipulation or fear of man, condemnation, or fear of not pleasing God, then I don't think it's going to come out very well. :sigh:
Or if someone thinks that others 'Should" do as they do (read the scriptures according to a certain formula) than I don't hear, see or feel life from that- It's death.
Or if someone is walking under condemnation because they feel they don't read the Bible
enough or
often enough, then I would like to see them set free to
enjoy the scriptures.
Sorry this was so long but I hope it helped. :mblush:
:HeartThrob:
Holly
:cloud9: Byron said, "Makes me think of how Christianity did just fine before/without the bible. Now it seems unimaginable to most Christians. Why do you think that is?"
That's a good question. I think the answer is relationship. The early Christians were powerfully introduced to the Spirit of God and had relationship right off the bat, as reality. In my observation from my time in the churches, it seemed to be more important to have relationship with the other denominational members, only a few of which seemed to have a real living relationship with Him.
And by living relationship, I don't mean mouth these words and you're a child of God, I mean He's as real as any other person sitting in your living room. How sad it is to me, that a book about Him, has replaced Him, for so many people. It's like, if He were sitting in your living room, would you ignore Him and instead opt to read the book about Him? Yet that's what it comes down to.
And no, I don't throw the book away, either. I need both, but I need my personal relationship with Him to be able to hear what the Spirit would say about the book, as He is the interpreter of it. Just my :2c:........blessings to all.........
:goodpost: Cardinal!
Quote from: hopeful on February 24, 2008, 03:40:35 PM
:goodpost: Cardinal!
Agreed. I would certainly not agree with treating the bible as some sort of brownie-points task like undertaking to memorize a chapter a month or learning all the begets or reading it through without fail once a year. In whatever way, it should not become a penitence or burden.
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:18:21 AM
I would like to hear about the 'god' you have in your head, not so much to debate you out of believing in it, but trying to see how this god-U-know relates to the God and Jesus of the Bible. This is what is intriguing me about the whole 'Bible is not important - faith is' line. Does it leave you with Biblegod or agnostic-god?
I can see it coming - "Well of course it is the JesusGod of the Bible, not because that is the one I was taught about but because that is the true one".
I agree it is a little off-topic so another thread might be a good idea.
I wonder if you understand that
being haunted by the ghost of Jesus is what it's all about, not just letters in a book; even so much more, not religious institutions. Sure, it's supposed to be
something also experienced with others, something that is hard to find with just being an audience the common practice. He is in others, not just me. And, though some seem to think it is, the Bible is not at odds with the Jesus we experience. For me, my knowledge of what is written often lags behind what I experience. Sometimes I've read in it about something new to me that led to my experiencing it. There is an interplay between the Spirit and the use of the word. The book can be overdefended, as if belief in it is what's at stake. While I believe it's authoritative and defendable, it is not God.
To 1.) read, search out and study Scripture; to 2.) engage in various sorts of prayer, directly asking God for Himself; and, to 3.) seek to see and know God in His disciples -- these are common ways of of seeking Jesus to manifest in our lives. Any of these ways may be degraded or advanced in differing degrees in people who are seeking and finding God. 1.) Statistics in the 1980's indicated less than 5%, maybe as small as 3%, of the population reads anything more than a newspaper or a magazine. How the computer should figure into it I don't know. But, a similar statistic holds true for what % of "believers" read the Bible. They learn a lot of "Bible talk" from one another though. This begins to explain why all the difference of opinion between "believers." It isn't because of the source of information, but their ignorance of it that is full of claiming "the Bible says" what really they just heard someone else say. 2.) There usually is far less of any kind of prayer than talk about it. And 3.) real long term (more than [arbitrarily] 7 years) Christian "community" where all participate without some man in charge is quite rare.
The problem with all of us is our mindset in approaching all of life, not just the Bible. I'm amazed at how long in my life I've sometimes spent without any experience of God even when I've experienced Him before. It's not just everybody else out there that's ungodly.
The Spirit will use the Bible to bring about and enhance our encounters with God.
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 22, 2008, 12:45:28 PM
Quote from: Transponder on February 22, 2008, 12:30:24 PM
If Bible reading does not really matter, and the mind has to be rid of 'religion', then what actually is left?
Makes me think of how Christianity did just fine before/without the bible. Now it seems unimaginable to most Christians. Why do you think that is?
blessings,
- Byron
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 22, 2008, 01:15:45 PM
I was referring to the early church - first 300 years.
- byron
Following I quote myself from:
Tentmaker Discussion Forum > Member's Section > Christian Life-General > Apocrypha Reply #4 on: December 16, 2007, 10:35:34 PM
I recommend the book on CD I quote from. It is about the King James version. The CD includes the rare entire 8 volumes of Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1563) and more. Regarding English, the first century Christians brought the gospel and vernacular Scriptures to England and Ireland. (Rom 16:26)
The following is found at the website: www.avpublications.com and is copied from the chapter previews (very worth reading) from the book In Awe of Thy Word by Gail Riplinger.
The Cambridge History of the Bible states that scriptures were so widely known worldwide that a deacon in the ancient church in Heraclea was "confident that even if all copies of the scriptures should disappear, Christians would be able to rewrite them from memory..."
"It is assumed by writers of the next hundred years that lay people can without difficulty get hold of Bibles for private study, if they will. 'Get books that will be medicine for the soul,' Chrysostom [A.D. 345-407] told his people. 'At least procure the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels.' More surprisingly perhaps, in the sixth century, Gaul Caesarius of Arles can press his flock to buy the Bible and read it at home in the dark hours of winter. He does not appear to anticipate any lack of copies, or that they will be impossibly expensive for the farmer and tradesman" (vol.3, pp. 476-477
Now, again, excerpted from from my reply # 16 on this thread above:
"Concerning what we commonly call the New Testament, (though that really is what is written by the Spirit of God in our hearts and minds) . . . there is no reason not to accept that it was finished being written before 70 AD. and that vernacular versions were written by the apostles themselves before the close of the 1st Century . . . Bibles were very available and in the languages of the people before Constantine. This was a grassroots hand copied phenomena apart from the false authority by officials usurping the place of the Holy Spirit in the developing bureaucracy of what became Christendom which in turn took early to destroying the vernacular versions, burning them by the cartload, killing many who possessed them as well as those manifesting spiritual gifts.
"Only in the last couple of hundred years, actually mostly in the last 50 to 75 years, do we have to wonder at the motivations of some to change the dates of the N.T. and the vernacular versions to later times." (Now, new to this post:) This, if true, would make the N.T. not subject to the reactions of eye witnesses, but only the fabrications of a later time and as valid as our fabrications at this much later time. An example of an appeal to contemporaneous corroboration from Paul's letter to the Romans is: "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." (! Cor 15
6) Because the law of Moses forbid the numbering of the people, the 500 mentioned here were all men. This was about the number of disciples Jesus had. The true amount of people at this event is 2 or 3 times as many: 1,000 to 1,500 men, women and children.
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:48:35 AM
The difference is the selectivity about what one wants to believe and what one doesn't. Hellfire goes out of the window on the basis (it seems) of human logic and the aion thing,ut realy, because it is what you want to believe.
Jesus' resurrection should, on Bible evidence, go out of the window first because there is much more reason to disbelieve that than hellfire. But it doesn't - because you-all want to believe it, I suppose. So that is, I'd guess, another good reason for you not to read the Bible.
I am supposing, from what I've read of your posts, that you've never had anything supernatural, that is, naturally unexplainable happen to you. Is that correct?
blessings,
- Byron
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:18:21 AM
I agree it is a little off-topic so another thread might be a good idea.
Hi, Trans! :HeartThrob:
I started a new thread in the
Testimonies section.
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:48:35 AM
gr8wuf started off the thread by saying that "I haven't actually read the Bible in a very long time especially since coming to a belief in UR. Why? Well first off I've been set free from the condemnation of not reading the Bible,"
That is not quite saying that freedom from belief in hellfire had led to freedom from religion but rather the odd position that gr8wuf did not care to read the Bible because it did not seem to fit what she now believed.
Just wanted to clarify my original statement. The reason for my lack of reading the Bible was not because "it did not seem to fit what she now believed." I did not mean to make it seem to be for that reason.
The reason is that after coming to a belief in UR, I felt a peculiar freedom from religious activity that I had not known before. There was no longer a "penalty" attached to not reading the Bible. I lived in that freedom without condemnation but also without a desire to delve back into reading the Bible "for any reason." It is just recently that my desire for reading the Bible has returned. But in returning to reading, I noticed how often the ET mindset raised its ugly head. That was simply my question ... how do I get that mindset to settle down? Instead of reading was written, I was "reading into it" what I had been taught.
YOWSERS!
You go away for one little weekend and ... I love discussion. I'm learning so much.
Just a few quick comments:
1. I have the Concordant Literal New Testament and it is very, very helpful. I read from the NIV this weekend and cross-referenced it with the CL. Very helpful.
2. I will be taking a look at the web site links posted.
3.
Quote from: reFORMer on February 24, 2008, 11:14:01 PM
For me, my knowledge of what is written often lags behind what I experience.
that's exactly where I'm at right now. Trying to get my knowledge to catch up with my experience.
:cloud9: Reformer said, "For me, my knowledge of what is written often lags behind what I experience. Sometimes I've read in it about something new to me that led to my experiencing it. There is an interplay between the Spirit and the use of the word."
AMEN and AMEN. You put into words perfectly what I have walked thru. :thumbsup:
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 25, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:48:35 AM
The difference is the selectivity about what one wants to believe and what one doesn't. Hellfire goes out of the window on the basis (it seems) of human logic and the aion thing,ut realy, because it is what you want to believe.
Jesus' resurrection should, on Bible evidence, go out of the window first because there is much more reason to disbelieve that than hellfire. But it doesn't - because you-all want to believe it, I suppose. So that is, I'd guess, another good reason for you not to read the Bible.
I am supposing, from what I've read of your posts, that you've never had anything supernatural, that is, naturally unexplainable happen to you. Is that correct?
blessings,
- Byron
Correct. But if anything did, or, for that matter, those things that happen to other people, would not suddenly convert me to any particular religion.
Example: I have had the experience of a voice in my head. I am now aware of studies on such voices, but even then, I did not jump to the conclusion that it was an angel or God because I had not the conditioning to do so.
Neither have I been convinced by miracle healings, gemstones in cremated buddhist monks, preseved bodies, eternal flames or the name of Allah in an aubergine.
Quote from: hopeful on February 25, 2008, 03:25:30 PM
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:18:21 AM
I agree it is a little off-topic so another thread might be a good idea.
Hi, Trans! :HeartThrob:
I started a new thread in the Testimonies section.
Got it. Thanks, I shall read that.
Quote from: gr8wuf on February 25, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:48:35 AM
gr8wuf started off the thread by saying that "I haven't actually read the Bible in a very long time especially since coming to a belief in UR. Why? Well first off I've been set free from the condemnation of not reading the Bible,"
That is not quite saying that freedom from belief in hellfire had led to freedom from religion but rather the odd position that gr8wuf did not care to read the Bible because it did not seem to fit what she now believed.
Just wanted to clarify my original statement. The reason for my lack of reading the Bible was not because "it did not seem to fit what she now believed." I did not mean to make it seem to be for that reason.
The reason is that after coming to a belief in UR, I felt a peculiar freedom from religious activity that I had not known before. There was no longer a "penalty" attached to not reading the Bible. I lived in that freedom without condemnation but also without a desire to delve back into reading the Bible "for any reason." It is just recently that my desire for reading the Bible has returned. But in returning to reading, I noticed how often the ET mindset raised its ugly head. That was simply my question ... how do I get that mindset to settle down? Instead of reading was written, I was "reading into it" what I had been taught.
Understood. That is why I have observed that UR is halfway to atheism. It is both rejecting a tenet of (official) Christian doctrine because it does not make sense and it has removed the restrictions on thinking for oneself because one no longer believes in an eternal punishment for doing so.
As for ""reading into it" what I had been taught." There is still a lot of that about and that is one of the things I try to question here.
Hi Trans. I was glad to see you posting again. I've followed your posts, and have been posting quite a bit myself lately. You and I come from very different belief sets, but I have observed your kindness and respectfulness, and that means a lot to me. We will have no problems communicating, even from such different perspectives. You remind me a lot of my brother...more details later maybe.
I'd like to briefly respond to a couple of things I've seen you discussing. First, another perspective wrt to UR being "halfway to atheism" could be described as; UR is even further away from atheism, because a lot of us believe God is even "bigger", more powerful, and more able than the ET mindset. That was my realization when God showed UR to me.."He's even bigger and better than I thought"!
Secondly, and briefly, because it's a little off-topic; my belief is based on God coming to me in such a way that I spiritually recognized Him ..."out of the blue" (although I was being specifically prayed for). Believe me, I wasn't seeking Him. And He has continued to be real in my life, in essence, not letting me go, holding me with His stubborn and sufficient grace...anyway, take care, James.
Quote from: Transponder on February 29, 2008, 06:56:44 AM
Quote from: firstborn888 on February 25, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
Quote from: Transponder on February 24, 2008, 11:48:35 AM
The difference is the selectivity about what one wants to believe and what one doesn't. Hellfire goes out of the window on the basis (it seems) of human logic and the aion thing,ut realy, because it is what you want to believe.
Jesus' resurrection should, on Bible evidence, go out of the window first because there is much more reason to disbelieve that than hellfire. But it doesn't - because you-all want to believe it, I suppose. So that is, I'd guess, another good reason for you not to read the Bible.
I am supposing, from what I've read of your posts, that you've never had anything supernatural, that is, naturally unexplainable happen to you. Is that correct?
blessings,
- Byron
Correct. But if anything did, or, for that matter, those things that happen to other people, would not suddenly convert me to any particular religion.
Example: I have had the experience of a voice in my head. I am now aware of studies on such voices, but even then, I did not jump to the conclusion that it was an angel or God because I had not the conditioning to do so.
Neither have I been convinced by miracle healings, gemstones in cremated buddhist monks, preseved bodies, eternal flames or the name of Allah in an aubergine.
What do mean you're not "convinced by miracle healings"? Have you had or seen one? What if you witnessed such a miracle with your own eyes? How do you think you would react?
- b
Quote from: jabcat on February 29, 2008, 09:09:57 AM
Hi Trans. I was glad to see you posting again. I've followed your posts, and have been posting quite a bit myself lately. You and I come from very different belief sets, but I have observed your kindness and respectfulness, and that means a lot to me. We will have no problems communicating, even from such different perspectives. You remind me a lot of my brother...more details later maybe.
I'd like to briefly respond to a couple of things I've seen you discussing. First, another perspective wrt to UR being "halfway to atheism" could be described as; UR is even further away from atheism, because a lot of us believe God is even "bigger", more powerful, and more able than the ET mindset. That was my realization when God showed UR to me.."He's even bigger and better than I thought"!
Secondly, and briefly, because it's a little off-topic; my belief is based on God coming to me in such a way that I spiritually recognized Him ..."out of the blue" (although I was being specifically prayed for). Believe me, I wasn't seeking Him. And He has continued to be real in my life, in essence, not letting me go, holding me with His stubborn and sufficient grace...anyway, take care, James.
In the end, kindness and respectfullness (short of dilution one's arguments for fear of offending someone's beliefs) is very neccessary. For one thing, it makes discussion easier and less stressful.
I have to admit that 'halfway to atheism' was a bit of a sprat :laughing7: but is valid, about the process of approaching religious doctrine, rather than the nature of God - or god(s).
I understand your point that UR does make God a lot bigger and better than the frankly nasty God of hellfire, punishment and apocalypse. It does, however, make Him, while bigger, a bit more diffuse.
Explain. Read the Bible and see all the nasties. is that God or not? If not, and UR logic is more reliable than mere Holy Writ, then God is ....well, we don't really know what, if the Bible is not reliable. This 'god' is not really the god of the Bible but a more general, unknown god that is the god of all religions, not just of Christianity, or of any of the 'Book' religions. Once one is thinking in terms of a 'god' that Einstein and Darwin would have accepted, then, again, one is halfway to atheism.
Quoteauthor=Transponder link=topic=2120.msg21854#msg21854 date=1203846515]
The difference is the selectivity about what one wants to believe and what one doesn't. Hellfire goes out of the window on the basis (it seems) of human logic and the aion thing,ut realy, because it is what you want to believe.
Jesus' resurrection should, on Bible evidence, go out of the window first because there is much more reason to disbelieve that than hellfire. But it doesn't - because you-all want to believe it, I suppose. So that is, I'd guess, another good reason for you not to read the Bible.
QuoteI am supposing, from what I've read of your posts, that you've never had anything supernatural, that is, naturally unexplainable happen to you. Is that correct?
blessings,
- Byron
QuoteCorrect. But if anything did, or, for that matter, those things that happen to other people, would not suddenly convert me to any particular religion.
Example: I have had the experience of a voice in my head. I am now aware of studies on such voices, but even then, I did not jump to the conclusion that it was an angel or God because I had not the conditioning to do so.
Neither have I been convinced by miracle healings, gemstones in cremated buddhist monks, preseved bodies, eternal flames or the name of Allah in an aubergine.
QuoteWhat do mean you're not "convinced by miracle healings"? Have you had or seen one? What if you witnessed such a miracle with your own eyes? How do you think you would react?
- b
What I mean, I suppose, is that I am reserving judgement about the nature and mechanism of miracle healings. I have seen some investigations that involve a lot of suggestion bolstered with mumbo-jumbo; a lot of outright fakery; a lot of presentation of statistics of faith or prayer healings that are not so good when presented in other ways.
I have seen examples of miracle healings that didn't stay healed and - yes; I have experienced a miracle healing of my own, in a way of speaking (see below).
I also read of a faithhealing effect experienced by Cliff Walker of "positive atheism" magazine. He knows exactly how it was done to him.
I also read the personal miracle of a visitor to the AN website ("Savage" - if you want to look it up) though surprisingly, he deconverted quickly and never referred to this 'miracle' again.
Some have arrived on the AN displaying personal miracles or some they have read or heard of. Some I have followed up but found it impossible to get any real confirmation or details. Others, surprisingly quickly, looked much less convincing when details were forthcoming. So, no, I am not convinced.
I have heard much of the inexplicable healings of the kind where cancers miraculously disappeared and bones regrew. These seem to be of the doubtful confirmation kind, for all that the unquestionable veracity of these stories is oft trumpeted. Neverless, the atheist 'God hates amputees' challenge is still not refuted, so far as I know.
My own personal miracle was a back that went out (I strained my back in my teens) when I sneezed, of all things, and I could not move. My sister called the doc and just as he arrived, I found I could walk ok. How embarrassing. I hadn't been praying as I was atheist then, as I have been lifelong. I was quite sure it was a mental effect connected with the arrival of the doc, though I can't say more than that.
This experience makes me a bit skeptical of the temporary miracle healings of the ache-alleviation kind.
(sorry - had to tinker the text to get it out of quote - the Curse of the Cyberdunce)
My mother had been diagnosed at Mayo Clinic with a virtually untreatable degenerative bone disease that was putting her into a wheelchair. In the 1950's she was healed of it at a tent meeting of the famous American Indian evangelist Orel Roberts. She says she stood in a line of people several blocks long. A group of ministers came down the line with Brother Roberts and all they did was touch them and speak the name of "Jesus." There were cattle truck loads of brace, stretchers and wheelchairs carted away.
I also know by eyewitnesses of the thousands healed in Charles Price's meetings, specifically the one in Minneapolis that lasted for many weeks. The outcome is still there in the form of a college, Northwestern Bible College, and a large Assembly of God church, I believe it is called Gospel Tabernacle. There are a number of living participants still available for questioning. On the night they prayed for goiters and tumors (was it thursdays?) they had to stop a time or two to shovel up these things into a wheelbarrow and cart them out as the people regurgitated them, spitting them out of their mouths.
I posted elsewhere here about fingers growing back on the hand of a fellow when a pastor Reesie (sp?) at Grace Gospel church in Ft. Lauderdale "shouted" at the fingers for about 5 hours. They have medical papers as well as eyewitnesses. This was just a few years ago.
These more notable instances are only a beginning of what I could tell. There are a number of other great healing ministries that emerged in the 1940's and 50's.
:cloud9: That's awesome. :thumbsup: I believe it because I have seen miracles and been the recipient of 3 myself. Father, we give You praise for Your wonderful works among men!
Quote from: reFORMer on March 03, 2008, 07:15:47 AM
My mother had been diagnosed at Mayo Clinic with a virtually untreatable degenerative bone disease that was putting her into a wheelchair. In the 1950's she was healed of it at a tent meeting of the famous American Indian evangelist Orel Roberts. She says she stood in a line of people several blocks long. A group of ministers came down the line with Brother Roberts and all they did was touch them and speak the name of "Jesus." There were cattle truck loads of brace, stretchers and wheelchairs carted away.
I also know by eyewitnesses of the thousands healed in Charles Price's meetings, specifically the one in Minneapolis that lasted for many weeks. The outcome is still there in the form of a college, Northwestern Bible College, and a large Assembly of God church, I believe it is called Gospel Tabernacle. There are a number of living participants still available for questioning. On the night they prayed for goiters and tumors (was it thursdays?) they had to stop a time or two to shovel up these things into a wheelbarrow and cart them out as the people regurgitated them, spitting them out of their mouths.
I posted elsewhere here about fingers growing back on the hand of a fellow when a pastor Reesie (sp?) at Grace Gospel church in Ft. Lauderdale "shouted" at the fingers for about 5 hours. They have medical papers as well as eyewitnesses. This was just a few years ago.
These more notable instances are only a beginning of what I could tell. There are a number of other great healing ministries that emerged in the 1940's and 50's.
I can only say that, with such conveyor-belt faith - healing factories in operation, one wonders why the hospitals are still in full operation.
It is odd, isn't it, that, with such astounding miracles such as truckloads of tumours and grab-bags of goitres plus fingers re-growing as a minister bawls at them to get their acts together, there seems to be such doubt about whether faith-healing really works? Are the media, science and goverment bodies all so dedicated to covering up the facts that such wonderful answers to the worlds ill have not been investigated, proven and placed at the cutting edge of medcine?
Instead, what we find is investigations into the power of prayer trying to show some sort of statistical significance of the healing of praying patients above those that didn't.
A US pen-pal of mine deconverted from calvinism, mainly when he saw his local minister (who did a lot of healing by prayer) going into a pharmacy. He now has some very harsh things to say about Orel Roberts who he regards as a faker and manipulator of the first order.
And, finally; note my avatar. I am still waiting. I say again; if anyone can turn that water on my desk into wine, I shall believe.
To someone who can cause fingers to be regrown like an octopus, that should be a doddle.
:cloud9: Trans, I have been healed of;1) terminal cancer that had spread to my other organs (within one week of diagnosis after hemorrhaging brought me to the hospital
2) a spinal injury that ruptured 2 discs in my lower back, and 2 in other parts of my spine that paralyzed my left leg sufficient that I could not even bring my firstborn home from the hospital for 11 days, because I couldn't yet walk from the compression of the discs on my sciatic nerve, and
3) a crushed elbow joint from an industrial accident that also would paralyze my hand frequently as the fragments of the joint would rub on the nerve until it swelled and could not function.
ALL of these were documented before and after by stunned, best in their field's, physicians, who themselves, said they had no explanation for what I was telling them, other than the one I offered which was, GOD HEALED ME. In the words of the neurosurgeon who looked at the results of my myllogram, which shows soft tissue damage said, "We couldn't even find any scar tissue where the injury WAS, and that's just not possible!"
And going to a pharmacy had nothing to do with anything. I had miracle healings, yet the Lord has chosen at other times to use doctor's and medicines, and just common sense cures. HE is Lord and He can do whatever He wants anyway He chooses to do it. Remember healing is the children's bread, and most of the time it is not even for the person receiving it, it is for the "little ones" in the faith or lack of it, to see and be converted, as we are living sacrifices. Blessings to you; and the water on your desk may never turn to wine, but I am still convinced the water I'm talking about WILL........ :HeartThrob:
I also believe the water in your bottle won't turn into wine, since for it to do that requires faith on YOUR part, no one here can do that for you. :2c:
Quote from: Transponder on March 05, 2008, 01:46:44 PM
I can only say that, with such conveyor-belt faith - healing factories in operation, one wonders why the hospitals are still in full operation.
It is odd, isn't it, that, with such astounding miracles such as truckloads of tumours and grab-bags of goitres plus fingers re-growing as a minister bawls at them to get their acts together, there seems to be such doubt about whether faith-healing really works? Are the media, science and goverment bodies all so dedicated to covering up the facts that such wonderful answers to the worlds ill have not been investigated, proven and placed at the cutting edge of medcine?
Instead, what we find is investigations into the power of prayer trying to show some sort of statistical significance of the healing of praying patients above those that didn't.
A US pen-pal of mine deconverted from calvinism, mainly when he saw his local minister (who did a lot of healing by prayer) going into a pharmacy. He now has some very harsh things to say about Orel Roberts who he regards as a faker and manipulator of the first order.
It seems odd to me how things change by re-naming them. When Christians refer to getting healed they might use the term "Divine healing." When debunkers refer to it they call it "faith healing." When Christians speak of experiencing miracles they speak of "the power of God." Debunkers speak of "the power of prayer."
The idea that if healing is real, and all the more so if it is mass healings, then surely the hopitals should be emptied, or, "Why don't you go in and just heal everybody in the hospital?" In the Gospels, when an angel stirred the water at the Pool of Bethesda the first one into the waters was healed. Why not all the rest? When Jesus healed the paralytic there, why didn't he heal everybody else at the same time?
As far as responses from those in authority, in Jesus day they sought to kill Lazarus who He'd raised from the dead. I guess he was an inconvenient truth. When Jesus healed a man on the sabbath, the religious authorities got together and tried to come up with a plan to destroy him. Some have an out of touch with reality view of how people react to miracles. Some of the Popes, sending out armies to crush revival movements, historically illustrate what seems to be like some feel when they see a bug -- squash it. How about when the Lord healed ten lepers, telling them to go show themselves to the Priest? Only one came back and thanked him. Or as Jesus pointed out about the days of Elijah. There were meny lepers in Israel; but, it was a gentile foreigner who got healed of leprosy. Even the nations surrounding Elijah knew of him, yet he was an extremely lonely man. The king of Israel wanted to kill him. Elijah told them to turn to God and away from their idols. There was no question the rain had stopped and that they were experiencing a prophesied miraculous famine. The king called Elijah, "He who troubleth Israel." They didn't care to heed the word attested to with signs and wonders. They wanted instead to eliminate the Prophet. The greater the wonders of God's working displayed to the Pharaoh, the more stubborn he was against God, His prophet and people.
Or somebody who has surely spent no time with Roberts is an expert? Thousands healed all around the world in the 40'w and 50's! The athletes at the University he built made quite a showing last year I heard. And what are you building? The largest hospital/med school on one foundation in the western world built in the 1900's was built by Roberts; but, of course, he's only a fraud and it's inconsistent to mix medicine and God when healing? What healing organization with your insights is going around the world holding clinics and prayer, or your version of it?
Too bad some young inexperienced Christians get the same idea you seem to have, that God and medicine don't mix. A lot of people don't see the whole man, spirit, soul and body. Greek philosophy is partly to blame for a false dichotomy presented as spirituality for those affected by traditional teaching from Institutional Christianity. Materialism infects those captured by the priests of Scientism.
You know, those churches in Ft. Lauderdale and Minneapolis are still there and eyewitness accounts are still available, as well at the ORU library.
:cloud9: Reformer, I loved the part about Lazarus being an "inconvenient truth". If there could be such a thing as a "divine understatement", that was IT, LOL......thanks :thumbsup:
Quote from: jenna on March 05, 2008, 04:29:39 PM
I also believe the water in your bottle won't turn into wine, since for it to do that requires faith on YOUR part, no one here can do that for you. :2c:
As good a get - out as could be needed. Can I assume then that no-one will be praying anymore to God to open Transponder's heart since, without my faith to begin with, it couldn't work. I mean, if God can't turn my water into wine without my believing it first, he certainly can't change my brain.
Or can he? Is it, in fact, a lot easier to change someone's brain by the sort of preaching and illogic we get here than to accomplish something practical?
Quoteauthor=reFORMer
I can only say that, with such conveyor-belt faith - healing factories in operation, one wonders why the hospitals are still in full operation.
It is odd, isn't it, that, with such astounding miracles such as truckloads of tumours and grab-bags of goitres plus fingers re-growing as a minister bawls at them to get their acts together, there seems to be such doubt about whether faith-healing really works? Are the media, science and goverment bodies all so dedicated to covering up the facts that such wonderful answers to the worlds ill have not been investigated, proven and placed at the cutting edge of medcine?
Instead, what we find is investigations into the power of prayer trying to show some sort of statistical significance of the healing of praying patients above those that didn't.
A US pen-pal of mine deconverted from calvinism, mainly when he saw his local minister (who did a lot of healing by prayer) going into a pharmacy. He now has some very harsh things to say about Orel Roberts who he regards as a faker and manipulator of the first order.
QuoteIt seems odd to me how things change by re-naming them. When Christians refer to getting healed they might use the term "Divine healing." When debunkers refer to it they call it "faith healing." When Christians speak of experiencing miracles they speak of "the power of God." Debunkers speak of "the power of prayer."
This goes with the territory, I'm afraid. the term 'Divine healing' implies that the effect os due to simething 'divine'. In other words, assuming what is under question. 'Faith healing' is better since (as shown above) it requires faith, whether divine on origin or not. Wouldn't you then agree that faith healing is a more accurate term?
QuoteThe idea that if healing is real, and all the more so if it is mass healings, then surely the hopitals should be emptied, or, "Why don't you go in and just heal everybody in the hospital?" In the Gospels, when an angel stirred the water at the Pool of Bethesda the first one into the waters was healed. Why not all the rest? When Jesus healed the paralytic there, why didn't he heal everybody else at the same time?
Perhaps because the exhibition healing only needed to be done with one person. Don't you find it odd that none of the other gospel - writers record this healing of a paralytic in Jerusalem? However, they do record the healing of a paralytic in Galilee - but using the same words 'pick up your bed and walk'. Isn't it likely that our evangeliests took a bald statement - claim, rather - that Jesus told a paralytic to take up his bed and walk and he did. But the Synoptics' source wrote that up as an event in Galilee and John placed it in the settings he knew - Jerusalem. Isn't it clear that the event has to be doubted?
As to the mass healings, your argument is ridiculous, and a deliberate strawman argument. It is not a question of whether everyone is healed or not but that such numbers and regularity of healing - if true - should surely be proven and accepted even by sceptics that would be trying to find out why.
Without ignoring Cardinal's amazing recoveries from severe illnesses, I still live here in a country where no real evidence of anything other than temporary alleviation (such as happened to my uncle at a faith-healing session) is being adduced.
QuoteAs far as responses from those in authority, in Jesus day they sought to kill Lazarus who He'd raised from the dead. I guess he was an inconvenient truth. When Jesus healed a man on the sabbath, the religious authorities got together and tried to come up with a plan to destroy him. Some have an out of touch with reality view of how people react to miracles. Some of the Popes, sending out armies to crush revival movements, historically illustrate what seems to be like some feel when they see a bug -- squash it. How about when the Lord healed ten lepers, telling them to go show themselves to the Priest? Only one came back and thanked him. Or as Jesus pointed out about the days of Elijah. There were meny lepers in Israel; but, it was a gentile foreigner who got healed of leprosy. Even the nations surrounding Elijah knew of him, yet he was an extremely lonely man. The king of Israel wanted to kill him. Elijah told them to turn to God and away from their idols. There was no question the rain had stopped and that they were experiencing a prophesied miraculous famine. The king called Elijah, "He who troubleth Israel." They didn't care to heed the word attested to with signs and wonders. They wanted instead to eliminate the Prophet. The greater the wonders of God's working displayed to the Pharaoh, the more stubborn he was against God, His prophet and people.
Still believing the stuff in the Bible? If Lazarus was really raised from the dead, how is it that the synoptics don't mention this amazing proof? If it did happen, it had to be a faked miracle, arranged beforehand, because Mary and Martha knew where Jesus was and where to send a message. The Bible is proof of Nothing.
QuoteOr somebody who has surely spent no time with Roberts is an expert? Thousands healed all around the world in the 40'w and 50's! The athletes at the University he built made quite a showing last year I heard. And what are you building? The largest hospital/med school on one foundation in the western world built in the 1900's was built by Roberts; but, of course, he's only a fraud and it's inconsistent to mix medicine and God when healing? What healing organization with your insights is going around the world holding clinics and prayer, or your version of it?
Nice try. Unless I am personally involved I am not qualified to speak. However, I am in touch with someone who was very much in touch with Oral Roberts, and I quote:
"For starters, you can mention to the Oral supporters and defenders that he claimed to raise the dead. See if they're gullible enough to believe that he really did, or if they'll admit that perhaps he was exaggerating/lying.
You can also tell (them) that Oral ending up selling his City of Faith hospital to a corporation after it lost too much money, and that the *** should have returned all the contributions people made to save the hospital after Oral allegedly saw the 900-foot-tall Jesus towering above the hospital. But of course, the ***** didn't return a penny. It wasn't long before he left Oklahoma for California, to live a very lavish lifestyle".
QuoteToo bad some young inexperienced Christians get the same idea you seem to have, that God and medicine don't mix. A lot of people don't see the whole man, spirit, soul and body. Greek philosophy is partly to blame for a false dichotomy presented as spirituality for those affected by traditional teaching from Institutional Christianity. Materialism infects those captured by the priests of Scientism.
I gather that the Oral Roberts funded hospital uses a combination of regular medicine and faith. The medicine does the curing; Faith gets the credit.
QuoteYou know, those churches in Ft. Lauderdale and Minneapolis are still there and eyewitness accounts are still available, as well at the ORU library.
You mean such events are just filed away in the library? They are not happening today?
Look, I won't discount inexplicable healings, though I have never seen any. I have heard of wonderful healings at Lourdes, but study showed them to be rather low statistically and not of the stump-regrowing kind. If I did come across a place where people really got cured of severe illness, or regrew arms on a regular and
provable basis, I would be interested. But the fact is that such evidence is not forthcoming and that is only possible if the media is suppressing such obvious facts or the matter is being exaggurated in the interests in talking me over.
Quote from: Cardinal on March 05, 2008, 04:23:30 PM
:cloud9: Trans, I have been healed of;1) terminal cancer that had spread to my other organs (within one week of diagnosis after hemorrhaging brought me to the hospital
2) a spinal injury that ruptured 2 discs in my lower back, and 2 in other parts of my spine that paralyzed my left leg sufficient that I could not even bring my firstborn home from the hospital for 11 days, because I couldn't yet walk from the compression of the discs on my sciatic nerve, and
3) a crushed elbow joint from an industrial accident that also would paralyze my hand frequently as the fragments of the joint would rub on the nerve until it swelled and could not function.
ALL of these were documented before and after by stunned, best in their field's, physicians, who themselves, said they had no explanation for what I was telling them, other than the one I offered which was, GOD HEALED ME. In the words of the neurosurgeon who looked at the results of my myllogram, which shows soft tissue damage said, "We couldn't even find any scar tissue where the injury WAS, and that's just not possible!"
And going to a pharmacy had nothing to do with anything. I had miracle healings, yet the Lord has chosen at other times to use doctor's and medicines, and just common sense cures. HE is Lord and He can do whatever He wants anyway He chooses to do it. Remember healing is the children's bread, and most of the time it is not even for the person receiving it, it is for the "little ones" in the faith or lack of it, to see and be converted, as we are living sacrifices. Blessings to you; and the water on your desk may never turn to wine, but I am still convinced the water I'm talking about WILL........ :HeartThrob:
Look, Cardinal, I don't want to get personal but there is a sort of sameiness about these miracle cure accounts. The doctors were astounded. There was no explanation other than Goddunnit. The injury, cancer, tumour or whatever disappeared without trace.
And going to a Pharmacy is taken quite out of context by you. I am just saying that it was the catalyst of seeing a faithhealer using regular medicine that cause the floodgates of doubt of this believer to open. He realized that he'd been ignoring and closing his mind to real doubts and real disbelief.
By the way, should this be a new thread? It isn't really about how to read the Bible selectively...Ah, without an ET mindset.
Quote from: jenna on March 05, 2008, 04:29:39 PM
I also believe the water in your bottle won't turn into wine, since for it to do that requires faith on YOUR part, no one here can do that for you. :2c:
Quote from: Transponder on March 07, 2008, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: jenna on March 05, 2008, 04:29:39 PM
I also believe the water in your bottle won't turn into wine, since for it to do that requires faith on YOUR part, no one here can do that for you. :2c:
As good a get - out as could be needed. Can I assume then that no-one will be praying anymore to God to open Transponder's heart since, without my faith to begin with, it couldn't work. I mean, if God can't turn my water into wine without my believing it first, he certainly can't change my brain.
Or can he? Is it, in fact, a lot easier to change someone's brain by the sort of preaching and illogic we get here than to accomplish something practical?
God has a will, and anything He does, and it's all miraculous, is according to that will. "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test"...
Quote from: jabcat on March 07, 2008, 08:54:54 PM
Quote from: jenna on March 05, 2008, 04:29:39 PM
I also believe the water in your bottle won't turn into wine, since for it to do that requires faith on YOUR part, no one here can do that for you. :2c:
Quote from: Transponder on March 07, 2008, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: jenna on March 05, 2008, 04:29:39 PM
I also believe the water in your bottle won't turn into wine, since for it to do that requires faith on YOUR part, no one here can do that for you. :2c:
As good a get - out as could be needed. Can I assume then that no-one will be praying anymore to God to open Transponder's heart since, without my faith to begin with, it couldn't work. I mean, if God can't turn my water into wine without my believing it first, he certainly can't change my brain.
Or can he? Is it, in fact, a lot easier to change someone's brain by the sort of preaching and illogic we get here than to accomplish something practical?
God has a will, and anything He does, and it's all miraculous, is according to that will. "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test"...
That would certainly damage limit the embarrassment should He fail to deliver...
:cloud9: Yes, there is a sameness about these accounts, Trans. Doctors who go to school for 6 -10 years of post graduate work to try to learn a way how to do what God can and does do in an instant, DO tend to be shocked and throw in the towel quite quickly. I just love that about them.... :winkgrin:
Trans, did you realize that the OT Israelites, the ones in the desert for 40 years, were the only people in history on the face of the earth, that didn't have doctors? God Himself was their doctor. Since we are supposed to have a better covenant, and if better, then we should have everything the original had, plus some, then it should not be difficult to understand why this would be a factor for new covenant believer's lives. Blessings to you bro......
Thomas is dazed, hurt, bitter -- and lashing out.
"I don't believe it," barks Thomas. "I don't believe a word of it. You're seeing what you want to see. Jesus is dead."
Thomas is cold, with an edge in his voice that cuts like ice. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
Suddenly, Jesus stands among them once again and speaks -- "Shalom, peace be with you."
Jesus turns to him and speaks plainly, without any hint of rancor or sarcasm, "Put your finger here, see my hands." Jesus holds out his scarred hands for him to examine. Thomas recoils.
Jesus begins to open his outer garment and says, "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Jesus reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder. Then Thomas slips to his knees and says in awe, "My Lord and my God!"
Thomas, "Doubting Thomas," as he is sometimes called, is the first disciple to put into words the truth that Jesus is both Lord and God. "Doubting Thomas" utters the greatest confession of faith recorded anywhere in the Bible.
Jesus replies, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Dr. Ralph Wilson
Someday we will all see Him face to face...then all will believe.
It's the peace, joy, fulfillment, and "blessed are those" that we miss by not believing now...we will all believe, but I'd prefer to profit from the Spirit led stripping of the foolishness of my carnal mind in this lifetime, than to endure the chastening and rebuke that will lead to repentance and belief in the next age...
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2008, 12:26:32 AM
It's the peace, joy, fulfillment, and "blessed are those" that we miss by not believing now...we will all believe, but I'd prefer to profit from the Spirit led stripping of the foolishness of my carnal mind in this lifetime, than to endure the chastening and rebuke that will lead to repentance and belief in the next age...
:cloud9: Amen to that.....I have seen the fruit of that chastening and it is UGLY.........
Quote from: Cardinal on March 08, 2008, 01:09:06 AM
:cloud9: Amen to that.....I have seen the fruit of that chastening and it is UGLY.........
I wanted to let you know Cardinal how much your posts have meant to me...God obviously is working through you...Thanks, God's blessing, James.
:girlheart:
Quote from: Cardinal on March 07, 2008, 09:45:16 PM
:cloud9: Yes, there is a sameness about these accounts, Trans. Doctors who go to school for 6 -10 years of post graduate work to try to learn a way how to do what God can and does do in an instant, DO tend to be shocked and throw in the towel quite quickly. I just love that about them.... :winkgrin:
Trans, did you realize that the OT Israelites, the ones in the desert for 40 years, were the only people in history on the face of the earth, that didn't have doctors? God Himself was their doctor. Since we are supposed to have a better covenant, and if better, then we should have everything the original had, plus some, then it should not be difficult to understand why this would be a factor for new covenant believer's lives. Blessings to you bro......
Look how God kept them going in the wilderness:
4 Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years.--Deut 8
And we see the vigor of Caleb, even at 85--
Now the men of Judah approached Joshua at Gilgal, and Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, "You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God at Kadesh Barnea about you and me. 7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land. And I brought him back a report according to my convictions, 8 but my brothers who went up with me made the hearts of the people melt with fear. I, however, followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly. 9 So on that day Moses swore to me, 'The land on which your feet have walked will be your inheritance and that of your children forever, because you have followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly.'
10 "Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert.
So here I am today, eighty-five years old! 11 I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I'm just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then. 12 Now give me this hill country that the LORD promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, the LORD helping me, I will drive them out just as he said."
13 Then Joshua blessed Caleb son of Jephunneh and gave him Hebron as his inheritance.
Joshua 14
There was also something about Moses not aging, but I can't find it right now...
Deu 34:7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
John
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2008, 12:07:49 AM
Thomas is dazed, hurt, bitter -- and lashing out.
"I don't believe it," barks Thomas. "I don't believe a word of it. You're seeing what you want to see. Jesus is dead."
Thomas is cold, with an edge in his voice that cuts like ice. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
Suddenly, Jesus stands among them once again and speaks -- "Shalom, peace be with you."
Jesus turns to him and speaks plainly, without any hint of rancor or sarcasm, "Put your finger here, see my hands." Jesus holds out his scarred hands for him to examine. Thomas recoils.
Jesus begins to open his outer garment and says, "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Jesus reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder. Then Thomas slips to his knees and says in awe, "My Lord and my God!"
Thomas, "Doubting Thomas," as he is sometimes called, is the first disciple to put into words the truth that Jesus is both Lord and God. "Doubting Thomas" utters the greatest confession of faith recorded anywhere in the Bible.
Jesus replies, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Dr. Ralph Wilson
Someday we will all see Him face to face...then all will believe.
Wonderful! C.S Lewis himself couldn't have done better. However, instead of dressing up John's Thomas episode to make it more dramatic, you might have been better employed reading it and asking why none of the other gospel writers mention this remarkable eposode. In fact, Matthew would have thomas coming back to find everyone - including Jesus - were up in Galilee. And, have you thought about the implications of a risen Jesus in a new, incorruptible, body with new, incorruptible wounds? Don't you see that that this episode, so dramatically rubbed in the Doubting Transponder's face, is pretty strong evidence that the whole episode is an invention of John's.
And Cardinal, Molly and Kratos, if you seriously believe the absurd longevity claims of the Bible, I doubt that reason is going to be of any avail.
Hey Transponder...thanks for your reply. I believe we all "got'ta serve somebody". There's a God who cares and will rescue us from ourselves and from the "hater of the brethren", and there's a god of this world who is a liar, deceiver, and destroyer. The Word states we don't battle against each other, but against "principalities and powers"..we all only respond to the God/god we serve. You say you are "not here to rob but to help"...well, with God's help, though respectfully and lovingly, I'm not here to rob you either, but to share God's truth that He impresses me to share with you...He does love you, and I believe you have felt Him before, and that if you'll allow yourself, you will remember when...it's that still, small voice that perhaps you heard but dismissed. I don't know when or under what circumstances, but He'll be back, because He didn't die on that cross in vain...He had a purpose, and that purpose was you.
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2008, 11:43:23 AM
Hey Transponder...thanks for your reply. I believe we all "got'ta serve somebody". There's a God who cares and will rescue us from ourselves and from the "hater of the brethren", and there's a god of this world who is a liar, deceiver, and destroyer. The Word states we don't battle against each other, but against "principalities and powers"..we all only respond to the God/god we serve. You say you are "not here to rob but to help"...well, with God's help, though respectfully and lovingly, I'm not here to rob you either, but to share God's truth that He impresses me to share with you...He does love you, and I believe you have felt Him before, and that if you'll allow yourself, you will remember when...it's that still, small voice that perhaps you heard but dismissed. I don't know when or under what circumstances, but He'll be back, because He didn't die on that cross in vain...He had a purpose, and that purpose was you.
If I 'serve' anything it is logic and reason, not myth.
Look, I am on a theist board so, irritating though it might be, I can't stop people love-gunging me. All I can do is to show that the rationale put forward as valid reasons for belief don't add up to a tickbite and it is all down to faith in myth.
To those that are interested in truth rather than "The truth" (which is something quite different) I might put a few misconceptions right. It is disappointing though to have (if I might dramatize on my own account) laid out my stall and have it deluged with pink whitewash
"There; doesn't that look better?"
Why would 4 individuals have to all report exactly the same thing? Were they all professional journalists? Or rather, just persons, revealing the things that were most remarkable to them personally? I mean, I can imagine that it would be possible that one may be disgusted by Thomas' doubt in light of such a miracle, and not want to rehash it.
Of course, it is easier to dismiss it as myth.
:cloud9: It's not a question of what I believe, it's a matter of what the Spirit of God spoke out of my mouth at my bible study about 1 year after I came to him, that completely bypassed my carnal mind. See, He is a Spirit, and He can do whatever He wants with a completely surrendered vessel. Actually, He can with a completely UN-surrendered vessel also, but tries to be gentlemanly about it and not give the unbelieving heart attacks. :laughing7:
And; What's WRONG with :cloud9: PINK whitewash? I happen to like pink whitewash, personally. What's neat about your color choice there, Trans, is pink is the color of His love. If you mix white (righteousness) with the red (the blood), you get pink, the love. Gosh, if I didn't know better :winkgrin: I'd think He was starting to speak thru YOU........ :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings to you.......
Quote from: Cardinal on March 08, 2008, 03:58:25 PM
:cloud9: It's not a question of what I believe, it's a matter of what the Spirit of God spoke out of my mouth at my bible study about 1 year after I came to him, that completely bypassed my carnal mind. See, He is a Spirit, and He can do whatever He wants with a completely surrendered vessel. Actually, He can with a completely UN-surrendered vessel also, but tries to be gentlemanly about it and not give the unbelieving heart attacks. :laughing7:
And; What's WRONG with :cloud9: PINK whitewash? I happen to like pink whitewash, personally. What's neat about your color choice there, Trans, is pink is the color of His love. If you mix white (righteousness) with the red (the blood), you get pink, the love. Gosh, if I didn't know better :winkgrin: I'd think He was starting to speak thru YOU........ :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings to you.......
:laughing7: :thumbsup:
Very cool Cardinal!!
Quote from: Reverend G on March 08, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
Why would 4 individuals have to all report exactly the same thing? Were they all professional journalists? Or rather, just persons, revealing the things that were most remarkable to them personally? I mean, I can imagine that it would be possible that one may be disgusted by Thomas' doubt in light of such a miracle, and not want to rehash it.
Of course, it is easier to dismiss it as myth.
well, you tell me? Four 'journalist' accounts appear in print, three using the same wording but some adding whole chunks not in the others and another adding other chunks not in the others and rather tending to pull apart, shall we say, from the line of the others. The fourth, though clearly describing the same time and event differs still further.
Conclusion? You tell me, if this doesn't seem a watertight analolgy (so far as it goes) you tell me where.
Accounts 1,2 and 3 got their account from a single agency. They, in accordance with editorial policy, added bits to tweak the story to the views of the newpaper.
Account 4 differs so radically that, which accepting that something happened at the time involving certain persons (lets say someone got shot), it makes one question who is giving the right account.
The first one, pretty much Reuters untouched, looks good but then...the claim that the bod was shot by his own people rather than the guards of the admin that owns the agency which issued the original report. Hmmm. And the fourth. It also comes from the same admin but a different agency, so it is quite different in everything other than blaming the same people for the shooting.
So, that is, as tight as I can make it, the analogy which you have asked for. the conclusion? That the internal evidence of comparing the 4 Journal accounts is that the event has been reworked in a somewhat contradictory manner, to achieve a policy agenda.
That is quite a different situation from just errors in eyewitness accounts.
And you attempt to explain away Thomas is feeble in the extreme. It is not one person who is disgusted but three, and they are not disgusted by Hudas because all four recount his doings at length. Surely Thomas and the amazing proof should have been mentioned. The conversion should count for more than the doubt.
In addition to all of that the times don't fit. Of you wish, you can look at the resurrection thread. I set it all out. In fact, my good Rev. Iy would only take you an hour to do it yourself.
No, yours is a feeble attempt to shug off one of the many glaring problems with the Gospels.
And I too overbearing? I don't know. Manybe if there was more attempt to evaluate objectively than to shug off problems in the interests of maintaining faith, I'd be a lot more gentle.
I dunno, you must not read much. I typically read 3 newspapers a day, and well, what your describing seems pretty much a given in todays press.
Quote from: Reverend G on March 09, 2008, 04:50:39 PM
I dunno, you must not read much. I typically read 3 newspapers a day, and well, what your describing seems pretty much a given in todays press.
Very well. In that case should we not try to get an overall view in comparing varying accounts, taking into account the particular angle of the paper or editor or government that controls the view of the paper, rather than just accepting whatever is said, on trust?
This is getting away from the ET mindset, rather, but it does have a bearing on the sort of mentality one brings to reading the bible - or anything else, for that matter.
Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours. The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today. Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur. Even atheists. Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not. If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?
Quote from: Transponder on March 09, 2008, 05:40:12 PM
Very well. In that case should we not try to get an overall view in comparing varying accounts, taking into account the particular angle of the paper or editir or govrnment that controls the view of the pare, rather than just accepting whatever is said, on trust?
This is getting away from the ET mindset, rather, but it does have a bearing on the sort of mentality one brings to reading the bible - or anything else, for that matter.
What is your point? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were lousy 'journalists'? They were not journalists, they were writing the Holy Scripture.
And, as far as modern day journalists are concerned, they write what they are told and they publish what their editor will allow. Not much difference here, except in the above case, the editor was God.
Quote from: Molly on March 09, 2008, 05:49:57 PM
And, as far as modern day journalists are concerned, they write what they are told and they publish what their editor will allow. Not much difference here, except in the above case, the editor was God.
I really like this quote Molly. As I said earlier, we all serve somebody. Our carnal mind may think we only answer to ourselves, and we may call that logic, reason, "seeing through things", having a higher consciousness, whatever. But I maintain we're either influenced by the god of this world, or YHWH, Father-God Who loves us and only wants what's best for us. Trans, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think you "see through" believers. Well, God has prepared me to be able to "see through" atheists...He has given me 40+ years of observing, interacting with, and coming to know the mindset...and He shows me that a mistaken belief in controlling one's own destiny is exactly what Satan wants carnal man to believe...that's exactly a main way he influences us, subtly whispering in our ear that we know better than God, that we really can "lean to our own understanding". That lie is as old as this creation, and most men are still falling for it.
Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Ps 94:11
If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! Matthew 6:23
Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. Prov. 3:5
Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.
On topic: "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing. Charge these things and teach."
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2008, 05:18:45 AM
Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.
On topic: "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing. Charge these things and teach."
The phrase, "Against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" is actually, "Against wicked 'pneumatikon'" which in 1 Corinthians 12 was rendered, "spritual gifts." Hence, an aspect of what we strive against is "wicked gifts of the spirit." Whether this is because some have departed from or refused entry into the Kingdom of God, though they are gifted with gifts that God will not take back, so they are using them against God and His people or these are pre-ordained spiritual workings more directly of the evil...it may be both...
Quote from: Reverend G on March 09, 2008, 05:47:48 PM
Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours. The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today. Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur. Even atheists. Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not. If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?
What you say: "...
Greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue..." is what seems so overlooked by some. There are numerous books written for hundreds of years on the difficulties and alleged discrepancies of the Bible. While not all of the same quality, there are a number that answer so many of these common objections. I covered that ground so many years ago I forgot much and now my books are in boxes or given away, so I lack easy answers...often I just don't have the patience to type out such irksome minutiae. Why don't you look into some of the apologetic material online Transponder? It's sad to know there are answers for your assertions and not be able to get them to you.
I believe there are 358 verses in Mark that are in common with the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke. This is referred to as "Q." As a document, nothing of the sort has ever been found. The source was probably Mary who "hid these things in her heart."
An example sometimes offered as proof of unreliability is the difference between the sermon in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 known as The Sermon on the Mount" and the sermon in Luke 6. This is easily dealt with in that what is recorded in Luke is said to be "on the plain," an obviously different location. Jesus was an itinerant preacher. Like the circuit riders in the American west, He would have preached similar sermons repeatedly, according to the period of ministry He was into at the time. I recall someone recently comparing similar occaisons where He said to someone, "Take up your bed and walk." They thought there was some difference in the accounts. While I didn't mention it there, here let me note that Jesus healed almost certainly more than a million people in the days of His flesh. I wonder if it could've been more than a hundred times he used that phrase. Why think it was only once? Jesus "cleansed the temple" twice. John reveals the time early in His ministry. Some, by supposing this occured only once, have proof that somebody has put it in the wrong time sequence. This kind of thing goes on and on. What is accomplished with answers if they're not wanted? It isn't that the truth is unreasonable. It is that it is not loved.
As far as any common agendas in the gospels...you better heed them if you recognize them! It's about what it has to do with us today. Religious systems still oppose Jesus. The Judaism of Jesus day was God's religion of that time. Institutional Christianity today has many parallels with that system.
Quote from: reFORMer on March 10, 2008, 06:25:17 AM
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2008, 05:18:45 AM
Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.
On topic: "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing. Charge these things and teach."
The phrase, "Against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" is actually, "Against wicked 'pneumatikon'" which in 1 Corinthians 12 was rendered, "spritual gifts." Hence, an aspect of what we strive against is "wicked gifts of the spirit." Whether this is because some have departed from or refused entry into the Kingdom of God, though they are gifted with gifts that God will not take back, so they are using them against God and His people or these are pre-ordained spiritual workings more directly of the evil...it may be both...
You're full of all these little gems, Reformer. This almost sounds like demon spirits. Yes, demons full of malice. Who knows what they are.
[wrestle against]
"spiritual" wickedness
G4152
πνευματικός
pneumatikosphyoo-mat-ik-os'
From G4151;
non-carnal, that is, (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or
(daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious: - spiritual. Compare G5591.
I had no idea Jesus healed a million people. That's a lot of demons.
Quote from: Cardinal on March 08, 2008, 03:58:25 PM
:cloud9: It's not a question of what I believe, it's a matter of what the Spirit of God spoke out of my mouth at my bible study about 1 year after I came to him, that completely bypassed my carnal mind. See, He is a Spirit, and He can do whatever He wants with a completely surrendered vessel. Actually, He can with a completely UN-surrendered vessel also, but tries to be gentlemanly about it and not give the unbelieving heart attacks. :laughing7:
I don't think this is going anywhere and is off topic anyway. People's personal experiences are taken as empirical evidence of something and are trotted out to me as such. have heard enough to not accept such tales at face value. I'm not saying deception, I just know that people are capable of apparently believing all sorts of things. I am back to logic and reason and evidence again, not subjective experiences.
QuoteAnd; What's WRONG with :cloud9: PINK whitewash? I happen to like pink whitewash, personally. What's neat about your color choice there, Trans, is pink is the color of His love. If you mix white (righteousness) with the red (the blood), you get pink, the love. Gosh, if I didn't know better :winkgrin: I'd think He was starting to speak thru YOU........ :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings to you.......
It ain't my favourite colour but it's ok. Depends how it is used. On a house or fence it may make me wince but...fair enough. It's when it is used to slosh over a wallfull of information and reports that it becomes a bit annoying.
Quote from: Reverend G on March 09, 2008, 05:47:48 PM
Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours. The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today. Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur. Even atheists. ". If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?
How easily you revert to quoting (supposed) authority is a way that you would never do in respect of evolution. I say 'supposed' as your implied universal acceptance of the general historicity of the gospel account is by no means as universal as you would like.
But it isn't a numbers game. It isn't even an authority game. If you want authority, Molly brought to my attention that the Jefferson Bible clearly accepted the general shape of the Jesus story (in a very uncritical way) but clearly didn't accept any of the miraculous stuff.
It's probably inevitable that people will bring their own 'take' to the Gospel story. Some will be believers and some skeptics. That doesn't matter. What matters is how honestly and fully they consider the story.
One incredibly erudite book on Matthew still shrugged off the 'two donkeys' problem in a way that would have disgraced a Bible-literalist. Others have evaluated the story objectively and have produced the conclusions that I share. It doesn't take a genius to see which are looking at the problems and which are shrugging them off - as you do.
" Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not"
Sadly you persist in misrepresenting me and trying to fudge the issue. Sadly, your dishonesty - for - Faith is becoming ever more evident. It is beside the point how smart these guys were and how well-honed their journalism was. What is at issue is that their accounts differ so strikingly at salient points that the supposition that they were eyewitness accounts cannot be sustained, and the evidence that the events have been doctored to prove Jesus miraculous, is not to be dismissed, other than by trying to ignore the whole issue in the interests of maintaining faith - as you are doing.
In the end it doesn't matter to me what you believe, what matters is what you can convince me of. So far you haven't even tried, you have evaded the whole matter, which is enough to convince me that you don't trust the gospels to add up yourself.
Quote from: Molly on March 09, 2008, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: Transponder on March 09, 2008, 05:40:12 PM
Very well. In that case should we not try to get an overall view in comparing varying accounts, taking into account the particular angle of the paper or editir or govrnment that controls the view of the pare, rather than just accepting whatever is said, on trust?
This is getting away from the ET mindset, rather, but it does have a bearing on the sort of mentality one brings to reading the bible - or anything else, for that matter.
What is your point? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were lousy 'journalists'? They were not journalists, they were writing the Holy Scripture.
And, as far as modern day journalists are concerned, they write what they are told and they publish what their editor will allow. Not much difference here, except in the above case, the editor was God.
Answered above, to Rev. G. Study -
proper study of the gospels, will make it clear that the were not written by Jesus' disciples at all. That's beside the point. What is the point is that even if dumb fishermen reported something it would not differ so wildly as much of the gospel does unless someone was tinkering with the text, and it would not agree to the extent of using the same wording, unless it was common text they were tinkering with. The evidence is staring us in the face.
Quote from: jabcat on March 09, 2008, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: Molly on March 09, 2008, 05:49:57 PM
And, as far as modern day journalists are concerned, they write what they are told and they publish what their editor will allow. Not much difference here, except in the above case, the editor was God.
I really like this quote Molly. As I said earlier, we all serve somebody. Our carnal mind may think we only answer to ourselves, and we may call that logic, reason, "seeing through things", having a higher consciousness, whatever. But I maintain we're either influenced by the god of this world, or YHWH, Father-God Who loves us and only wants what's best for us. Trans, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think you "see through" believers. Well, God has prepared me to be able to "see through" atheists...He has given me 40+ years of observing, interacting with, and coming to know the mindset...and He shows me that a mistaken belief in controlling one's own destiny is exactly what Satan wants carnal man to believe...that's exactly a main way he influences us, subtly whispering in our ear that we know better than God, that we really can "lean to our own understanding". That lie is as old as this creation, and most men are still falling for it.
Of course, we all think we know better than the other suckers who are deluded. That's why personal views are not to be trusted, and the most reliable guide is what can be shown on paper; not in the mind. What I show in paper is being ignored in favour of being told that what is in your minds must be true. And here you all are telling each other so.
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2008, 05:18:45 AM
Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Ps 94:11
If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! Matthew 6:23
Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. Prov. 3:5
Exact quote from The Christian Bible -- "For our wrestling isn't against blood and flesh, but against the supreme chiefs, against the authorities, against the mighty world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens [Satan and his workers]!" Eph. 6:12, The Christian Bible.
On topic: "Jesus is Savior of all men, especially of those believing. Charge these things and teach."
I don't know whether this is supposed to convince me or just give you another faith-shot, but I'll tell you now that Bible-preaching does not impress me.
Quote from: reFORMer on March 10, 2008, 06:52:05 AM
Quote from: Reverend G on March 09, 2008, 05:47:48 PM
Actually, greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue of the Gospels numerous times, and come to conclusions vastly different from yours. The idea of a source (Quelle) is known and disputed, even today. Of course, either way, the end run does not dispute that the events related by all 4 Gospels are the same events, and most agree that they did occur. Even atheists. Sadly, you insist on giving these writers great intellects and journalistic abilities, when they were not. If Jesus wanted it covered better, I guess he should have had a press corps?
What you say: "...Greater minds than mine, or yours, have covered the issue..." is what seems so overlooked by some. There are numerous books written for hundreds of years on the difficulties and alleged discrepancies of the Bible. While not all of the same quality, there are a number that answer so many of these common objections. I covered that ground so many years ago I forgot much and now my books are in boxes or given away, so I lack easy answers...often I just don't have the patience to type out such irksome minutiae. Why don't you look into some of the apologetic material online Transponder? It's sad to know there are answers for your assertions and not be able to get them to you.
I believe there are 358 verses in Mark that are in common with the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke. This is referred to as "Q." As a document, nothing of the sort has ever been found. The source was probably Mary who "hid these things in her heart."
An example sometimes offered as proof of unreliability is the difference between the sermon in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 known as The Sermon on the Mount" and the sermon in Luke 6. This is easily dealt with in that what is recorded in Luke is said to be "on the plain," an obviously different location. Jesus was an itinerant preacher. Like the circuit riders in the American west, He would have preached similar sermons repeatedly, according to the period of ministry He was into at the time. I recall someone recently comparing similar occaisons where He said to someone, "Take up your bed and walk." They thought there was some difference in the accounts. While I didn't mention it there, here let me note that Jesus healed almost certainly more than a million people in the days of His flesh. I wonder if it could've been more than a hundred times he used that phrase. Why think it was only once? Jesus "cleansed the temple" twice. John reveals the time early in His ministry. Some, by supposing this occured only once, have proof that somebody has put it in the wrong time sequence. This kind of thing goes on and on. What is accomplished with answers if they're not wanted? It isn't that the truth is unreasonable. It is that it is not loved.
As far as any common agendas in the gospels...you better heed them if you recognize them! It's about what it has to do with us today. Religious systems still oppose Jesus. The Judaism of Jesus day was God's religion of that time. Institutional Christianity today has many parallels with that system.
I have pretty much dealt with this but I'll say (or ask) again, you really think I haven't read apologetic literature? Do you think I haven't looked up the believer explanations for these Gospel problems? It is reading those that did the most to convince me that something was wrong, because their arguments ranged from the slipshod to the irrelevant. Just the sort we have had here - suggestions that the synoptics overlooked the Thomas episode because of some personal revulsion. Or the dismissing of problems with argument from eyewitness discrepancies or 'they were not Journalists'. That is not looking at the problem, it is ignoring it.
This is a good example:
"I believe there are 358 verses in Mark that are in common with the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke. This is referred to as "Q." As a document, nothing of the sort has ever been found. The source was probably Mary who "hid these things in her heart."
Vague references to "Q" which sounds nice and authoritative, and is a basis for dispute even now. And then a 'probably' source (anyone will do - backed up with a Biblequote as though that proved anything) which is enough for you to put the whole matter out of your mind and go back to Faith.
Ok, like I said to the Rev. That's your choice. But it doesn't amount to squat as sound evidence.
QuoteAn example sometimes offered as proof of unreliability is the difference between the sermon in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 known as The Sermon on the Mount" and the sermon in Luke 6. This is easily dealt with in that what is recorded in Luke is said to be "on the plain," an obviously different location. Jesus was an itinerant preacher. Like the circuit riders in the American west, He would have preached similar sermons repeatedly, according to the period of ministry He was into at the time. I recall someone recently comparing similar occaisons where He said to someone, "Take up your bed and walk." They thought there was some difference in the accounts. While I didn't mention it there, here let me note that Jesus healed almost certainly more than a million people in the days of His flesh. I wonder if it could've been more than a hundred times he used that phrase. Why think it was only once? Jesus "cleansed the temple" twice. John reveals the time early in His ministry. Some, by supposing this occured only once, have proof that somebody has put it in the wrong time sequence. This kind of thing goes on and on.
Excellent. We are on the same page. That is just the conclusion I came to. The two sermons (if genuine) were given in different places. The difference between you and me is you, satisfied and your doubts put at rest, put the matter out of your mind. I didn't. I looked further. And it became clear that the historicity of the sermons is doubtful for other reasons than the discrepancies between the two versions.
Your explanation of the 'pick up your bed and walk' (I think it was me that raised the matter) is a typical example of explaining away the problem. The same phrase was used on more than one occasion. Again, satisfied, you put the matter out of your head. Taken out of the big picture that would work. Explaining each problem more or less (usually less) convincingly enables the question of historicity to be shelved.
Doesn't even need to be each problem. Find one easily explained and tacitly argue that this must explain all the others, too.
You don't need to take my word for it. Listen to Pierac, was it? and his post on the septuagint. Didn't it clear up the problem of why the gospel quotes were wrong? It was because they quoted from the Septuagint. Problem solved, except, why would supposed Galileans and Judeans take their Bible quotes from a greek translation? I have no doubt that can be shrugged off as an irrelevant detail or there must be some explanation. I could come up with a dozen myself, more or less far - fetched.
And if you really think that the gospel accounts show two separate cleansings rather than John shifted the one in time, then I cannot respect either your intelligence or honesty. Are you going to tell me that Jesus probably did a lot of temple cleansings and quite likely used the same wording on all those occasions. And so, quite probably did the sanhedrin when they came to ask what he was doing. Quite a conventional little rite. Come on; they are the same account. Be honest with yourself, even if you can't be honest with me.
QuoteWhat is accomplished with answers if they're not wanted? It isn't that the truth is unreasonable. It is that it is not loved.
As far as any common agendas in the gospels...you better heed them if you recognize them! It's about what it has to do with us today. Religious systems still oppose Jesus. The Judaism of Jesus day was God's religion of that time. Institutional Christianity today has many parallels with that system.
Have to agree. What is the use of proving anything if people won't listen? It isn't that it is wong, it is that the faithful don't want to lose their faith. I couldn't agree more. The faiths of today are looking more and more like the pharisees of the gospels. Sight more than the actual Pharisees of Jesus' time ever did. The lone voice attracted some attention but nothing but hostility amongst the 'Pharisees'. They didn't want to change their entrenched beliefs, isn't that it?.
QuoteThe faiths of today are looking more and more like the pharisees of the gospels. Sight more than the actual Pharisees of Jesus' time ever did. The lone voice attracted some attention but nothing but hostility amongst the 'Pharisees'. They didn't want to change their entrenched beliefs, isn't that it?.
You are overlooking a few very important things. The Pharisees were not only the religious leaders of the day, they were also the political leaders and the richest and most powerful men in the group--a combination of riches and power, such that could hold a fake mock trial and kill a man just because they didn't like what he was saying.
So if you want to look for the Pharisees of today, look for the richest and most powerful in the group--any group you are looking at. That is where you will find them.
Then, if you are able, scratch the surface a bit and you will find they are liars, thieves, and cheats, robbing the people blind, and without justice or mercy, making this place hell on earth.
And, if you can do that, you may begin to understand, if not the spiritual implications, at least the social ones.
Very useful points Molly. Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.
I found some good reminders for me, may help some others as well. I'm fine with discussing things and "contending for the faith", but for my (and I believe God's) purposes, I don't feel OK about lashing out, personally attacking, etc...(not saying I'm good at this :mblush:) It seems for the most part, IMO, everyone in this discussion has done a good job of being considerate of individual(s). God's blessing, James.
Taken from www.believers.org/argue.htm
Why Doesn't God Settle This?
You might be frustrated with God -- thinking that He should have made things clearer so it would be impossible to doubt.
Here are some interesting Scriptures concerning people not being able to believe unless God reveals Himself to them : Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 6:44, John 6:64-65.
Interestingly, after people turned away from Him, Jesus made no effort to change their minds (John 6:66-67).
Obviously, God does not reveal Himself to everyone in the same measure. Does that mean God is unfair? No. Just that He knows people's heart and how they will respond..[and He works all according to His will--addition mine].
God Wants Diligent Seekers
It seems God is not interested in revealing Himself to casual inquirers -- He desires diligent seekers.
HEBREWS 11:6 NKJ
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Does God Want Us To Defend Him?
Mainly, God wants us to be a witness by walking with Him and walking in love toward our fellow-man. (God commanded us to love our neighbors -- but did not command us to convert them.) [Only God can change the heart--addition mine].
QuoteIt seems God is not interested in revealing Himself to casual inquirers -- He desires diligent seekers.
HEBREWS 11:6 NKJ
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Yes, he makes this promise to those who seek him.
Deuteronomy 4:29
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.QuoteMainly, God wants us to be a witness by walking with Him and walking in love toward our fellow-man. (God commanded us to love our neighbors -- but did not command us to convert them.) [Only God can change the heart--addition mine].
That's right, Jab.
Matthew 10:14
And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.
Quoteauthor=Molly link=topic=2120.msg22961#msg22961 date=1205183980
QuoteThe faiths of today are looking more and more like the pharisees of the gospels. Sight more than the actual Pharisees of Jesus' time ever did. The lone voice attracted some attention but nothing but hostility amongst the 'Pharisees'. They didn't want to change their entrenched beliefs, isn't that it?.
QuoteYou are overlooking a few very important things. The Pharisees were not only the religious leaders of the day, they were also the political leaders and the richest and most powerful men in the group--a combination of riches and power, such that could hold a fake mock trial and kill a man just because they didn't like what he was saying.
You are overlooking one rather important thing yourself, Molly, which is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your Gospel - derived misrepresentation of the Pharisees applies more to the Sadducees - they were the aristocratic families with riches and power - gained from working with the Romans, which is why they ran the Temple.
The Pharisees were ordinary people, learned in scripture, but doing ordinary jobs and teaching the ordinary people in synagogues. So your point below rather falls flat.
"So if you want to look for the Pharisees of today, look for the richest and most powerful in the group--any group you are looking at. That is where you will find them."
However, that is (was) the actuality. When we talk of 'Pharisees' in the sense of Biblical hostility to the 'lone voice' we are talking of the gospel view. Incorrect and biased, but that is the view nonetheless. And we see it today.
"Then, if you are able, scratch the surface a bit and you will find they are liars, thieves, and cheats, robbing the people blind, and without justice or mercy, making this place hell on earth."
And where do you find them? The powerful ones with enough money to shoehorn a conflict-starting idiot into the White House? Owning hospitals, colleges and TV networks and using those to indoctrinate US youth with their Bible - based if not Creationist views? Who, Molly?
QuoteAnd, if you can do that, you may begin to understand, if not the spiritual implications, at least the social ones.
Oh, I understand it. Do you?
QuoteHere are some interesting Scriptures concerning people not being able to believe unless God reveals Himself to them : Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 6:44, John 6:64-65.
Interestingly, after people turned away from Him, Jesus made no effort to change their minds (John 6:66-67).
I'm not sure whether those other posts were directed to me or just a huddle "Never mind what the atheist says - just focus on your faith" however, the whole point of my being here (for all that I have got involved in debates on genesis and evolution) is to question whether the gospels are generally reliable records of what Jesus was, did and said, or whether they are the views of Pauline Christians. If they are (the latter) then deriving proof of Christian belief from their quotes is the most circular of circular arguments.
If Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, then whatever good advice or philosophies may be found in the Bible, or in Christian sages or philosophers, they carry no more weight or authority than any other human thinker's opinion, and quoting John as proof of anything is utterly misquided.
How do we find out whether the gospels are to be trusted or not? By looking at them honestly and objectively. I really doubt that any here could do that. Faith makes it impossible.
:cloud9: Trans, I know this is off topic but...........my father was an atheist until about 30 days before he died. Right before he went thru his second emergency surgery, to be exact. He was 68 years old. Now while I rejoiced that he had found the Lord of all and gave thanks for it, I also grieved for a life wasted by bitterness and blaming God for something He had nothing to do (his father was murdered at age 11) with. A life that could have known His peace, joy, and most of all, His unconditional love he didn't know he craved until the last 2 years of his life.
Like you, he was very intellectual; he read law books at night for entertainment and eschewed the dumbing down of our culture by it's dependence on the television. He was a health nut before anyone knew what a health nut was. He had some very good qualities and some very bad qualities, but at the end of it all, he recognized he was not all-powerful and if there was a God, he owed it to himself to take a chance and find out for himself.
I hope that you too, take a chance at some point, throw all reason to wind, and I hope that, unlike my father, you don't wait until almost the end to do it. :HeartThrob: Blessings to you......
Quote from: jabcat on March 11, 2008, 12:18:19 AM
Very useful points Molly. Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.
You all lost me a long time ago. But I keep checking in to see if there are any new posters to my original question. :grin:
Quote from: Cardinal on March 11, 2008, 03:07:27 PM
:cloud9: Trans, I know this is off topic but...........my father was an atheist until about 30 days before he died. Right before he went thru his second emergency surgery, to be exact. He was 68 years old. Now while I rejoiced that he had found the Lord of all and gave thanks for it, I also grieved for a life wasted by bitterness and blaming God for something He had nothing to do (his father was murdered at age 11) with. A life that could have known His peace, joy, and most of all, His unconditional love he didn't know he craved until the last 2 years of his life.
Like you, he was very intellectual; he read law books at night for entertainment and eschewed the dumbing down of our culture by it's dependence on the television. He was a health nut before anyone knew what a health nut was. He had some very good qualities and some very bad qualities, but at the end of it all, he recognized he was not all-powerful and if there was a God, he owed it to himself to take a chance and find out for himself.
I hope that you too, take a chance at some point, throw all reason to wind, and I hope that, unlike my father, you don't wait until almost the end to do it. :HeartThrob: Blessings to you......
I take your post as well intentioned rather than a pleas for God to open tranponder's heart. And if your father found some sort of peace because he couldn't face the inevitability of death the way I'm ready for mine whenever, then I'm happy for him - in a way.
Quote from: gr8wuf on March 11, 2008, 03:31:53 PM
Quote from: jabcat on March 11, 2008, 12:18:19 AM
Very useful points Molly. Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.
You all lost me a long time ago. But I keep checking in to see if there are any new posters to my original question. :grin:
Sorry about that. I recall that my suggestion was 'selectively' or at least, interpreting it to fit the ET mindset. Ir, if one can't do that, avoid reading it much at all. After all as has been said before on the boards, it is not the Bible that is the basis of Christian faith, but the Christian faith itself.
Quote from: gr8wuf on February 12, 2008, 05:38:43 PM
Any suggestions as to how to approach a "re-reading" of sorts?
This is something that I also have recently wondered. As I have scoured the internet reading articles and such I wish for scripture to come alive for me when just reading verses.
I come to think about this recently and am taking this route, at least for the time being.
We hear God created everything, but did he really? I do not believe God created Love, God
is Love. So, why wouldn't every single verse somehow be a declaration of Love?
Got this in an email recently....says a lot about the why we shouldn't fear the "lake of fire". Don't know how much truth there is to it, but it is a great analogy.
Malachi
3:3 says:'He
will sit as a refiner and purifier of
silver.'
This verse puzzled some women
in a Bible study and they
wondered what this statement
meant about the character and
nature of God.
One of the women offered to
find out the process of refining
silver and get back to
the group
at their next Bible Study.
That week, the woman called a
silversmith and made an
appointment
to watch him at
work. She didn't mention
anything about the reason for
her interest beyond her curiosity
about the process of refining
Silver.
As she watched the silversmith,
he held a piece of silver over
the fire and let it heat up. He
explained that in refining silver,
one needed to hold the silver in
the middle of the fire where
the flames were hottest as to
burn away all the impurities.
The woman thought
about God holding us in such a hot spot;
then she thought again about
the verse that says:
'He sits as a
refiner and purifier of silver.'
She asked the silversmith if it
was true that he had to sit there
in front of the fire the whole
time.
The man answered that
yes, he
not only had to sit there holding
the silver, but he had to keep
his eyes on the silver the entire
time it was in the fire. If the silver
was left a moment too long in the flames, it
would be destroyed.
The woman was silent for a
moment. Then she asked the silversmith, 'How
do you know
when the silver is fully
refined?'
He smiled at
her and answered,
'Oh, that's easy -- when I see
my image in it.'
Quote from: gr8wuf on February 12, 2008, 05:38:43 PM
Okay, I haven't actually read the Bible in a very long time especially since coming to a belief in UR. Why? Well first off I've been set free from the condemnation of not reading the Bible, but more so ...
When I want to read it, as I read I hear that old ET mindset and just seem to get confused.
Any suggestions as to how to approach a "re-reading" of sorts?
Very simple. The Lord said to me as clear as day. Always read everything from the perspective of love, and with the expectation and understanding of love. You will never read Scripture the same again; if you read something that confuses you or seems to be opposite of love; then you misunderstood it, keep reading.
willieH: Hi Paul... :hithere:
:dsunny: :dsunny: :dsunny:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on May 24, 2008, 08:48:38 AMWe hear God created everything, but did he really? I do not believe God created Love, God is Love. So, why wouldn't every single verse somehow be a declaration of Love?
:goodpost:
I agree Paul... He did not "create" LOVE, for LOVE is ETERNAL, and is the essence of WHO and WHAT He is... :HeartThrob: :gangel: :cloud9:
GOD created all within the FINITE realm of TIME... that which is ETERNAL, ...always
IS...
:HeartThrob: pEAce :HeartThrob:
...willieH :happy3:
Quote from: Transponder on March 10, 2008, 11:11:11 AM
I don't think this is going anywhere and is off topic anyway. People's personal experiences are taken as empirical evidence of something and are trotted out to me as such. have heard enough to not accept such tales at face value. I'm not saying deception, I just know that people are capable of apparently believing all sorts of things. I am back to logic and reason and evidence again, not subjective experiences.
I can't argue that because I've found it true in my own life. Like you, I have always placed a high value on reason and (linear) logic. But, being a long time feminist, I equally value the feminine counterparts, emotion and intuition.
The (maybe not so) odd thing is, that in the end, I found that emotion and intuitive thinking could not prove spiritual reality any more than reason and logic could. As you said, you end up with subjective, relative truth, never sure that what you have experienced is THE ontonlogical capital-T Truth we all say we are seeking in life.
I realized that my mind could create rational arguments for either side of any debate. If someone says they can prove the afterlife with NDEs, I can whip out Persinger's studies and show that what seems "proof" of an afterlife may be no more than manipulation of particular areas of the brain, or the process of the brain shutting down before true death. If you gave me an argument from the bible, I could show you a conflicting passage that threw both into doubt, and trust in the bible along with it. Talk to me about the doctrines of religion and I could counter with the controlling goals of the four pillars of society and how religion was one of the main methods of controlling the masses, particularly women.
As for personal spiritual experience, well, no matter how convincing such events are, they can't really be trusted because they are just as likely to be a product of my own ego needs as a visitation from God. As good as they "felt," the feeling was not proof of God's existence.
I finally came to the place I could best describe as standing on the edge of a deep abyss, surrounded by darkness. Neither logic/reason or intuition/emotion could prove OR disprove the existence of God. I had equally compelling reasons to believe or disbelieve.
All I was left with at that time was my will. What did I choose to believe?
I realized at that moment that both belief in God and atheism had to be acts of faith, since neither can be proven or disproven by the other.
My husband is an atheist and, not surprisingly, he tells me of reaching the same moment and he described it exactly as I did--standing on the edge of a deep abyss, surrounded by darkness.
We each also admitted to the other that, at that point, we had the feeling we were being asked to jump in. My husband told me his response was "That's irrational and illogical! No way will I jump."
As for me, I decided to jump, perhaps because I have had subjective spiritual experiences that led me to HOPE that what I could not prove MIGHT be true, and I would just as soon crash on the unseen rocks I was sure was below if it meant finally having the answer I sought. As long as I stood on the edge of that abysss, hesitating, I would never know. The thing is, when I finally did jump, I was surprised to find that I could "fly."
When I discovered that I was perfectly free to choose either option (belief in God or not) because I had no rational or emotional proof either way, I decided that life lived according to the Way Jesus taught made me happy because it was focused on love. Whether that happiness was "articifial" or not didn't matter. The practical reality is whatever I experience subjectively.
I came to understand that the best we can do in life is discover our own relative, small-t truth and hope that it approximates whatever the capital-T ontological Truth is.
My point, Transponder, is that you can argue the details of the bible or belief in God endlessly, but that avoids the underlying issue any true seeker after Truth must face: in light of no proof either way, do you jump or not?
I can't argue if you think such a choice is irrational and illogical, because essentially you are correct. But I will say that you will NEVER know until or unless you do jump. You will continue to debate and discuss and attempt to disprove every thing that offers you the hope necessary to jump, but all you've done is show one half of what those on the edge of that abyss understand: that there is no rational or emotional proof either for OR against the existence of God. The truth doesn't come in showing there is no proof FOR God, but in admitting the obverse as well and realizing that the only way to truly know is to jump blindly and see what happens.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: gr8wuf on March 11, 2008, 03:31:53 PM
Quote from: jabcat on March 11, 2008, 12:18:19 AM
Very useful points Molly. Jeanne, do you see what you started? :laugh:.
You all lost me a long time ago. But I keep checking in to see if there are any new posters to my original question. :grin:
Someone else gave you the advice I would have: read the bible in the context of Jesus' teachings about God being Love. Anything that doesnt conform to that is based on some assumption you have in your mind about what it should mean.
When I returned to bible reading this was the method I used:
1. ask for the Holy Spirit's grace to see what you cannot see presently
2. look for the underlying assumption
3. once you recognize it, re-ask the question
4. and then read the passage again.
Most of what we object to in the bible comes from accepting the unspoken assumptions we have about it. Once we get past the assumptions, it's amazing how unified the truth of the bible really is, and it all hinges on UR, imo.
As an example, most Christians assume the existence of eternal punishment. Once we identify the assumption, we can reread and see all the passages pertaining to God's plan being universal restoration of all things through Christ.
Since you've seen past that assumption, start asking yourself where this new understanding comes into conflict with something else. And then look for the assumption there.
That begins a process of relearning most of what we have been taught.
IF you think this might work for you as a practical way of studying the bible again, let me know and I'd be happy to go over a few of the assumptions I had to rethink myself.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: autoimmune on June 15, 2008, 10:45:34 PM
Once we get past the assumptions, it's amazing how unified the truth of the bible really is, and it all hinges on UR, imo.
As an example, most Christians assume the existence of eternal punishment. Once we identify the assumption, we can reread and see all the passages pertaining to God's plan being universal restoration of all things through Christ.
Since you've seen past that assumption, start asking yourself where this new understanding comes into conflict with something else. And then look for the assumption there.
That begins a process of relearning most of what we have been taught.
IF you think this might work for you as a practical way of studying the bible again, let me know and I'd be happy to go over a few of the assumptions I had to rethink myself.
Mary Ellen
Why don't you go ahead and expound on this if you'd like, Mary Ellen? I think it's interesting and could be helpful. James.
Quote from: jabcat on June 16, 2008, 10:01:03 AM
Why don't you go ahead and expound on this if you'd like, Mary Ellen? I think it's interesting and could be helpful. James.
LOL! I'm good at talking a lot, not so sure on the expounding part, though. Thank you, for inviting me to add to the conversation, James. As a newbie it takes time to get a feel for the forum and then decide where to join the conversations.
A good example of unseen assumptions would be another thread I posted on yesterday, where a member asked what was the good in proselytizing if everyone was saved anyway?
The assumption here is that the reason we preach the gospel is to save sinners from hell. Now, that's almost as much a given in Christians' minds as ET is. Very hard to get past assumptions because we accept them without thinking about them. They seem to be foundational to our belief, so when they are questioned people naturally get upset.
I'm cautious about questioning people's assumptions because about 25 years ago a gentleman I was debating with actually ended up in a straight jacket in a psych ward that evening because I put a crack in a foundation he had never questioned (his biblical belief that women are subjected to men). I was ashamed of myself because I had done it from intellectual pride, not true love for him. I also realized that we should never tear down such walls and foundations unless we have something the person can put back into its place.
I learned the hard way that the only reason to question the assumption is so we can discover the correct question to ask and find the answer to it in the scriptures, thus building up the Body of Christ, not tearing it down with dissension.
If UR is a valid doctrine (and yes, I believe it is), then the foundational belief should lead to questions being re-asked about much of what we believe as Christians, with a reformulation of the Christian message overall, not just the one aspect of whether hell exists or not. We cannot change one facet of our Christian belief without it impacting on all the other doctrines related to it. And, from what I've seen over the years, everything from Genesis to Revelation is connected to UR vs ET.
When someone asks the question about why bother with the Great Commission, I usually see people responding based upon the same assumption--that we preach it to save others from hell. Then a debate ensues about hell itself with the same old passages concerning the aeon, a flurry of greek words proving either sides point, a long mess of quotes from Jesus varying between love your brother to worms that don't die. The debate revolves around the assumption, not the underlying issue it covers.
If, instead we identify that assumption, then we can see what question(s) we SHOULD be asking and what we should be looking for in scripture instead.
In this case, it becomes, "If the Good News is the restoration of all things to God through Christ, then what is the reason for the Great Commission?"
I can think of a few people might consider. Each one requires us to do extensive studying on the word to see if it fits, and if not, why not (which usually helps us find other assumptions about scriptural interpretations we didn't realize were lurking).
1. We preach the Good News to bring the Kingdom of God/peace/love here to the earth.
Is this biblically sound? In some ways, yes, love can change people around us and sometimes do wonderful things in society. But has non-violence ever trumped the world's way? There are many passages in the bible indicating this cannot happen completely through man's efforts before the return of Christ. For one thing, death has not been conquered yet, and the meek can never inherit the earth as long as Mammon's violence trumps non-violence. And history shows this is always true. We change hearts with love, but man has never yet been able to change social structure's dependence on human violence.
The violence exists because the world is still operating under original sin (even within Christians to some extent who should have claimed their freedom from that through Christ). We believe that we can determine (judge) the good in ourselves and the evil in others, and then bring "justice" through "good" government, war, economic means, education of others, converting them to our way of thought . . . none of it works because it's all based on the world's system, not God's.
The simple truth according to the bible is that the meek will inherit the world, but that cannot be done until death loses its sting (which, btw, should raise our spiritual eyebrows to wonder about the assumptions we make on that topic as well).
2. Paul gives us another reason we preach the gospel in Ephesians 4. As a prelude he tells us within the first chapter that the "mystery of his (God's) will" is "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all tings in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth in him." At the end of that chapter we see that he says the Body of Christ is the church.
He uses the next chapters to describe how that body is built, that it plays a part in this mystery, then gives the "good news" that Jesus came, died, rose for us, descended into "the lower parts of the earth so that he might fill all in all" (UR again), then established the church and its makeup for a reason.
Paul typically does a long intro to any salient point he wishes emphasize, normally ending with a therefore, thereby or conclusion. He goes to great pains to give all the background a Christian needs to know before saying "this is what my main point is." In Ephesians 4 Paul comes to the point: this is the reason Christ established his church, his very own Body; this is the reason we preach the good news.
To create the ideal man in Christ.
Paul says the very reason we have all those ministries, the reason we preach the good news is to find those others called by God to be built into the "perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulnes of Christ."
So, it seems that Paul begins by telling us he knows a great mystery (UR), and that the reason for all ministries within the body is to BUILD the Body unto Christ full stature.
In the next chapter, he finally reveals the why of the Great Commission, which is the essence of that great mystery he is trying to reveal to us. He introduces it by paralleling it to marriage, the oneness between two. His purpose is not to set up an arbitrary social rule about wives being submissive to their husbands, as so many think, but to explain using a human example the nature of the great mystery he has been revealing in Ephesians: that the reason we preach the gospel, have ministries is to build that "ideal man," the church, who is His Body because s/he is also the Bride of Christ. And the Bride and Christ are one.
Eph 5: 32 "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."
And that is an essential part in achieving the will of God, which is UR.
So, if UR is true, then we do not preach the gospel to save sinners from hell, but to find those with ears to hear and eyes to see who are "predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph 1: 11)
We were given the Great Commission to find and build the church, Christ's Bride, so that the final restoration of all could be accomplished according to God's will. Unless and until the Bride is built up, this cannot be achieved.
That leads to other assumptions I had to question, and more bible searching. But step by step UR and the role the Body of Christ plays in it has been leading me into a better understanding of what Paul understood about the Body of Christ and its role in the final restoration of all things. To be honest, over the last two years my focus has been on the Body of Christ, not UR, but no matter which way I turned, UR was at the heart of understanding because it had switched my perspective enough to be able to see what seemed hidden behind the assumptions before.
A few extra passages relating to the above:
Mar 4: 11 "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables" (those with ears to hear and understand the mystery are his followers these are the ones we are seeking when we preach, just as Jesus sought and found the 12 and his other disciples)
Col 1: 27-28 "To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:" (again the combination of the mystery, preaching, the perfect man in Christ)
Rom 16: 25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began," (again, preaching is done in accordance with this mystery concerning the Body of Christ).
There are others, but this post is long enough and I do believe each person should seek these things out themselves anyway. Just do a search on the term mystery within the NT.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to illustrate what I meant in yesterday's post.
Mary Ellen