"Yea, Hath God Said?"
Randy ®
once the mind doubts God�s Word, there is room for the devil�s
lies to move in. Satan questioned God�s Word (Gen_3:1), denied
God�s Word (Gen_3:4), and then substituted his own lies
(Gen_3:5). Note that Satan seeks to undermine our faith in the
goodness of God � he suggested to Eve that God was �holding out
on them� by keeping them from the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil. When we question God�s goodness and doubt His love, we
are playing right into the hands of Satan. Satan made the
temptation sound wonderful by making an offer: �You will be like
God!� Satan himself had wanted to be �like the Most High�
(Isa_14:14), and centuries later he offered Christ �all the
kingdoms of the world� if He would worship him (Mat_4:8).
(Wiersbe's Expository Outlines)
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
I
(Sung to the tune of Donovan Leitch's "I Love My Shirt")
I have me bible that I really luv,
One that I quote so piously.
I even think that it's "God's Word",
That only makes me luv it more.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
Dribble, dribble
Fart fart
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
~ James MacDonald
James MacDonald (Author)
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
"God wrote a book." There is something very powerful in that simple
statement. The book, of course, is the Bible, and because God is its
author, it's the most important work ever written. Millions across the
world agree with that, yet many believe it only conceptually, doubting
that the words of the Bible are in fact the very words of God.
Pastor James MacDonald addresses today's disturbing trend away from
taking God's Word seriously. He clarifies the misconceptions that
surround the infallibility, reliability, and historicity of the Bible
and explains why he believes it is the inspired Word of God, how it
originated, what the Bible is good for, and its benefits to us.
Written to believers and non-believers who have questions, this book
on the Good Book has the answers.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Wrote-Book-James-MacDonald/dp/1581346220
I
> God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
Which one?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
The various versions agree about 95% of the time.
Most variations don't affect anything. If you are serious
we can discuss texual criticism, and the two schools
of thought. One Burgon of Oxford called the German Scholarship,
and the one he called the Traditional text.
>
> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
So, only you can quote God?
Jim
Lu 1:2 -Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
2Pe 1:16 -For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
I
>> > God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
>> Which one?
> The various versions agree about 95% of the time.
What's the name of the book GOD wrote as opposed to the bible which was
completely written by humans????
You haven't answered the question.
> Lu 1:2 -Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
> beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word
Unfortunately the author of Luke wasn't an eyewitness to the historic time /
space Jesus of Nazareth. His narrative is based upon Mark's account. Third
hand testimony at best.
> 2Pe 1:16
A well-known forgery written 100 - 160 CE when the apostle peter was DEAD.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
> >> Which one?
> > The various versions agree about 95% of the time.
>
> What's the name of the book GOD wrote as opposed to the bible which was
> completely written by humans????
>
> You haven't answered the question.
>
2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness:
> > Lu 1:2 -Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
> > beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word
>
> Unfortunately the author of Luke wasn't an eyewitness to the historic time /
> space Jesus of Nazareth. His narrative is based upon Mark's account. Third
> hand testimony at best.
>
You are calling Luke a liar. Are you an eyewitness?
You must be very old.
> > 2Pe 1:16
>
> A well-known forgery written 100 - 160 CE when the apostle peter was DEAD.
> Seehttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
You are calling Peter a liar. Are you an eyewitness?
You must be very old.
You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what
Peter
had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of
the
Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370
Jim
1 Corinthians 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After 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.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
Claire
wrote:
> God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
> ~ James MacDonald
> James MacDonald (Author)
>
> Editorial Reviews
> Product Description
> "God wrote a book." There is something very powerful in that simple
> statement. The book, of course, is the Bible, and because God is its
> author, it's the most important work ever written. Millions across the
> world agree with that, yet many believe it only conceptually, doubting
> that the words of the Bible are in fact the very words of God.
Another sound response. Good point Jim! :-)
Claire
wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:32 pm, "I" <me@home000000000000506> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
>
> > Which one?
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
> > some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
> > of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
> > by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
> > want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
> > each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
> > we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
> > "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The various versions agree about 95% of the time.
> Most variations don't affect anything. If you are serious
> we can discuss texual criticism, and the two schools
> of thought. One Burgon of Oxford called the German Scholarship,
> and the one he called the Traditional text.
>
>
>
> > Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
> So, only you can quote God?
Without the Bible we can just make our own Gods. There is always a
danger of slipping into that anyway but it is far more difficult if we
all have the word of God as our starting point.
In My Fathers House
> On 6 Nov, 23:26, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
> > ~ James MacDonald
> > James MacDonald (Author)
>
> > Editorial Reviews
> > Product Description
> > "God wrote a book." There is something very powerful in that simple
> > statement. The book, of course, is the Bible, and because God is its
> > author, it's the most important work ever written. Millions across the
> > world agree with that, yet many believe it only conceptually, doubting
> > that the words of the Bible are in fact the very words of God.
>
> Another sound response. Good point Jim! :-)
What makes it "sound"? Okay I will give him the millions agree and
many (millions) do not agree. That is true about a lot of things and
it's the least meaningful part of the above quote. It is the
controversy after all that is controversial, rather than the fact that
it is a controversy.
God bless,
House
Claire
Lol! A statement worthy of Sir Humphrey!!! ;-)
In My Fathers House
Okay maybe I overshot. We can try again. The part of that quote
which is obviously true is also ordinary. So why did you say his
point was "sound"?
His point:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/fe6a824401e2325f
<quote>
God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
~ James MacDonald
James MacDonald (Author)
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
"God wrote a book." There is something very powerful in that simple
statement. The book, of course, is the Bible, and because God is its
author, it's the most important work ever written. Millions across the
world agree with that, yet many believe it only conceptually, doubting
that the words of the Bible are in fact the very words of God. Pastor
James MacDonald addresses today's disturbing trend away from taking
God's Word seriously. He clarifies the misconceptions that surround
the infallibility, reliability, and historicity of the Bible and
explains why he believes it is the inspired Word of God, how it
originated, what the Bible is good for, and its benefits to us.
Written to believers and non-believers who have questions, this book
on the Good Book has the answers.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Wrote-Book-James-MacDonald/dp/1581346220
</quote>
Your comment incerted right after "doubting that the words of the
Bible are in fact the very words of God.":
"Another sound response. Good point Jim! :-)"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/08836ae57c0530aa
My question: Why do you say that? What makes his response "sound"?
God bless,
House
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Editorial Reviews
>>> > > Product Description
>>> > > "God wrote a book." There is something very powerful in that simple
>>> > > statement. The book, of course, is the Bible, and because God is its
>>> > > author, it's the most important work ever written. Millions across the
>>> > > world agree with that, yet many believe it only conceptually, doubting
>>> > > that the words of the Bible are in fact the very words of God.
>> >
>> > Another sound response. Good point Jim!:-)
> What makes it "sound"? Okay I will give him the millions agree and
> many (millions) do not agree. That is true about a lot of things and
> it's the least meaningful part of the above quote. It is the
> controversy after all that is controversial, rather than the fact that
> it is a controversy.
Let me ask you a few questions House:
1) Which passages in the Bible are you allowing are the true and
trustworthy word of God:
_________________________
_________________________
2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1,
then how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any
God the Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if
any parts of that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?
_________________________
_________________________
3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God"
and "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about,
since, according to what you are apparently claiming, you have no
basis for trusting in the God and Christ you hear about in the Bible?
_________________________
_________________________
In My Fathers House
[...]
> Let me ask you a few questions House:
>
> 1) Which passages in the Bible are you allowing are the true and
> trustworthy word of God:
> 2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1,
> then how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any
> God the Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if
> any parts of that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?
[...]
> 3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God"
> and "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about,
> since, according to what you are apparently claiming, you have no
> basis for trusting in the God and Christ you hear about in the Bible?
[...]
Didn't I answer these already? They look awfully familiar.
I lack the evidence for 1). If I had the evidence then I would not
have asked others for it over these last many months. I would have
already had the evidence thus no need for help finding it. So I can't
answer 1).
For 2)
There isn't much evidence that we have eternal souls and what we have
is inconclusive. However I do believe there is an afterlife and that
injustice of this life will be balanced there. How can I trust my
soul to my creator even though men have put their own words into God's
mouth? I don't have any choice now do I? I didn't choose to live in
a world where the Bible has contradictions. I found myself there.
For 3) I know for a fact that I have answered this question many
times. Which God? The real God, if any. If a God exists then that
real God would be the answer to 3). I exist. If I was created by a
deity then there you go. Again I didn't choose to be in a world with
a contradictory Bible or a lack of additional evidence for a creator.
Now am I going to have to answer these questions tomorrow, and the
next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and
forever?
Claire
> My question: Why do you say that? What makes his response "sound"?
>
> God bless,
>
> House
I take your point on that particular post. Just that I feel he has a
very sound understanding in general of why the Bible is so important.
Interestingly I was asked about this in one of the legal groups when
discussing religion with an Atheist poster:
>> Is everything in the Bible directly and literally applicable to modern
>> life?
> The way I look at this is; we take on board all ideas,
> all arguments and we measure them against the word of God with prayerful
> consideration. Where we cannot reconcile contradictions in a way that is
> in keeping with our understanding of the Bible then secular theories
> must give way to Biblical teaching.
I do not think that will necessarily result on all Christians agreeing
on everything, but the point is we should be taking the Bible very
seriously indeed.
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 6:58 am, Randy �<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Let me ask you a few questions House:
>>
>> 1) Which passages in the Bible are you allowing are the true and
>> trustworthy word of God:
> [...]
>
>> 2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1,
>> then how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any
>> God the Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if
>> any parts of that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?
> [...]
>
>> 3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God"
>> and "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about,
>> since, according to what you are apparently claiming, you have no
>> basis for trusting in the God and Christ you hear about in the Bible?
> [...]
>
>
> Didn't I answer these already? They look awfully familiar.
>
> I lack the evidence for 1). If I had the evidence then I would not
> have asked others for it over these last many months. I would have
> already had the evidence thus no need for help finding it. So I can't
> answer 1).
How then are you going to argue that the "God" you are worshiping
is the same one that we are trusting in, based on what we heard
from the Bible?
> For 2)
> There isn't much evidence that we have eternal souls and what we have
> is inconclusive. However I do believe there is an afterlife and that
> injustice of this life will be balanced there. How can I trust my
> soul to my creator even though men have put their own words into God's
> mouth? I don't have any choice now do I? I didn't choose to live in
> a world where the Bible has contradictions. I found myself there.
The question wasn't, "Why should we feel sorry for you?", but why
should we believe in the "God" you're proclaiming, instead of the
one you claim would be evil if the Bible were His word? And how
can you claim you are trusting in the same God you said would be
evil if the Bible were His word, as are those who are trusting in
the God the Bible tells them about?
> For 3) I know for a fact that I have answered this question many
> times. Which God? The real God, if any. If a God exists then that
> real God would be the answer to 3). I exist. If I was created by a
> deity then there you go. Again I didn't choose to be in a world with
> a contradictory Bible or a lack of additional evidence for a creator.
>
> Now am I going to have to answer these questions tomorrow, and the
> next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and
> forever?
Given you are the one proclaiming our Bibles are at best an
inconclusive basis for trusting in the God that Bible proclaims,
why would you object to men wanting to know about the "real" God
you are proclaiming, and how you know about this God, and how
other men may know about this God, which is obviously not the
same God as the one you claim would have to be "evil", if the
Bible were His word?
In My Fathers House
I don't argue anything about what God you trust in. I have no direct
knowledge about your trust. I only know what you tell me.
> > For 2)
> > There isn't much evidence that we have eternal souls and what we have
> > is inconclusive. However I do believe there is an afterlife and that
> > injustice of this life will be balanced there. How can I trust my
> > soul to my creator even though men have put their own words into God's
> > mouth? I don't have any choice now do I? I didn't choose to live in
> > a world where the Bible has contradictions. I found myself there.
>
> The question wasn't, "Why should we feel sorry for you?" . . .
Well that would explain why I didn't answer "Why should we feel sorry
for me?" then wouldn't it? That it didn't exist in your past post is
the primary reason I didn't respond to it there.
> . . . but why
> should we believe in the "God" you're proclaiming, instead of the
> one you claim would be evil if the Bible were His word?
Uh, no it wasn't. Your question was:
"If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1, then
how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any God the
Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if any parts of
that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?"
If you meant to write "But why should we believe in the 'God' you're
proclaiming, instead of the one you claim would be evil if the Bible
were His word?" then it's your fault you didn't write that now isn't
it?
I answered the question you wrote, not the one you pretended I
answered and not the one you wish you wrote - but the one you
~actually~ wrote.
However now that you have fielded the "why should we believe" question
I can respond to that. I don't understand why you act as if they are
different Gods simply because humans misunderstand a few things about
God. Do you not believe God is real? Subjective beliefs do not
change objective beings. Wrong things we believe about God should not
change God.
> And how
> can you claim you are trusting in the same God you said would be
> evil if the Bible were His word, as are those who are trusting in
> the God the Bible tells them about?
I'm going to have to start a Frequently Asked Questions list for you.
You keep asking the same thing over and over and over again no matter
how many times I give you the same answer. Our beliefs are
subjective. If our Creator is real then as a being His traits are
objective. Subjective does not change the objective. Our ~wrong~
beliefs about God do not change God. I have shown you this many times
with the example of our President. One TV "expert" will claim Obama
is pure evil. Another TV "expert" will claim Obama is a pure saint.
Both are wrong. But what either one of them says does not change the
real live Obama.
In the same way when one Church claims God loves the whole world and
another claims God hates fags at least one of them must be wrong.
These wrong beliefs do not change a real God, should one exist.
Now are you going to ask this question again and again?
> > For 3) I know for a fact that I have answered this question many
> > times. Which God? The real God, if any. If a God exists then that
> > real God would be the answer to 3). I exist. If I was created by a
> > deity then there you go. Again I didn't choose to be in a world with
> > a contradictory Bible or a lack of additional evidence for a creator.
>
> > Now am I going to have to answer these questions tomorrow, and the
> > next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and
> > forever?
>
> Given you are the one proclaiming our Bibles are at best an
> inconclusive basis for trusting in the God that Bible proclaims,
> why would you object to men wanting to know about the "real" God
> you are proclaiming, and how you know about this God, and how
> other men may know about this God, which is obviously not the
> same God as the one you claim would have to be "evil", if the
> Bible were His word?
I don't object to people wanting to know about the real God. I don't
claim I know about God. I too want to know about God. I don't know
how other people can know about God or else I would already have the
information I seek. I disagree with you in that it is not obvious
that it cannot be the same God simply because man's attempt to create
this path to knowing God makes God out to be untrustworthy if man's
attempt were God's word. I do not see how our false beliefs can
change a real God. Real beings are not altered by false beliefs about
them.
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Given you are the one proclaiming our Bibles are at best an
>> > inconclusive basis for trusting in the God that Bible proclaims,
>> > why would you object to men wanting to know about the "real" God
>> > you are proclaiming, and how you know about this God, and how
>> > other men may know about this God, which is obviously not the
>> > same God as the one you claim would have to be "evil", if the
>> > Bible were His word?
> I don't object to people wanting to know about the real God. I don't
> claim I know about God. I too want to know about God. I don't know
> how other people can know about God or else I would already have the
> information I seek. I disagree with you in that it is not obvious
> that it cannot be the same God simply because man's attempt to create
> this path to knowing God makes God out to be untrustworthy if man's
> attempt were God's word. I do not see how our false beliefs can
> change a real God. Real beings are not altered by false beliefs about
> them.
The point is, you cannot be trusting in the same God and Jesus as
the one you claim would be "evil" if the Bible were His word, as
are those who believe the Bible is His word. You may be
worshiping and trusting in something _you_ call "God", and
"Jesus", but it is not, and cannot be the _same_ God and Jesus as
the one being worshiped and trusted in by those who believe the
Bible is God's word.
In My Fathers House
> the one you claim would be "evil" if the Bible were His word, as
> are those who believe the Bible is His word. You may be
> worshiping and trusting in something _you_ call "God", and
> "Jesus", but it is not, and cannot be the _same_ God and Jesus as
> the one being worshiped and trusted in by those who believe the
> Bible is God's word.
Randy that is your ~opinion~ and an opinion you cannot support. You
probably do not realize it but a consequence of your opinion is that
no real God would exist. I'm sure you do not follow your opinion to
it's natural conclusion. If God were nothing more than a fictional
character then you would be right. I would have to believe the story
where God is the fictional character or else not believe in God. It
would be as silly as believing that Luke Skywalker is real but
dismissing the Star Wars movies as "just entertainment".
However if God is a real being then the rules that apply to real
beings come into play. And false beliefs we have about a real being
do not have the power to alter that real being. Just to nip your next
chapter of confusion in the bud let me say now that influence is not
altering. Real beings can be influenced by and respond to opinion
held about them. But how they respond is internal to said being and
not caused by the very belief held by others. It's a social
response. Fictional characters exist only in the imagination and
medium that directs that imagination so they are altered by beliefs
and thoughts.
Do you need this explained to you 500 times or will it take 1000?
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:22 am, Randy �<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > The point is, you cannot be trusting in the same God and Jesus as
>> > the one you claim would be "evil" if the Bible were His word, as
>> > are those who believe the Bible is His word. You may be
>> > worshiping and trusting in something_you_ call "God", and
>> > "Jesus", but it is not, and cannot be the_same_ God and Jesus as
>> > the one being worshiped and trusted in by those who believe the
>> > Bible is God's word.
> Randy that is your ~opinion~ and an opinion you cannot support.
Now you're just convincing me you're an idiotic liar. You said
God would have to be evil if the Bible were His word. You said
you don't know what, if any passages of the Bible can be trusted
as being God's word. Now you're going to contend you are in
fact, trusting in the God we know about from the Bible?
Self-evident, self-contradicting stupidity, your obfuscation,
denials, double-talk, and outright lies not withstanding.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Exactly right!
Jim
Isa 55:11 - So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
dolf
How do you know? What "real" God?
"IT IS A SIGN BETWEEN ME AND YOU THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS, THAT YOU
MAY KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD WHO SANCTIFIES YOU." [EXODUS 31:13]
"Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the
Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. IT IS A
SIGN BETWEEN ME (ie. GOD) AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FOREVER; FOR IN SIX
DAYS THE LORD MADE THE HEAVENS AND EARTH, AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY HE
RESTED AND WAS REFRESHED." [EXODUS 31:16-17]
Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11/07/09, at 10:18:09AM,
> In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So which "God" and "Jesus" are you trusting in, and upon what
>>> > objective truth are you basing your faith in that "God" and "Jesus"?
>> The real one.
>
> How do you know? What "real" God?
>
I believe what I said of the former prosecutor, persecutor and murderer
of Judaeo-Christians in 60-62 CE is true--he claims his repentance is
true and therefore it is not possible to turn his homosexual texts into
new instruments of abuse.
Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sat, 11/07/09, at 8:25:31AM,
> In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for clarity>
>
> Let's make this simple. You have said you are not even sure what, if
any of the Bible is true, correct? Yes or no? I believe you have.
>
> Now, how is anyone going to claim to the effect he's not sure what,
if any of the Bible is true, then claim he's trusting in the God and
Christ he came to know from that Bible? See what I mean?
>
> You may be trusting in something or someone _you_ refer to as "God"
and "Jesus", but how are you going to argue it's the same God and Jesus
you learned about from a source you argue would make God evil if it were
His word, and that you are not even sure which parts, if any, are true?
>
A variation of the 22/7 {= 3.1428571...} equation as rational PI
computation and the 364 day cycle from the DATE(1996,3,20) + (5 * 364) +
182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) gives the Equinox of Saturday
DATE(2001,9,23) as commencing the Sabbath year and the reprise
associated to the following schema as a transcendent negation of the
Gregorian cycle of 400 years as the basis for replacement theology,
which is as 146097 days evenly divisible by seven:
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS autonomic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to series #15, #34,
#65, #111, #175, #260, #369 ... #2000 Y2K
Paul, an Apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ
and God the Father who raised him from the dead) [Galatians 1:1]--a
former prosecutor, persecutor and murderer of Judaeo-Christians in 60-62
CE says: "...the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among
who also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh,
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature
children of wrath, just as the others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he
loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together
with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised up together, and
made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, THAT IN THE
AGES TO COME he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness
towards us in Christ Jesus." [Ephesians 2:2-6]
#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
#1 = [the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of
Universal Law}, which contains the law of that will:
7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to
the 'constant sequence of sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day
intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days] +
#2 = [the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity - HEAD OF STATE}, which contains the command to behave in
accordance with the law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the
law:
x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox
Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and] +
#3 = [the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of
Autonomy}, which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as
right in the case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth
as 122J3W1D) = Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c� [9(9�+1)/2]:
has #369 with Septet #41 {ie. #81 - #27 - #9 - #3 - #1} centric on {ie.
20 March 1996 + (5*364) + 182 = 12 Sept 2001 as 1st day of 7th solar
month = #0 - Zero point} 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri
5762. ref: "On [Sunday 16 September 2001 as] the 1st day of the [21st
priestly] course of Jachin {he that strengthens and makes steadfast} on
the 29th day of lunar month, on the 5th day of the 7th solar month."
[4Q321]] +
#4 = 'OTH Chronological Elements = #10 as {Totality of Nature = Formula
of Progression of individual phenomena: #1 = {0: 1} + #2 = {0: -1, 1: 1}
+ #3 = {0: 0, 1: 1} + #4 = {0: 1, 1: 1} = #10 = {0: 1, 1: 0, 2: 1}}
vCube Balanced Ternary System distribution: #1 = {0: 1}; #41 = {0: -1,
1: -1, 2: -1, 3: -1, 4: 1}; #81 = (0: 0, 1: 0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:1}
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/toth9.gif
Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 topical years) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + c� [9(9�+1)/2]
"For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man
(image of male and female)--and birds and four-footed beasts and
creeping things." [Deuteronomy 4:15-19; Romans 1:20]
#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE
The "Angel of the presence, who went before the camp of Israel" which is
here described in the Book of Jubilees by association to an
understanding of the 10 Commandments and chronology is further related
to a circular reality as technology and the most sacred Names of God
derived from 3 Biblical texts of [Exodus 14:19-21] which each contain 72
letters: "And the angel of the presence, who went before the camp of
Israel [Exodus 14:19], took the TABLETS OF THE DIVISION OF YEARS FROM
THE TIME OF CREATION OF THE LAW AND TESTIMONY ACCORDING TO THEIR WEEKS
(OF YEARS), ACCORDING TO THE JUBILEES, year by year throughout the full
number of Jubilees, from the DAY OF CREATION UNTIL THE DAY OF THE NEW
CREATION WHEN THE HEAVEN AND EARTH AND ALL OF THEIR CREATURES SHALL BE
RENEWED ACCORDING TO THE POWERS OF HEAVEN AND ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE
NATURE OF EARTH, until the sanctuary of the LORD is created in Jerusalem
upon Mount Zion.
And all of the lights will be renewed for healing and peace and blessing
for all of the elect of Israel and in order that it might be thus from
that day and unto all the days of the earth." [Book of Jubilees 1:29]
These 3 Biblical texts of [Exodus 14:19-21] describe the miraculous
parting of the Red Sea before the people of Israel as they fled the
bondage of Pharaoh's Egypt.
First, the 72 Names are a technology for asserting the power of the
human consciousness over physicality. That is, the power of mind over
matter, which Kabbalah has always understood and which science is just
now beginning to grasp. However, the Names themselves depend on your
individual consciousness, and on your commitment to what the kabbalists
call proactive behaviour.
What is proactive behaviour? First and foremost, it is a stepping back
from reactive impulses, for there is no way we can have consciousness of
God--to say nothing of God's consciousness--unless we step back. Without
this proactive behaviour, even this most powerful of all technologies
cannot possibly work for us. Whenever it seems that misfortune has
suddenly been thrust upon you, step back. This does not mean acceptance
of the circumstances--if someone slaps you in the face, you might indeed
hit them back--but it does mean a level of consciousness above mere
reactivity. The technology of 72 Names can and will work for you, but
not without proactive behaviour.
My second point is related to the problems caused by reactive impulses,
specifically difficulties related to ego. In the biblical text that is
the foundation of the 72 Names, ego is personified by the Pharaoh of
Egypt. As the ego-driven impulses in our own lives draw away from growth
and transformation, Pharaoh gives the Israelites their freedom, but then
changes his mind and sends his army after them and ultimately into the
waters of the Red Sea. Ego will always play this game, particularly if
we make an effort to be proactive. Once again, step back from this
impulse. Be aware that your normal state of being in the physical world
is reactive consciousness. We are always being called upon to play ego's
game. With the ego it is always a lose-lose situation. It we are
concerned with winning, that's ego. If we are concerned with losing,
that's ego too. Using the 72 Names helps us to move beyond the ego's game.
When you commit yourself to proactive behaviour and to the renunciation
of ego games, the technology of the 72 Names is truly within your grasp.
Very simply put, this is the power of mind over matter. This is the
ability to eliminate every kind of chaos, whether in the form of
intangible fears and negative emotions, or the all-too-tangible
challenges of cancer and other serious illnesses. Consciousness is the
power that underlies every action and event in the material world.
Whether it is the simple act of raising your arm or the spontaneous
healing of life-threatening disease the process begins in consciousness.
The 72 Names of God are the bridge between this power of consciousness
and its manifestation in the physical realm." [(c) 2003 Kabbalist Rav
Yehuda Berg, 'The 72 Names of God -- Technology for the Soul (tm)', p xiii]
The point within the circle occurs when radius = 1 and in the Jubilee
year 49J7W, where the circumference = 22/7 commences as #0 (ternary
number) with the new Moon on Wednesday 20 March Equinox and on every 364
x 294 or 365.2425 x 293 days thereafter. The last of 1996 CE as grafting
into the 6D cycle and the determination of an Infinity Loop made in
relation to a rational cosmological understanding intrinsic to God
having given Moses two tablets of stone written with the finger of God.
The point within the circle also plays a role in German Philosopher
Heidegger's (1889�1976) cogito as the starting point of philosophy and
the pervasiveness of the hermeneutic circle and Aboriginal protests
against the mistreatment of Jews in pre-war Nazi Germany made to the
German consol general in Melbourne on 15 December 1938.
That aboriginal art conception of vast distance, their land and
cosmology demonstrates, if one considers the designation of the year
into seven portions:
ONE: 1, 2, 3
TWO: 0, 3, 6
THREE: 0, 9, 18
FOUR: 0, 27, 54 = Chinese Tetragrammation (Yang, Yin, Zhun) of Number
(Imperial Governance of male - dragon, female (consort) - phoenix: 206
BCE to 220 CE published 2 BCE); cf: [Deuteronomy 4:1-20]
FIVE: 0, 81, 369 = 9(9�+1)/2 - Organisation of the Myriad of things
SIX: 0, 243, 729 = Appraisals within vCube (9 x 9 x 9)
SEVEN: 0, 729, 2187 = 17 March (Saint Patrick's Day and ipso facto 25
March) + 2 x 'OTH CYCLE of 1092 (6 x 364 = 6D) days as Genesis and
substantiation of Christian identity.
A preservation of a rational natural and common law mind by nomadic
peoples--And that the usage of the latin term Terra Nullus cannot then
be used and understood as claimed in 1770 by Captain James Cook as
meaning that Terra Australis was "land belonging to no one" or
unoccupied land which was subsequent by Letters Patent of 1900 (since
revoked by new Letters Patent of 21 August 1984) as Terra Formus into
the Commonwealth of Australia."
>
>
>
In My Fathers House
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:22 am, Randy ®<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > The point is, you cannot be trusting in the same God and Jesus as
> >> > the one you claim would be "evil" if the Bible were His word, as
> >> > are those who believe the Bible is His word. You may be
> >> > worshiping and trusting in something_you_ call "God", and
> >> > "Jesus", but it is not, and cannot be the_same_ God and Jesus as
> >> > the one being worshiped and trusted in by those who believe the
> >> > Bible is God's word.
> > Randy that is your ~opinion~ and an opinion you cannot support.
>
> Now you're just convincing me you're an idiotic liar.
Oh don't blame me for that. You have been calling me that for years.
Nothing I could do has any influence on how you convince yourself.
> You said
> God would have to be evil if the Bible were His word. You said
> you don't know what, if any passages of the Bible can be trusted
> as being God's word. Now you're going to contend you are in
> fact, trusting in the God we know about from the Bible?
What is the problem? Do you think God from the Bible is a work of
fiction? If God is real then the principles regarding real beings
would hold for God as well.
> Self-evident, self-contradicting stupidity, your obfuscation,
> denials, double-talk, and outright lies not withstanding.
In other words you can't understand concepts that are beyond you.
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You said
>> > God would have to be evil if the Bible were His word. You said
>> > you don't know what, if any passages of the Bible can be trusted
>> > as being God's word. Now you're going to contend you are in
>> > fact, trusting in the God we know about from the Bible?
> What is the problem? Do you think God from the Bible is a work of
> fiction? If God is real then the principles regarding real beings
> would hold for God as well.
It is self evident that men can't have faith in that which 1)
they claim they do not know whether it's the truth, and 2) they
claim would make God evil if it were His word. You claim you
don't know what, if any of the Bible is the truth about God, and
you claim the God of the Bible would have to be evil if the Bible
were His word. You therefore do not believe in the God of the
Bible. If you believe in any God at all, it is a "God" from
"Reality" by House, not the God of the Bible you claim would make
Him evil if it were His word.
Thus, I'm thoroughly convinced you are a delusional, arrogant
liar, who is an imposter and obfuscator, promoting doubt,
attacking the christian faith in the God of the Bible, and
promoting faith in nothing but your own subjective perception of
"reality".
I
>> God Wrote a Book
...
> Another sound response.
Another soundly ignorant response!
I'm still waiting to find out WHICH book God supposedly authored.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
I
> Without the Bible we can just make our own Gods.
HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
In My Fathers House
>
> >> You said
> >> > God would have to be evil if the Bible were His word. You said
> >> > you don't know what, if any passages of the Bible can be trusted
> >> > as being God's word. Now you're going to contend you are in
> >> > fact, trusting in the God we know about from the Bible?
> > What is the problem? Do you think God from the Bible is a work of
> > fiction? If God is real then the principles regarding real beings
> > would hold for God as well.
>
> It is self evident that men can't have faith in that which 1)
> they claim they do not know whether it's the truth, and 2) they
> claim would make God evil if it were His word.
How lost can you get? My faith is in God, not the work of men which
tries to replace God.
> You claim you
> don't know what, if any of the Bible is the truth about God, and
> you claim the God of the Bible would have to be evil if the Bible
> were His word. You therefore do not believe in the God of the
> Bible.
What are you atheist? Do you think no real God exists? Hey, if you
want to believe there is no real God you go right ahead. I'm going to
believe that a real God exists and operate under that assumption. If
I turn out to be wrong then that is a price I accept.
> If you believe in any God at all, it is a "God" from
> "Reality" by House, not the God of the Bible you claim would make
> Him evil if it were His word.
False. See the (R) FAQ item 2).
pyotr filipivich
about Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:28:52 -0800 (PST) did write/type or cause to
appear in alt.religion.christian.episcopal the following:
>On 6 Nov, 23:45, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 5:32�pm, "I" <me@home000000000000506> wrote:
>> > <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> > > God Wrote a Book (Paperback)
>> � So, only you can quote God?
>
>Without the Bible we can just make our own Gods. There is always a
>danger of slipping into that anyway but it is far more difficult if we
>all have the word of God as our starting point.
So which bible did the apostles use? Seeing as how the earliest
date for any scripture is 53 AD for James, what scriptures were the
Church at Beria examining to "see that it was so"?
Considering the myriad of Protestant denominations which exist,
all of which claim to be based on the plain meaning of the scriptures,
could it not be possible to create your own god _with_ the Bible?
With what do we make sure that the local congregation is believing
as the whole of the church has believed, everywhere, and for all time?
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.
I
> How then are you going to argue that the "God" you are worshiping is the
> same one that we are trusting in, based on what we heard from the Bible?
I would NEVER want to worship a "god' who CONDONED SLAVERY!!!!
The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
DOES YOUR "GOD" CONDONE SLAVERY??????
IF
you believe that the bible is somehow "God's Word"
THEN
you are forced to believe that God condones slavery.
WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
I don't have to worry about that inconsistency between the bible'd words of
hate and oppression regarding slavery and a loving God.
The bible is a man-made collection of ancient documents anabout people's
experience of God which CHANGED over time. I don't believe every word in
the bible is a word straight from God. I therefore see that SLAVERY is
MORALLY WRONG as well as being ILLEGAL today. People in the past may have
documented that slavery was acceptable in the bible but they were WRONG -
SLAVERY IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE.
SLAVERY is the sibngl;e issue that absolurtely demolishes any pretencse that
the man-made fakllible bible is some how "God's Word".
The bible NEVER xcalls itself :"God's Word".
There isbn't ONE VERSE in the WHOLE bible that states that the WHOLE bible
is "God's Word".
The bible as the "Word of God" is a FUNDAMENTALIST MAN-MADE INVENTION with
no basis whatsoever in the bible.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
I
> 1) Which passages in the Bible are you allowing are the true and
> trustworthy word of God:
NONE are the "Word of God". The man-made fallible bible is the record of
people's experience of God. God speaks through the human words of the
writers and editors of the bible ... but God can also use an ass (read about
Baalim) for the same purpose or creation (as Paul states in Romans 1).
There are many parts of the bibel that one can definitively state are NOT
"God's Word" such as the CONDONATION OF SLAVERY in both the Old and New
Testaments. I know of NO Fundamentalist who is actively campaigning to
bring back slavery because "God's Word" condones it. Slavery is mentioned
far more in the bible than any supposed reference to homosexuality (which
Jesus NEVER mentioned).
SLAVERY IS MORALLY WRONG YET THE BIBLE CONDONES IT!!!! This is one good
reason NOT to trust the bible on everything.
God has given you a brain to use.
> 2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1, then how
> can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any God the Bible
> proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if any parts of that Bible
> is the true and trustworthy word of God?
EASY!!!
1. Jesus NEVER stated that one must believe the bible in order to be a
Christian or to be "saved". Follows of Jesus should follow what Jesus
clearly stated. I quote:
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the
second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the
Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40
That is ALL that is required to be a Christian. Everything else is an
ADDITION to what Jesus summed up as the MOST IMPORTANT COMNMANDMENTS.
NOTHING ELSE is as imoportnat as those two commandments and NEITHER of
theose commandments mention anything about the bible or Jesus.
2. Abraham knew God yet Abraham had no bible. IF the bible is required in
order to know god then you must be able to explain how Abraham knew god
without a bible.
3. One's trust is NOT in a fallible man-made bible but in GOD. God is far
more important than the bible. The INFINITE One God cannot be CONTAINED
within a FINITE bible.
GOD'S REVELATION IS NOT BOUND TO A BOOK! Other sources of revelation
include creation and life itself - as explained below.
> 3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God" and
> "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about, since, according
> to what you are apparently claiming, you have no basis for trusting in the
> God and Christ you hear about in the Bible?
UTTER ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL FUNDAMENTALIST NONSENSE!!!
1. Jesus said to trust in the One GOD. That is the whole meaning of the
Greatest Commandments which does NOT mention Jesus or a bible.
2. Abraham knew God WITHOUT A BIBLE.
3. Paul says that God can be known by the things He has created and quotes a
PAGAN POET in Acts 17:28 referring to ZEUS, and interprets this as being
about the One God and that we ALL "live and move and have our being" in this
One God. A bible is not required for either knowledge.
dolf
Moses. Are they embedded in Titus Arch since the conquest of the
Jerusalem Temple by Rome as Belial (Satan) in 70 CE?
I
> The point is, you cannot be trusting in the same God and Jesus as the one
> you claim would be "evil" if the Bible were His word, as are those who
> believe the Bible is His word.
WHICH "God of the bible" do YOU trust in???? There are SEVERAL of whom I
indicate 3 below ....
1. The finite human "god' of John's gospel who dies - Jesus?
2. The "god" who CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament?
3. The Exclusive One God Yahweh, known by Abraham WITHOUT A BIBLE, whom
Jewish Jesus of Nazareth worshipped at synagogue and in the Jewish Temple
and addressed as the Father and of who Jesus of Nazareth stated ....
"'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST / MESSIAH Jesus
of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40 ?
I am NOT interested in following, worshipping or serving a "dead god" (1) or
an "IMMORAL god who CONDONES SLAVERY" (2).
There is ONLY One God - that is the Exclusive One God Yahweh worshipped by
Abraham WHO HAD NO BIBLE - the God of Moses and of Jesus and of Whom Paul
states can be known through life (Acts:17:28) and through creation (Romans
1).
I
> You said God would have to be evil if the Bible were His word.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!
There is NO other logical and rational conclusion that can be made
ortherwise.
The BIBLE says that God is responsible for:
- GENOCIDE (read about Noah and Joshua)
- SLAVERY (condomned in the Old and New Testament)
- SEXISM (read Paul and the Torah)
- CHILD ABUSE (read Proverbs)
- ANTI-SEMITISM (read the gospels)
THIS is the EVIL IMMORAL "GOD OF THE BIBLE" that Randy Young wants to
follow!!!
You can follow that "evil immoral god" but DON'T call yourself a follower of
CHRIST - a CHRISTian - because God-s human CHRIST, Jesus of Nazareth, spoke
of a God of love DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE ABOVE "evil immoral god of the
bible" and of Whom one DIDN'T REQUIRE A BIBLE in order to know. I quote:
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
I
> It is self evident that men can't have faith in that which 1) they claim
> they do not know whether it's the truth
WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
The book is NOT as important as the Exclsive One God whom Abraham knew
WITHOUT A BIBLE!!!!
> 2) they claim would make God evil if it were His word.
The BIBLE says that God is responsible for:
- GENOCIDE (read about Noah and Joshua)
- SLAVERY (condomned in the Old and New Testament)
- SEXISM (read Paul and the Torah)
- CHILD ABUSE (read Proverbs)
- ANTI-SEMITISM (read the gospels)
THIS is the EVIL IMMORAL "GOD OF THE BIBLE" that Randy Young wants to
follow!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Claire
> "Claire" <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Without the Bible we can just make our own Gods.
>
> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
Are you claiming to be a prophet???
I
>> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
>
> Are you claiming to be a prophet???
Nope.
I'm a professional educator (K-12 & Adult) with over 30 years experience.
I'm asking a question that you do not seem able to answer.
It is a very simple question: HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
There was NO bible in Abraham's lifetime so HOW did Abraham know God?????
Claire
> "Claire" <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
>
> > Are you claiming to be a prophet???
>
> Nope.
>
> I'm a professional educator (K-12 & Adult) with over 30 years experience.
And? I'm not recruiting!
1 John 2
16For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of
his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the
Father but from the world.
1 Peter 5:5
5 ....., All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one
another, because,
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.
> I'm asking a question that you do not seem able to answer.
Abraham was a prophet – we are not. We have the Bible to help us
understand God
Claire
Like it. I also like the words on a baptismal card I have on my wall
at home;
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fade,
but the word of our God stands forever
:-)
I
> >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
...
> 1 John 2
Posting a quote from a FORGERY written 90 - 120 CE when the apostle John was
DEAD is not an answer. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1john.html
> 1 Peter 5:5
Posting a quote from a FORGERY written 80 - 110 CE when the apostle Peter
was DEAD is not an answer. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
> > I'm asking a question that you do not seem able to answer.
> Abraham was a prophet - we are not.
Prophets are NO different to any other human. Have you not read your
bible????
James 5: 17:18 Elijah was a human being as frail as ourselves -- he prayed
earnestly for it not to rain, and no rain fell for three and a half years;
then he prayed again and the sky gave rain and the earth gave crops.
> We have the Bible to help us understand God
We don't need a bible to know God.
So I ask again ...
I
> Isaiah 40:8 .... the word of our God
That does NOT reference the Bible since NEITHER the Old Testament NOR the
New testament had been finished at the time.
The bible NEVER refers to itself as "The word of God".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
According to Jung , 'God stands, omnipotent and free, above his Bible."
p.131
... the Fundamentalist will never ask what lies beyond the Bible, or what
sort of religious experience was possible before there was a Bible. He
speaks and behaves as it is was impossible to be a Christian before there
was a New Testament. He may be too self-conscious to state that he believes
the Bible to have been divinely dictated, but that is really what he does
believe. pp 131-132
It is therefore much more honest (though it may well make life more
difficult) to see the Bible as result rather than beginning. ... as a matter
of historical reality the Bible is the end or a process. First, viewed as
a whole, the list of books which form the Bible was finally agreed upon only
in the fourth century AD, more than two hundred years after the latest book
in the New Testament was written. And, second, viewed in its component
parts, each book of the Bible - or in many cases each part of a book - is
the result of a human creative process akin to, or even identical with, the
production of a work of art. ... Each has his own language, and it is his
language, though the thoughts may be divine. pp. 132-133
In fact, then, the Bible is a collection, a human collection, of very human
response to the divine ... If it were literally the word of God it would be
unintelligible to us, just as divine music would be meaningless to human
ears. To speak or behave, therefore, as the Fundamentalist does, as if
Christianity is a question of responding to the Bible, is to fail to do
justice to what the Bible is - it is itself response. What the Christin is
invited to do is to make his own response to what the biblical writers were
responding to ... we only do justice to it, rather than simply obeyiong it
or imitating the responses which it contains, we allow it to form in us the
capacity to make our own unique responses. p. 134
... the Bible may be the initial impetus in the religious life of a
believer, and it may be the source to which the believer constantly returns.
But equally it may not: it is not necessarily so. There is no reason -
other than convention or Fundamentalist propaganda - why the Bible should
have a monopoly in the area of religious experience, so that 'if it's in the
Bible it must be so, and if it's not in the Bible it can't be so'. There
are other sources of revelation. p. 134
... the process of establishing which books actually belonged in the bible
was a human process: over a period of centuries the church gradually brought
itself to regard some books as having authoritative or canonical status and
to exclude others. .... There is therefore no reason in principle why flesh
and blood cannot continue the process and add new sources of revelation or
take away old ones (as Luther came very near doing when he dismissed the
letter of James as 'an epistle of straw'). p. 135
... if the Bible is the necessary and exclusive precondition for a
Christian's religious experience, it must logically follow that none of the
New Testament writers were themselves Christians, since by definition the
canonical Bible was not available to them. p. 135
We are entirely free, therefore, to explore the possibility that there are
indeed ways of approaching or understanding or questioning God which are
alternative to those contained in the Bible and which may have nothing at
all to do with the Bible and may eeven contradict it. p. 136
... a religion which considers itself bound exclusively and finally by an
arbitrary collection of documents, abruptly and artificially sealed up in
the fourth century AD, is misunderstanding its own essence and indeed
closing itself off from the God whom it professes to reveal. p. 137
... an approach which seeks to legislate on what can and cannot be called
religious experience or revelation, according to whether or not it takes its
point of departure from the Bible, is simply closing its eyes to what
actually happens. pp. 139-140
The Bible in fact, if it is approached in accordance with the spirit which
permeates it, cries out to us to use our imagination, free from all
constraints, in our search for, or response to, God. p. 140
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii,
pp.
252-3),
in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
Rome],
and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
And so in Westcott.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
If our friend says, we should ignore the
Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
Jim
Lu 16:31 - And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
dead.
Claire
> "Claire" <claireonuse...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> ...
> > 1 John 2
>
> Posting a quote from a FORGERY written 90 - 120 CE when the apostle John was
>
> > 1 Peter 5:5
>
> Posting a quote from a FORGERY written 80 - 110 CE when the apostle Peter
> was DEAD is not an answer. Seehttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.htm
On what then do you base your faith (assuming you have one) and how
can you be sure you are following Christ?
> > > I'm asking a question that you do not seem able to answer.
> > Abraham was a prophet - we are not.
>
> Prophets are NO different to any other human. Have you not read your
> bible????
Indeed. So I ask again – are you claiming to be a prophet???
> So I ask again ...
>
> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
And I’ll tell you again. Abraham was a Prophet – you are not
I
> > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
...
> If our friend says, we should ignore the
> Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
Exactly the same place that Abraham got his knowledge of God from ...WITHOUT
A BIBLE.
Paul also says that we can have knowledge of God WITHOUT A BIBLE for he
quotes the HYMN TO ZEUS in Acts 17:28 stating that we "live and move in have
our being" in Zeus .. er ... God. (Paul changes the text to mean God rather
than the original Zeus.) Paul also states in Romans 1 that we can know God
through his creation (Acts 1).
You erroneously think the man-made fallible bible is "God's Word" but it
seems that you have not read it all.
As SLAVERY is condoned in both the Old and New Testaments WHEN are you
petitioning lawmakers to change the laws against slavery?
I
> > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> On what then do you base your faith (assuming you have one)
I've been a Christian since 1972 and am an ex-Fundamentalist who has read
the bible from cover to cover yearly. Oh ... and I have also been the
Principal of a Christian School, helped write the manual for setting up
Christian Ciommunity Schools across Australia, first to speak by invitation
at the National Baptist Conference on the pros and cons of Christian
schooling, recorded with Christian bands, etc.
Fundamentalists don't think anyone can be a Christian except fellow
Fundamentalists.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
> and how can you be sure you are following Christ?
I follow the Exclusive One God Yahweh whom Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ OF
God, followed and told us to do the same. I quote:
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
The two Greatest Commandments do not mention anything about following Jesus
of Nazareth.
>> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> And I�ll tell you again. Abraham was a Prophet � you are not
Abraham was a human.
I am also a human.
God speaks to me in EXACTLY the same way that God spoke to Abraham and
speaks to every other human.
Please tell me where in the bible Jesus states that one MUST believe the
bible in order to know God.
Paul also says that we can have knowledge of God WITHOUT A BIBLE for he
quotes the HYMN TO ZEUS in Acts 17:28 stating that we "live and move in have
our being" in Zeus .. er ... God. (Paul changes the text to mean God rather
than the original Zeus.) Paul also states in Romans 1 that we can know God
through his creation (Acts 1).
As SLAVERY is condoned in both the Old and New Testaments WHEN are you
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> ...
> > If our friend says, we should ignore the
> > Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
>
> Exactly the same place that Abraham got his knowledge of God from ...WITHOUT
> A BIBLE.
>
get nailed to a cross, your body put in
a tomb with a stone blocking the entrance,
and soldiers guarding the tomb. When you
come back from the dead, we'll talk!
Jim
Ac 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
1 Corinthians 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After 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.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
I
> > > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> ...
> > If our friend says, we should ignore the
> > Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
> Exactly the same place that Abraham got his knowledge of God from
> ...WITHOUT
> A BIBLE.
> Good point!
I know.
> I shall follow you
Don't follow me, follow the Excklusive One God Yahweh whom Jesus of Nazareth
followed.
Please tell me which is the ONLY and ONLY true Easter story .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHICH IS THE CORRECT EASTER STORY?
This looks at the Easter story in the time sequence in which the gospels and
Paul's letters were written. This makes it easy to see how the stories
evolved.
1. WHO went to the tomb on the first day of the week?
- Paul (50 - 60 CE): nothing.
- Mark (65 - 80 CE): Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
[16]
- Matthew (80 -100 CE): Mary Magdalene and the other Mary only [1:28]
- Luke ( 80 CE - 130 CE): Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna,
some other women [24:10]
- John (90 -120 CE): Mary Magdalene alone [20:11]
2. WHAT did the women find at the tomb?
- Paul (50 - 60 CE): No reference to a tomb visit.
- Mark (65 - 80 CE): A young man dressed in white agrments who gave the
resurrection message.
- Matthew (80 -100 CE): An "angel of the Lord" who descended in an
earthquake, put the arrmed guard to sleep, rolleed back the stone, and gave
the resurrection message.
- Luke ( 80 CE - 130 CE): Two men clothed in dazzling apparel.
- John (90 -120 CE): First visit - no messenger at all. On Mary Magdalene's
second visit she confronted two angels, although they werte speechless.
Finally she confronted Jesus himself, whom she mistook for the gardener.
From Jesus she received the resurrection message.
3. Did the women see a RESURRECTED JESUS in the garden at dawn on the first
week?
- Paul (50 - 60 CE): Not mentioned.
- Mark (65 - 80 CE): No.
- Matthew (80 -100 CE): Yes.
- Luke ( 80 CE - 130 CE): No.
- John (90 -120 CE): Yes, but a bit later.
4.WHERE did the RESURRECTED JESUS appear to the disciples?
- Paul (50 - 60 CE): No hint.
- Mark (65 - 80 CE): No appearance stories but himnts at an appearance in
GALILEE
- Matthew (80 -100 CE): On a MOUNTAIN TOP in GALILEE.
- Luke ( 80 CE - 130 CE): JERUSALEM. Emmaus road (10 km from JERUSALEM). NO
GALILEE appearance.
- John (90 -120 CE): JERUSALEM but a further appearance by a LAKE in GALILEE
[Ch 21].
5. WHEN did the RESURRECTED JESUS appear to the disciples?
- Paul (50 - 60 CE): FIRST DAY of the week BUT also appeared to Paul on the
Damascus Road which Paul says was no different to the other appearances. [1
Cor. 15:8] Paul's Damascus Road experience may be 1 to 6 YEARS after Jesus'
crucifixion.
- Mark (65 - 80 CE): Hints at an unspecified time after resurrection. NOT
FIRST DAY of the week as they were told to go to Galilee.
- Matthew (80 -100 CE): Much LATER on mountain top in Galilee.
- Luke ( 80 CE - 130 CE): First in Jersualm on EVENING of FIRST DAY of the
week. Continued for 50 DAYS only.
- John (90 -120 CE): EVENING of SECOND DAY (according to Jewish time sundown
to sundown is one day) in Jerusalem [John 20:19] Then Galilee DAYS or WEEKS
LATER.
##################################################
If this were a police investigation one would have to say that SOMEONE is
lying.... and likely MORE than one person is lying.
IF the bible is "God's Word" and the resurrection is the MAIN EVENT
concerning Jesus WHY is there no agreement on this subject regarding WHO,
WHAT, WHERE and WHEN?????
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000510> wrote:
>> 3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God" and
>> > "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about, since, according
>> > to what you are apparently claiming, you have no basis for trusting in the
>> > God and Christ you hear about in the Bible?
> UTTER ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL FUNDAMENTALIST NONSENSE!!!
What, you're claiming you can't know if any verse in the Bible is
actually the word of God, then claiming you're trusting in the
same God you heard about from the source you said can't be trusted?
<chuckle>
> 1. Jesus said to trust in the One GOD. That is the whole meaning of the
> Greatest Commandments which does NOT mention Jesus or a bible.
But you're claiming you can't know if anything in the Bible is
trustworthy as being the word of God. Which "Jesus", then are
you talking about? The one you know about from the source you
claim can't be trusted as actually coming from God, but only
fallible men, or the Bible authored by the fallible 120 scholars
you are trusting in? If you're claiming a person can't know if
any verse in the Bible is the authoritative word of God, then you
don't get to cite a reference from it to back up your claims,
unless you're contradicting yourself.
<chuckle>
> 2. Abraham knew God WITHOUT A BIBLE.
Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
(4) Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be
your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
(5) He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and
count the stars�if indeed you can count them." Then he said to
him, "So shall your offspring be."
(6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.
Which Abraham? The one from the Bible you say can't be trusted,
or some other Abraham? The Bible says the "word of God" came to
Abraham, and that is what he believed (Gen. 15:4-6). The Bible
says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"
(Romans 10:17). Thus, one has to hear the word of God (whether
by someone proclaiming it, or by reading it, etc.), in order to
believe the gospel and be saved. Now then, since you deny the
Bible is the word of God, what are you claiming actually is the
word of God that people must hear to be saved? Please post it
between these lines:
_________________________
_________________________
> 3. Paul says that God can be known by the things He has created and quotes a
> PAGAN POET in Acts 17:28 referring to ZEUS, and interprets this as being
> about the One God and that we ALL "live and move and have our being" in this
> One God. A bible is not required for either knowledge.
Psalm 19 and Romans 1 show that even the pagans can know there is
a God who created everything, and that He is eternal and all
powerful. That, however, is not sufficient knowledge to be
saved. Salvation requires the specific revelation of Jesus
Christ and His death and resurrection for our sins. You can't
get saved without believing in Jesus' death and resurrection for
your sins, and that knowledge comes through the specific
revelation of the gospel (Romans 1:17ff; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; etc.), as
proclaimed from God's word (Romans 10:17). So again, I ask you,
what is the word of God you are claiming to believe in for salvation?
______________________________
______________________________
You're either going to have to admit the Bible or some portion of
it is the true and trustworthy word of God, or you are going to
have to admit you don't believe in the same God we know from the
Bible, or have any authoritative basis for your theology. You
can't use Biblical terminology and claim faith in "YHWH", or
Jesus, then claim the source by which you know about that God and
Jesus cannot be trusted to be the truth from God.
Since you've already said you can't know if "any" of the Bible is
true or trustworthy as being God's word, you therefore can NOT be
trusting a source you have just contended can't be trusted as
anything other than that which comes from fallible man, and
cannot be trusting in the God that source reveals to you. If you
are trusting in any "God" or "Jesus" at all, you are trusting in
some God other than the one we know about from the source you say
can't be trusted as coming from God.
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000510> wrote:
Now that you've again confirmed why you don't believe the Bible
is the authoritative word of God, but rather the words of
fallible men (and you have said there isn't "any" of the Bible
you can trust as being God's actual, authoritative words), which
"God" and "Jesus" are you actually claiming to believe in?
Certainly not the same ones you heard about from the source you
claim is fallible and not authoritative! Which "God" are you
trusting in, and how did you hear about this God, that you might
trust in him?
______________________________
______________________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000511> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The point is, you cannot be trusting in the same God and Jesus as the one
>> you claim would be "evil" if the Bible were His word, as are those who
>> believe the Bible is His word.
>
> WHICH "God of the bible" do YOU trust in???? There are SEVERAL of whom I
> indicate 3 below ....
>
> 1. The finite human "god' of John's gospel who dies - Jesus?
>
> 2. The "god" who CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament?
>
> 3. The Exclusive One God Yahweh, known by Abraham WITHOUT A BIBLE, whom
> Jewish Jesus of Nazareth worshipped at synagogue and in the Jewish Temple
> and addressed as the Father and of who Jesus of Nazareth stated ....
> "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST / MESSIAH Jesus
> of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all
> your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
> commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
> All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
> 22:37-40 ?
>
> I am NOT interested in following, worshipping or serving a "dead god" (1) or
> an "IMMORAL god who CONDONES SLAVERY" (2).
We get it Mark. You don't believe the Bible can be trusted as
being the authoritative word of God. Now then, which God are you
actually claiming you trust in, since you can't possibly be
trusting in the same God that you heard about from a source you
argue can't be trusted as the authoritative word of God?
> There is ONLY One God - that is the Exclusive One God Yahweh worshipped by
> Abraham WHO HAD NO BIBLE - the God of Moses and of Jesus and of Whom Paul
> states can be known through life (Acts:17:28) and through creation (Romans
> 1).
Well now you're claiming to trust in the God you heard about from
the Bible, aren't you? Why are you claiming to believe in a God
you heard about from a source you argue came only from fallible
man, and cannot be trusted as being the truth from God? See what
I mean? And if Paul or Jesus actually believed men could be
saved through the general knowledge of God that is evident in
creation (Psalm 19; Romans 1), then what was the purpose of them
even preaching the gospel in the first place, or Christ coming to
die for our sins, since they wouldn't even have needed that or to
know about it, and could simply have been saved through their
knowledge that God created everything?
You don't get to argue there isn't "any" verse in the Bible you
can actually know is the truth from God, then simultaneously
argue you are trusting in that same God you learned about from
the Bible. That self-contradictory. If you are worshiping any
"God" at all, it cannot be the same God as the one we know about
from a source you claim can't be trusted. It must be some
different "God".
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000512> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > You said God would have to be evil if the Bible were His word.
>
> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!
And if you believe that, then you can't possibly be trusting in
the same God we know about from a source you claim portrays an
evil God. Which "God" are you claiming you trust in, and what
_is_ his word?
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000512> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is self evident that men can't have faith in that which 1) they claim
>> they do not know whether it's the truth
>
> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
>
> The book is NOT as important as the Exclsive One God whom Abraham knew
> WITHOUT A BIBLE!!!!
>
>
>> 2) they claim would make God evil if it were His word.
>
> The BIBLE says that God is responsible for:
> - GENOCIDE (read about Noah and Joshua)
> - SLAVERY (condomned in the Old and New Testament)
> - SEXISM (read Paul and the Torah)
> - CHILD ABUSE (read Proverbs)
> - ANTI-SEMITISM (read the gospels)
>
> THIS is the EVIL IMMORAL "GOD OF THE BIBLE" that Randy Young wants to
> follow!!!
So you're finally admitting you don't believe in the God we know
about from the Bible, but some other "God"?
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000515> wrote:
> "Claire"<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
>> >
>> > Are you claiming to be a prophet???
> Nope.
>
> I'm a professional educator (K-12& Adult) with over 30 years experience.
>
> I'm asking a question that you do not seem able to answer.
>
> It is a very simple question: HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
>
> There was NO bible in Abraham's lifetime so HOW did Abraham know God?????
>
>
>
Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
(4) Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be
your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
(5) He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and
count the stars�if indeed you can count them." Then he said to
him, "So shall your offspring be."
(6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.
Abraham heard the "word of God", and he believed that word, and
that is how God saved him. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by
the word of God (Romans 10:17). Hearing can occur when the word
of God is preached, or read.
Now then, what is the word of God you are claiming to believe to
be saved? Please post right here for us, what is the "word of
God" you believed to be saved:
_____________________________
_____________________________
Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about? You're not
claiming to trust in the same "Jesus" you heard about from a
source you constantly argue can't be trusted, are you? Why don't
you identify which "Jesus" or "God" you are actually trusting in,
and admit to everyone it isn't the same Jesus we know about
through the Bible you insist can't be trusted?
<chuckle>
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000515> wrote:
> So I ask again ...
>
> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
(4) Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be
your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
(5) He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and
count the stars�if indeed you can count them." Then he said to
him, "So shall your offspring be."
(6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.
Abraham heard the "word of God", and he believed that word, and
that is how God saved him. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by
the word of God (Romans 10:17). Hearing the word requires that a
word has been proclaimed, heard, and believed in.
Now then, what is the word of God you are claiming to believe to
be saved? Please post right here for us, what is the "word of
God" you believed to be saved:
_____________________________
_____________________________
And while we're at it, which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000515> wrote:
> "Claire"<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Isaiah 40:8 .... the word of our God
>
> That does NOT reference the Bible since NEITHER the Old Testament NOR the
> New testament had been finished at the time.
>
> The bible NEVER refers to itself as "The word of God".
Jesus said "man shall not live by bread alone, but every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God", and that the "Scripture"
cannot be broken. He said the "word of God" came to men when
quoted a reference from the Psalms. He apparently quoted the LXX
verbatim, and equated it with the "word of God", even though it
was a copy of a translation. If man shall live by every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God, that means he must have
access to the word of God. The Bible repeatedly, in hundreds of
instances, says, "thus saith the Lord".
Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
(4) Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be
your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
(5) He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and
count the stars�if indeed you can count them." Then he said to
him, "So shall your offspring be."
(6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.
Abraham heard the "word of God", and he believed that word, and
that is how God saved him. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by
the word of God (Romans 10:17). Hearing can occur when the word
of God is preached, or read.
Now then, what is the word of God you are claiming to believe to
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000515> wrote:
> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> > > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> ...
>> > If our friend says, we should ignore the
>> > Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
>
> Exactly the same place that Abraham got his knowledge of God from ...WITHOUT
> A BIBLE.
Jesus said "man shall not live by bread alone, but every word
_____________________________
_____________________________
<chuckle>
> Paul also says that we can have knowledge of God WITHOUT A BIBLE for he
> quotes the HYMN TO ZEUS in Acts 17:28 stating that we "live and move in have
> our being" in Zeus .. er ... God. (Paul changes the text to mean God rather
> than the original Zeus.) Paul also states in Romans 1 that we can know God
> through his creation (Acts 1).
Then why was he telling these people the goepel, and why did
Christ die on a cross? Psalm 19 and Romans 1 show general
revelation of God in nature is enough to show men there is a God,
that He is eternal and all poweful, but God doesn't save people
on the basis of faith in this knowledge. He saves them through
faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection (1
Cor. 15:3-4; Romans 1:17; 1 Cor. 2; etc.).
> You erroneously think the man-made fallible bible is "God's Word" but it
> seems that you have not read it all.
> As SLAVERY is condoned in both the Old and New Testaments WHEN
are you
> petitioning lawmakers to change the laws against slavery?
So you confirm you're not trusting what the Bible says. Which
"God", then are you talking about? Certainly not the one you
heard about from the Bible you claim cannot be trusted, because
it is only from a fallible man! Faith comes by hearing, and
hearing by the "word of God". What is the "word of God" you are
claiming you heard, that you are believing in, and what God did
it tell you about, since it obviously wasn't the God of the Bible
you attack as untrustworthy from day to day:
__________________________
__________________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000515> wrote:
> "Claire"<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> > > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
>> > On what then do you base your faith (assuming you have one)
> I've been a Christian since 1972
Which "Christ" do you believe in, and how do you know about this
"Christ"? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God
(Romans 10:17; Genesis 15). What is the "word of God" you heard
in and believed to be saved, and which "Christ" did it tell you
about?
_____________________
_____________________
Certainly you aren't trusting in the same "Christ" you heard
about from the source you insist cannot be trusted to tell you
the truth from God. So now please fess up which "Jesus", and
"YHWH" you are actually believing in, and what the "word" of that
"God" is?
<chuckle>
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000515> wrote:
> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> > > > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
>> > ...
>>> > > If our friend says, we should ignore the
>>> > > Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
>> > Exactly the same place that Abraham got his knowledge of God from
>> > ...WITHOUT
>> > A BIBLE.
>> > Good point!
> I know.
>
>> > I shall follow you
> Don't follow me, follow the Excklusive One God Yahweh whom Jesus of Nazareth
> followed.
And which "God", "Yahweh", and "Jesus" are you talking about?
The one you heard about from a source you insist is man-made,
fallible, can't be trusted as the truth from God, and would make
God out to be evil if it were his word, or some other? And why
would your God just happen to reveal himself to you by the same
name as the God we know about from the Bible (e.g. "Yahweh")?
And what is the word of that "God", that you heard so you could
believe in him?
____________________________
____________________________
Claire
wrote:
And more to the point, why does he quote the Bible and read it
yearly??? I think he respects it more than he lets on! ;-)
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > >> HOW did ABRAHAM know God WITHOUT A BIBLE?????
> > ...
> > > If our friend says, we should ignore the
> > > Bible, where did he receive his knowledge so-called?
> > Exactly the same place that Abraham got his knowledge of God from
> > ...WITHOUT
> > A BIBLE.
> > >
get nailed to a cross, your body put in
a tomb with a stone blocking the entrance,
and soldiers guarding the tomb. When you
come back from the dead, we'll talk!
Good point!
I know.
Then do it. You still havn't come back
from the dead.
Jim
Mt 12:39 - But he answered and said unto them, An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be
given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
I
> What, you're claiming you can't know if any verse in the Bible is actually
> the word of God'
NONE of the words in the bible are directly "God's Word". Quoting teh bible
is NOT quoting God. The bible is a collection of men's experience of God and
is mediated through the thoughts, expressions and language used by those
same humans.
>> 1. Jesus said to trust in the One GOD. That is the whole meaning of the
>> Greatest Commandments which does NOT mention Jesus or a bible.
>
> But you're claiming you can't know if anything in the Bible is trustworthy
> as being the word of God.
I am NOT claiming that at all. Read above. The bible is NOT "God's Word".
Quoting the bible is NOT quoting God.
> Which "Jesus", then are you talking about?
Not your "Christ of faith" which is what Jesus became in the minds of
Gentuiles post-70 Ce.
I am speaking about the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth before his
death.
>> 2. Abraham knew God WITHOUT A BIBLE.
> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him
The BIBLE did NOT come to Abraham!
> says "faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING by the word of God" (Romans
> 10:17).
HEARING is NOT READING!!!!
> Salvation requires the specific revelation of Jesus Christ and His death
> and resurrection for our sins.
Not according to the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth in the EARLIEST
gospel written .........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark 10 17 He was setting out on a journey when a man ran up, knelt before
him and put this question to him, 'Good master, what must I do to inherit
eternal life?'
...
19 You know the commandments: You shall not kill; You shall not commit
adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not give false witness; You shall
not defraud; Honour your father and mother.'
20 And he said to him, 'Master, I have kept all these since my
earliest days.'
21 Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him,
and he said, 'You need to do one thing more. Go and sell what you own and
give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come,
follow me.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
>> The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
>> DOES YOUR "GOD" CONDONE SLAVERY??????
>> IF
>> you believe that the bible is somehow "God's Word"
>> THEN
>> you are forced to believe that God condones slavery.
>> WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
>> GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
......
> Now that you've again confirmed why you don't believe the Bible is the
> authoritative word of God
Of course I don't believe the fallible man-made bible is "God's Word" and
that to quote the bible is to quote God. That would be a very silly,
illogiocal, irrational and unscholarly way to approach the bible ... even
though it's what you do.
> which "God" and "Jesus" are you actually claiming to believe in?
There is ONLY ONE God - Yahweh, the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth
worshipped.
There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth who is NOT the
"Christ of Faith / Post-Easter Jesus" ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
The ONLY AUTHENTIC human time / space historic Jesus of Nazareth is the
Pre-Easter Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
> which God are you actually claiming you trust in
I trust in (not merely "claiming to trust in") the ONLY ONE God - Yahweh,
the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth worshipped.
>> There is ONLY One God - that is the Exclusive One God Yahweh worshipped
>> by
>> Abraham WHO HAD NO BIBLE - the God of Moses and of Jesus and of Whom Paul
>> states can be known through life (Acts:17:28) and through creation
>> (Romans
>> 1).
>
> Well now you're claiming to trust in the God you heard about from the
> Bible, aren't you?
Nope. You haven't read what I stated above.
> You don't get to argue there isn't "any" verse in the Bible you can
> actually know is the truth from God, then simultaneously argue you are
> trusting in that same God you learned about from the Bible.
WHO is saying that I learnt about God from the bible???? I'M NOT saying
that!!!! Who do you think you are to know MY experience???? A mind
reader?????
> If you are worshiping any "God" at all, it cannot be the same God as the
> one we know about from a source you claim can't be trusted. It must be
> some different "God".
ILLOGICAL IRRATIONAL NONSENSE!!
I've been a Christian since 1972 and worship the SAME God that Jesus
worshipped.
WHY don't YOU worship the same God whom Jesus worshipped???
WHY do you worship Jesus rather than God??????
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
I
> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ
OF God. "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
The ONLY AUTHENTIC human time / space historic Jesus of Nazareth is the
Pre-Easter Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One DOESN'T require a bible in order to know God.
God is NOT bound by a bible.
####################################################
from James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977)
There is no 'the Bible' that 'claims' to be divinely inspired, there is no
'it' that has a 'view of itself'. ... There is no such thing as 'the Bible's
view of itself' from which a fully authoritative answer to these questions
can be obtained. ... The most obvious difficulty is the absence from the
New Testamnent of clear unambiguous 'claims' about the infallibility and
inerrancy of the total New Testament as we have it today. p.78
##############################################
According to Jung , 'God stands, omnipotent and free, above his Bible."
p.131
... the Fundamentalsit will never ask what lies beyond the Bible, or what
sort of religious experience was possible before there was a Bible. He
speaks and behaves as it is was impossible to be a Christian before there
was a New Testament. He may be too self-conscious to state that he believes
the Bible to have been divinely dictated, but that is really what he does
believe. pp 131-132
... the Fundamentalist will forbid you to ask certain questions about the
Bible ... p. 132
It is therefore much mopre honest (though it may well make life more
difficult) to see the Bible as result rather than beginning. ... as a matter
of historical reality the Bible is the end orf a process. First, viewed as
a whole, the list of books which form the Bible was finally agreed upon only
in the fourth century AD, more than two hundred years after the latest book
in the New testament was written. And, second, viewed in its component
parts, each book of the Bible - or in many cases each part of a book - is
the result of a human creartive process akin to, or even identical with, the
production of a work of art. ... Each has his own language, and it is his
language, though the thoughts may be divine. pp. 132-133
In fact, then, the Bible is a collection, a human collection, of very human
response to the divine ... If it were literally the word of God it would be
unintelligible to us, just as divine music would be meaningless to human
ears. To speak or behave, therefore, as the Fundamentalist does, as if
Christianity is a question of responding to the Bible, is to faiol to do
justice to what the Bible is - it is itself response. What the Christin is
invited to do is to make his own response to what the bibklical writers were
responding to ... we only do justice to it, rather than simply obeyiong it
or imitating the responses which it contains, we allow it to form in us the
capacity to make our own unique responses. p. 134
... the Bible may be the initial impetus in the religious life of a
believer, and it may be the source to which the believer constantly returns.
But equally it may not: it is not necessarily so. There is no reason -
other than convention or Fundamentalist propaganda - why the Bible should
have a monopoly in the area of religious experience, so that 'if it's in the
Bible it must be so, and if it's not in the Bible it can't be so'. There
are other sources of revelation. p. 134
... the process of establishing which books actually belonged in the bible
was a human process: over a period of centuries the church gradually brought
itself to regard some books as having authoritative or canonical status and
to exclude others. .... There is therefore no reason in principle why flesh
and blood cannot continue the process and add new sources of revelation or
take away old ones (as Luther came very near doing when he dismissed the
letter of James as 'an epistle of straw'). p. 135
... the Fundamentalist is more or less obliged by his own presuppositions to
take a closed view of the Bibhle. If the Bible were not the final word then
he would have to review the whole basis of his religion. ... to insist that
God was behind the formation of the canon is both to assume what you are
trying to prove and to legislate on God's subsequent freedom to act and
reveal himself in any way he choses. p. 135
... if the Bible is the necessary and exclusive precondition for a
Christian's religious experience, it must logically follow that none of the
New Testament writers were themselves Christians, since by definition the
canonical Bible was not available to them. p. 135
We are entirely free, therefore, to explore the possibility that there are
indeed ways of approaching or understanding or questioning God which are
alternative to those contained in the Bible and which may have nothing at
all to do with the Bible and may eeven contradict it. p. 136
The Bible was something like 1500 years in the making .... the Bible
throughout its development was constantly changing its character, widening
its repertoire, breaking its own bounds. p. 136
... a religion which considers itself bound exclusively and finally by an
arbitrary collection of documents, abruptly and artificially sealed up in
the fourth century AD, is misunderstanding its own essence and indeed
closing itself off from the God whom it professes to reveal. p. 137
... an approach which seeks to legislate on what can and cannot be called
religious experience or revelation, according to whether or not it takes its
point of departure from the Bible, is simply closing its eyes to what
actually happens. pp. 139-140
The Bible in fact, if it is approached in accordance with the spirit which
permeates it, cries out to us to use our imagination, free from all
constraints, in our search for, or response to, God. p. 140
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
I
> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
##############################################
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
I
> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
I
> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
##############################################
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
##############################################
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
I
> And more to the point, why does he quote the Bible and read it
> yearly??? I think he respects it more than he lets on! ;-)
Oh, as a Christian I read and quote the bible often. I just don't believe
that it is inerrant. Nor do I believe that the bible is "God's Word".
Quoting the bible is NOT quoting God.
God expects us to use our God-given brains.
--
I
> You still havn't come back from the dead.
Neither has Jesus. ;-)
WHICH is the CORRECT Easter story???????
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
>> which "God" and "Jesus" are you actually claiming to believe in?
> There is ONLY ONE God - Yahweh, the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth
> worshipped.
>
> There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth who is NOT the
> "Christ of Faith / Post-Easter Jesus" ....
1) What authoritative basis do you have for believing in this
"Jesus" you are talking about, given you do not allow that any of
our Bible's can actually be known to be God's authoritative word?
______________________________
______________________________
2) Why do you reference people we know about from the Bible (like
Abraham), and cite the Bible as if it were legitimate support for
your position when the Bible makes a point you agree with, then
simultaneously argue the Bible can't be trusted as anything other
than the fallible word of men, when it condemns homosexuality, or
says something else you disagree with?
______________________________
______________________________
3) Since you acknowledge it was God's word Abraham believed in to
become
saved, what word of God did you believe to become saved?
______________________________
______________________________
4) What's the purpose of Christ coming to die on a cross, and
sending people to proclaim the gospel of His death and
resurrection, and christians dying for thousands of years to
proclaim the gospel, if you're saying that faith in the specific
message of His death and resurrection is unnecessary for salvation?
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000518> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What, you're claiming you can't know if any verse in the Bible is actually
>> the word of God'
>
> NONE of the words in the bible are directly "God's Word". Quoting teh bible
> is NOT quoting God. The bible is a collection of men's experience of God and
> is mediated through the thoughts, expressions and language used by those
> same humans.
But haven't you agreed that faith comes by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God, and that Abraham was saved by believing God's
word? What then, are you claiming _IS_ the "word of God", that
you believed to become saved?
___________________________
___________________________
>>> 1. Jesus said to trust in the One GOD. That is the whole meaning of the
>>> Greatest Commandments which does NOT mention Jesus or a bible.
>>
>> But you're claiming you can't know if anything in the Bible is trustworthy
>> as being the word of God.
>
> I am NOT claiming that at all.
If you're not saying that at all, then how would that not imply
you do believe something in the Bible is trustworthy as being
God's word? And if you do, then, again, please show us what you
are allowing is actually the authoritative word of God:
__________________________
__________________________
> Read above. The bible is NOT "God's Word".
> Quoting the bible is NOT quoting God.
So again, you are claiming you do not believe anything in the
Bible is trustworthy as being the word of God, are you not?
1) How are you not contradicting yourself:
___________________________
___________________________
2) Why do you then cite the Bible when you agree with it, as if
it were authoritative support for your claims about God? If you
don't believe it's God's word, and you simultaneously argue it
does not carry any authority because you claim it is man-made and
fallible, and you can't be sure if "any" of it is not an error,
why do you then cite it as if it supports your claims about God
in any authoritative way at all?
___________________________
___________________________
3) What are you claiming _IS_ the authoritative word of God,
which you are believing in to be saved? Or are you admitting you
don't claim to have anything that actually is trustworthy as
being the word of God, to believe in at all, in which case, how
can you claim to "believe" anything?
What is your authoritative word of God that one may know is God's
word, to be trusted in and believed?
_______________________________
_______________________________
>> Which "Jesus", then are you talking about?
>
> Not your "Christ of faith" which is what Jesus became in the minds of
> Gentuiles post-70 Ce.
>
> I am speaking about the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth before his
> death.
And what authoritative basis do you have for your beliefs in this
Jesus you are claiming? What word do you claim to have that can
actually be trusted as coming from God, to support your beliefs?
_________________________
_________________________
You see what I mean? Whenever you don't like what the Bible
says, you simply argue it was man-made, and therefore fallible
and therefore you can't be sure if anything it says is not an
error. Well then, how does that same standard not apply to any
claim you make unless you produce some teaching that actually did
come from God Himself, and/or can be trusted to be God's word?
You either _have_ what you consider to be the authoritative word
from God Himself, or you have only what you insist cannot be
trusted, because you're not sure whether it is in error. You
can't have faith in any word that you don't consider to be the
certain truth from God on the subject. All you can have is
doubt. Thus, you're either going to have to produce what you
claim is an authoritative word from God, or admit by your own
standard that you don't have any legitimate basis for doing
anything other than living in doubt rather than faith.
>>> 2. Abraham knew God WITHOUT A BIBLE.
>> Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him
>
> The BIBLE did NOT come to Abraham!
The "word of God" did come to Abraham. What are you claiming is
the word of God you believed to become saved?
_________________
_________________
>> says "faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING by the word of God" (Romans
>> 10:17).
>
> HEARING is NOT READING!!!!
Reading can result in hearing. Hearing requires that something
is being proclaimed or read. What are is being proclaimed? The
word of God. What is the word of God Mark?
____________________
____________________
>> Salvation requires the specific revelation of Jesus Christ and His death
>> and resurrection for our sins.
>
>
> Not according to the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth in the EARLIEST
> gospel written .........
And where did God say that? If you can't produce something you
agree is God's word, then all you have is man's word, which you
insist makes anything you don't like about what the Bible says, a
legitimate basis for not believing or respecting it. Where is
your authoritative word from God that supports what you say Mark?
And if you don't have any, then how can you expect anyone to
give any more respect to what you say, than the respect you give
the Bible when it condemns homosexuality?
_________________________
_________________________
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Mark 10 17 He was setting out on a journey when a man ran up, knelt before
> him and put this question to him, 'Good master, what must I do to inherit
> eternal life?'
> ...
> 19 You know the commandments: You shall not kill; You shall not commit
> adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not give false witness; You shall
> not defraud; Honour your father and mother.'
> 20 And he said to him, 'Master, I have kept all these since my
> earliest days.'
> 21 Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him,
> and he said, 'You need to do one thing more. Go and sell what you own and
> give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come,
> follow me.'
Again, why do you cite the Bible as if it supports your claims,
while you simultaneously argue you can't know if any of it is not
in error?
________________________
________________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> which God are you actually claiming you trust in
>
> I trust in (not merely "claiming to trust in") the ONLY ONE God - Yahweh,
> the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth worshipped.
Based on what authoritative word from God do you believe in this
"Jesus" you are talking about, given you argue you can't know if
"any" of the Bible is not in error? You're claiming to have
faith in a "Jesus" that was revealed to you from a source that
you claim you're not sure "any" of is not error?
>>> There is ONLY One God - that is the Exclusive One God Yahweh worshipped
>>> by
>>> Abraham WHO HAD NO BIBLE - the God of Moses and of Jesus and of Whom Paul
>>> states can be known through life (Acts:17:28) and through creation
>>> (Romans
>>> 1).
>>
>> Well now you're claiming to trust in the God you heard about from the
>> Bible, aren't you?
>
> Nope. You haven't read what I stated above.
Then what is the authoritative source which gives you faith in
the "Jesus" you are talking about, given claim you can't be sure
if "any" of the Bible we hear about Jesus from is not in error?
_______________________________
_______________________________
>> You don't get to argue there isn't "any" verse in the Bible you can
>> actually know is the truth from God, then simultaneously argue you are
>> trusting in that same God you learned about from the Bible.
>
> WHO is saying that I learnt about God from the bible???? I'M NOT saying
> that!!!! Who do you think you are to know MY experience???? A mind
> reader?????
How many times do I have to ask you to disclose your
authoritative source for believing in the Jesus you are talking
about? What informed you about the Jesus you are talking about,
that you consider to be the word of God, or authoritative, since
you argue the Bible can't be the authoritative words of God, on
the grounds you claim it came through fallible men?
________________________
________________________
>> If you are worshiping any "God" at all, it cannot be the same God as the
>> one we know about from a source you claim can't be trusted. It must be
>> some different "God".
>
> ILLOGICAL IRRATIONAL NONSENSE!!
>
> I've been a Christian since 1972 and worship the SAME God that Jesus
> worshipped.
>
> WHY don't YOU worship the same God whom Jesus worshipped???
>
> WHY do you worship Jesus rather than God??????
Who said I don't? But _I_ believe the Bible we know about that
Jesus and God from is the authoritative word of God, and you
DON'T. Is it some difficult thing to understand that if you
can't be sure "any" of the Bible is not error, you can't then
claim to be believing what that source told you about that God
and Jesus?
And if you're not talking about the same Jesus and God we know
about from the Bible, but some different one, then which ones are
you talking about, and what trustworthy word of God do you have
for believing in that God and Jesus?
_____________________________
_____________________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> > (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
> The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
The word of God came to him, and he was saved by believing that
word. What is the word of God you believed to become saved?
_____________________
_____________________
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Since Jesus said to love God means to obey His commands, and
since when they asked Him what the work of God was, He told them
to believe on Him, what word of God are you basing your faith in
a God who has a son named Jesus, given you insist you can't know
what in the Bible is not an error?
I believe in Jesus and God, _because_ the Bible tells me about
Him, and I believe it is the word of God. You have not
identified, that I'm aware, any word of God which you do not
claim is error-riddled, man-made and fallible, which means you
can't have faith in anything, unless you have the authoritative
word of God. Now again, where is your error-free word of God
that came from God, that you have a basis for believing in the
God who has a son named "Jesus"?
_______________________
_______________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> > (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
> The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
The word of God came to him, and he was saved by believing that
word. What is the word of God you believed to become saved?
_____________________
_____________________
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Since Jesus said to love God means to obey His commands, and
since when they asked Him what the work of God was, He told them
to believe on Him, what word of God are you basing your faith in
a God who has a son named Jesus, given you insist you can't know
what in the Bible is not an error?
I believe in Jesus and God, _because_ the Bible tells me about
Him, and I believe it is the word of God. You have not
identified, that I'm aware, any word of God which you do not
claim is error-riddled, man-made and fallible, which means you
can't have faith in anything, unless you have the authoritative
word of God. Now again, where is your error-free word of God
that came from God, that you have a basis for believing in the
God who has a son named "Jesus"?
_______________________
_______________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> > (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
> The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
The word of God came to him, and he was saved by believing that
word. What is the word of God you believed to become saved?
_____________________
_____________________
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Since Jesus said to love God means to obey His commands, and
since when they asked Him what the work of God was, He told them
to believe on Him, what word of God are you basing your faith in
a God who has a son named Jesus, given you insist you can't know
what in the Bible is not an error?
I believe in Jesus and God, _because_ the Bible tells me about
Him, and I believe it is the word of God. You have not
identified, that I'm aware, any word of God which you do not
claim is error-riddled, man-made and fallible, which means you
can't have faith in anything, unless you have the authoritative
word of God. Now again, where is your error-free word of God
that came from God, that you have a basis for believing in the
God who has a son named "Jesus"?
_______________________
_______________________
--
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> > (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
> The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
The word of God came to him, and he was saved by believing that
word. What is the word of God you believed to become saved?
_____________________
_____________________
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Since Jesus said to love God means to obey His commands, and
since when they asked Him what the work of God was, He told them
to believe on Him, what word of God are you basing your faith in
a God who has a son named Jesus, given you insist you can't know
what in the Bible is not an error?
I believe in Jesus and God, _because_ the Bible tells me about
Him, and I believe it is the word of God. You have not
identified, that I'm aware, any word of God which you do not
claim is error-riddled, man-made and fallible, which means you
can't have faith in anything, unless you have the authoritative
word of God. Now again, where is your error-free word of God
that came from God, that you have a basis for believing in the
God who has a son named "Jesus"?
_______________________
_______________________
--
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> > (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
> The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
The word of God came to him, and he was saved by believing that
word. What is the word of God you believed to become saved?
_____________________
_____________________
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Since Jesus said to love God means to obey His commands, and
since when they asked Him what the work of God was, He told them
to believe on Him, what word of God are you basing your faith in
a God who has a son named Jesus, given you insist you can't know
what in the Bible is not an error?
I believe in Jesus and God, _because_ the Bible tells me about
Him, and I believe it is the word of God. You have not
identified, that I'm aware, any word of God which you do not
claim is error-riddled, man-made and fallible, which means you
can't have faith in anything, unless you have the authoritative
word of God. Now again, where is your error-free word of God
that came from God, that you have a basis for believing in the
God who has a son named "Jesus"?
_______________________
_______________________
--
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
>> > (4) Then the word of the LORD came to him:
> The BIBLE did NOT come to him!
The word of God came to him, and he was saved by believing that
word. What is the word of God you believed to become saved?
_____________________
_____________________
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Since Jesus said to love God means to obey His commands, and
since when they asked Him what the work of God was, He told them
to believe on Him, what word of God are you basing your faith in
a God who has a son named Jesus, given you insist you can't know
what in the Bible is not an error?
I believe in Jesus and God, _because_ the Bible tells me about
Him, and I believe it is the word of God. You have not
identified, that I'm aware, any word of God which you do not
claim is error-riddled, man-made and fallible, which means you
can't have faith in anything, unless you have the authoritative
word of God. Now again, where is your error-free word of God
that came from God, that you have a basis for believing in the
God who has a son named "Jesus"?
_______________________
_______________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Claire"<claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > And more to the point, why does he quote the Bible and read it
>> > yearly??? I think he respects it more than he lets on!;-)
>
> Oh, as a Christian I read and quote the bible often. I just don't believe
> that it is inerrant. Nor do I believe that the bible is "God's Word".
> Quoting the bible is NOT quoting God.
Why would you believe in a God, based on a source you insist you
can't be sure any of is not an error? You can't have faith in
something if you admit you don't know whether or not it is an
error. So what is the error-free word of God that gives you
faith in the God you talk about, who just coincidentally has a
son named "Jesus"?
______________________
______________________
Why do you cite the Bible as if it were an authoritative support
for what you believe, when you like what it says, while you
simultaneously argue you can't know what in that Bible is not an
error, when you don't like what it says about homosexuality?
That is self-contradictory nonsense. You either have an error
free word of God you are basing your faith in, or you have no
grounds to claim faith in anything, especially when your standard
requires that if it came through a man, it must be fallible, and
you can't be sure if it's not an error!
> God expects us to use our God-given brains.
Here...use your God-given brain, and tell me what is the word of
God you believed to become saved?
______________________
______________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > You still havn't come back from the dead.
> Neither has Jesus.;-)
>
> WHICH is the CORRECT Easter story???????
How do you not realize that in constantly pointing to things
which you gleefully think prove we can't know what in the Bible
is not an error, you
1) undermine any basis you have for using that Bible to back up
your claims when you like what it says,
2) undermine any basis you have for claiming to believe in the
same God that Bible proclaims to you?
3) Now, how is it you believe in a God who is called "Yahweh",
who has a Son named "Jesus", when you insist you can't know what
in that source you heard about that God from, is not an error?
4) And if you're claiming to have faith in some other source that
identified a God named "Yahweh", who has a son named "Jesus",
what is that source, and how do you know it is the authoritative
word of God, not just some man-made fallible word?
_______________________
_______________________
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > You still havn't come back from the dead.
>
> Neither has Jesus. ;-)
>
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Lu 1:2 - Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning
were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1 Corinthians 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After 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.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
Jim
Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> WHICH is the CORRECT Easter story???????
>
There have been harmonies written since ancient
times. I have a translation of Tatian's written
in the second century. So, there are ways to
reconcile your objections.
So, your point is nugatory.
I know this article by St Chrysostom
will be over your head, but I shall
quote it anyway.
6. "But the contrary," it may be said, "hath come to pass, for in many
places they are convicted of discordance." Nay, this very thing is a
very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all
things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of
our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and
had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire
agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that
discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from
all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the
writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have
related differently, this nothing2727 [That is, "in nothing," in no
respect.--R.]injures the truth of what they have said. And these things
too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed,
to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to
observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and
furnish out2828 συγκροτοσιν. [Literally, "weld together," used of
organizing a body of soldiers.--R.]our doctrine, nowhere is any of them
found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.
But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that
He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that
He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath
given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law
not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-
begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with
the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these
we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.iv.html
Jim
Heb 11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him.
I
>> There is ONLY ONE God - Yahweh, the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth
>> worshipped.
>>
>> There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth who is NOT the
>> "Christ of Faith / Post-Easter Jesus" ....
>
>
> 1) What authoritative basis do you have for believing in this "Jesus" you
> are talking about
Truth.
I
>> I trust in (not merely "claiming to trust in") the ONLY ONE God - Yahweh,
>> the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth worshipped.
>
> Based on what authoritative word
Truth. All truth is God's truth.
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
What is the source of your "truth"?
____________________
____________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
What source do you know about this "truth" from?
__________________
I
> What then, are you claiming _IS_ the "word of God", that you believed to
> become saved?
1. NOT a man-made fallible bible that contains contradictions and forgeries
as well as truth.
2. Truth. All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
fallible bible.
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What then, are you claiming_IS_ the "word of God", that you believed to
>> > become saved?
>
> 1. NOT a man-made fallible bible that contains contradictions and forgeries
> as well as truth.
>
> 2. Truth. All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
> truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
> fallible bible.
>
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
I
>> > You still havn't come back from the dead.
>> Neither has Jesus. ;-)
>
> Ac 1:3
1. You are confusing a resurrection INTO God with the resuscitation of a
corpse that then physically flies through the sky like Superman.
2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew 2750 But Jesus, again crying out in a loud voice, yielded up his
spirit.
51 And suddenly, the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to
bottom, the earth quaked, the rocks were split,
52 the tombs opened and the bodies of MANY HOLY PEOPLE ROSE FROM THE
DEAD,
53 and these, after his resurrection, CAME OUT OF THEIR TOMBS, entered
the holy city and APPEARED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please give HISTORICAL PROOF that these people were actually "raised from
the dead". Such a monumentous occassion of MULTIPLE "raisings for the dead"
must have been reported by everyone at the time. Maybe you could give us
their names. Surely their names were also included in such a miracle!
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe. Really! Try to believe even if
it's bloody stupid and irrational. Why? Because I said so, that's why!
Don't ask questions. Just believe." - Mark 17: 1- 3 (MTV)
I
>> WHICH is the CORRECT Easter story???????
> There have been harmonies written since ancient
> times.
NONE of them work. You have MULTIPLE contradictions that cannot be
harmonised.
Quoting an ancient church father is not proof of anything and certainly does
not engage the actual texts.
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> 2.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Matthew 2750 But Jesus, again crying out in a loud voice, yielded up his
> spirit.
> 51 And suddenly, the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to
> bottom, the earth quaked, the rocks were split,
> 52 the tombs opened and the bodies of MANY HOLY PEOPLE ROSE FROM THE
> DEAD,
> 53 and these, after his resurrection, CAME OUT OF THEIR TOMBS, entered
> the holy city and APPEARED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Please give HISTORICAL PROOF that these people were actually "raised from
> the dead". Such a monumentous occassion of MULTIPLE "raisings for the dead"
> must have been reported by everyone at the time. Maybe you could give us
> their names. Surely their names were also included in such a miracle!
>
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> WHICH is the CORRECT Easter story???????
>> > There have been harmonies written since ancient
>> > times.
> NONE of them work. You have MULTIPLE contradictions that cannot be
> harmonised.
>
> Quoting an ancient church father is not proof of anything and certainly does
> not engage the actual texts.
>
I
> What is the word of God
All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is truth. Truth
can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made fallible bible.
The Bible contains the phrase "thus says the LORD" 1,180 times.
Ignorant Randy Young says that means that the bible is "God's Word".
There are at least two problems with such a view:
1. The parts of the bible that DON'T have "thus says the LORD" prefacing it.
Everything NOT prefaced by ""thus says the LORD" must, by Randy Young's
logic, NOT be the "Word of God" even if it is said by Jesus. Likewise
statements like John 3:16 AREN'T a part of Jesus' speech. Greek has no
speech marks and it it is obvious that the text is a commentary by the
writer. That means that John 3:16 is NOT "God's Word". It also means that
the vast majority of text in the bible is not "God's Word".
2. "thus says the LORD" is found elsewhere.
The Book of Mormon states "thus says the LORD" at 1 Ne. 21: 7-8, 22, 25, 2
Ne. 6: 6, 17, Jacob 2: 23, 25, 28, Mosiah 11: 20, 25, 2 Ne. 7: 1, 2 Ne. 26:
17-18, Alma 8: 17, 29, Hel. 10: 11, 14, Hel. 13: 8, 11, 1 Ne. 20: 17, 2 Ne.
3: 7, 2 Ne. 5: 22, 2 Ne. 10: 7, 2 Ne. 17: 7, 2 Ne. 20: 24, 2 Ne. 27: 33, 2
Ne. 28: 30, Ne. 29: 4, Jacob 5: 3, Mosiah 3: 24, Mosiah 12: 2, Mosiah 23: 7,
Alma 45: 16, Hel. 7: 23, 3 Ne. 20: 38 Using Randy Young's logic one must
also consider the book of Mormon to be "God's Word".
The Koran likewise has the phrase "God says" so, by Randy Young's own
standard, the Koran must be "God's Word".
I
I
I
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What is the word of God
> All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is truth. Truth
> can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made fallible bible.
Mark still won't answer the question! I didn't ask him who owned
the truth, but
"Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge
of and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you
claim you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?"
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What is the word of God
> All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
> truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
> fallible bible.
I didn't ask Mark who owns the truth, I asked him:
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
_______________________
Why does Mark refuse to answer the question?
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What is the word of God
> All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
> truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
> fallible bible.
I didn't ask Mark who owns the truth, I asked him:
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
_______________________
Why does Mark refuse to answer the question?