The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Larry_boy,

  I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace.  In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law.  Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar.  So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up.  Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

  Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

  Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

He doesn't.

 

[larry_boy_44]

when the apostles said there was only one baptism, and they baptized people in a certain way in all places (whether desert or rainforest), why do we assume that we can just change EVERY PART OF IT (they emersed in Jesus' name, modern churches sprinkle in the titles) and it still be the same, valid baptism?

it isn't like we had a water shortage and couldn't afford to baptize people thorugh emersion, we just don't feel like it...

that couples with the change from JEsus' name to the titles should be more htan enough to tell any modern person who is willing to get past thier dogma and think about it that something is up with the way that baptism is done and a lot more study and thought needs to be put into it and maybe we should be going back to emerssing people in JEsus name...

This seems relatively obvious to me and is what I have said all along, because the essence of the baptism had nothing to do with the physical dunking of the person and everything to do with the act of cleansing...whether that cleansing was demonstrated by dunking, pouring a cup over the person's head or sprinkling.My experience tells me that if God wants something done a certain way, he's very good about telling us how to do it. If it doesn't really matter HOW we do it, just that we do it, he leaves things for us to figure out and become comfortable with what works for us as it fits with our relationship with him.

but, the word "baptizmo" in Greek MEANT TO DUNK...it isn't so much that He didn't explain it properly, its that our dogma nad tradition decided to change the menaing of the word from simply "to immerse" to "a ritual done by Christians", ya know?

I'm saying that we should no longer follow the ritual thta it was changed to and actually do what Jesus commanded us to do, and thatis to immerse new converts in water in Jesus' name...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry_boy,

   I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace.  In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law.  Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar.  So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up.  Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

  Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

  Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

He doesn't.

He definately considered the washing at the basin a part of the OT plan for asking for forgiveness... why do we think ours is so much different?

 

[Jayrok]

I have read the story in depth; I cannot find evidence for your claim that David was simply hungry and wanted extra bread. I agree that David was lying about his mission, but why was he lying about his men? His presentation to Ahimelech that he was alone may have been the lie, then he was forced to fess up when he realized he needed more food.

It doesn't appear that you've read the story closely at all. Having his men with him was part of the lie, along with the fantom mission from Saul. From 1 Samuel 18 til the first paragraph of chapter 22 tells this entire story.

Shortly after Young David kills Goliath, Saul takes him in. He wins many battles and rises to the top of the military ranks under Saul. David has men at this point, yes. Saul gets jealous of David and plots to kill him. Jonathon befriends David and warns him of his father's plan. As does his new wife, Saul's daughter Michal.

She has David slip out (alone) and put an Idol in his bed to make it look like David, so when the King's men came they couldn't find David, but the Idol in his place.

At this point, David is on his own. He consorts with Jonathon and that is when he is told to hide in the field and Jonathon would fire the arrows to let David know what is up with Saul regarding him. When David sees the sign, the arrows, he flees from the field undetected (and very much alone).

David's men know nothing of this, but learn later on. The next paragraph David comes to the priest for the food. You know that part. He tells the priest that his men were meeting him at the "appointed place".

Note here, that David also asks the priest for a weapon. David was alone and unprotected. He had NO men around to help him at any place and no weapons to protect him. He gets the sword of Goliath and goes on his way. Next, he fled from Saul and went to Achish king of Gath (1 Sam 21:10).. But here the king's servants recongnize him and David gets nervous.

He is afraid (and alone) so he acts like he is crazy or mad. The king sends him away. Next, David left Gath and escaped to the cave of Adullam. When his brothers and his father's household heard about it, they went down to him there. All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their leader. About four hundred men were with him. (1 Sam 22:1-2)

In verse 21 and 22, the mystery of the "men" is revealed. "When his brothers and his father's household HEARD about this, they went down to him. All those who were in distress gathered around him and he became their leader.

So, his men went down with his brothers and father's household onle AFTER they heard of all this.

David lied about his men being with him, and about the mission that didn't exist.

If he was meeting his men close by, he wouldn't have asked the priest for a weapon... his men would have packed that to wait for him.. They would have brought food as well. Don't you see? David was in peril and had to flee quickly. He didn't have any time to muster any of his men.

He was not alone in the previous chapter and he was not alone in the next chapter. In fact, his numbers grow.

So you see. His numbers grew and his men joined him AFTER they heard about it. But he was very much alone with he met the priest.

The fact that three NT writers then confirm that the normal read of the paragraph is that he is not alone only bolsters that case – I would never assume they just made a mistake.

But they did make a mistake. Sometimes when you only read the KJV, it's hard to understand the flow of the texts in narrative form. Pick up another translation that is more easily understood english.

As far as Ahimelech goes, I agree that David first went to his house, but later in the chapter, Abiathar escapes and flees with David after Saul has his entire family killed. It was Abiathar than stayed with David from that point forward. So, again, I don’t see a problem as referring to these days as “the days of Abiathar” (as quoted in the KJV).

It doesn't say "the days of Abiathar". It says "In the days of Abiathar the high priest". It was a simply mixup. The author made a mistake, and Jesus never uttered the words. I've had someone tell me that "well, it was in the days of Abiathar", even if he wasn't the high priest. So technically it is correct.

That would be like claiming it is correct to say that World War II happened in the days of President George Bush.

To me, there is a lot going on here. The man of God that came to Eli with this prophecy was predicting what would happen to Ahimelech’s house for the sins of Eli’s sons. There shall not be an old man in thine house (Ahimlech). “I will raise me up a faithful priest… and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.” This has dual meaning (in addition to what it might be saying about Samuel). Abiathar will walk with David and Jesus will walk with his church.

Jesus was bringing this to the attention of the priests of his day. He said, and it was recorded, Abiathar on purpose.

wow. you are looking a little to hard for reconciliation here. Clearly, Jesus was teaching situational ethics. In defense of the position he had taken, Jesus cited an incident in the life of David. In other words, to respond to the priests, he wanted to use a tactic that King David did, who was Judah's most beloved King. Like I said, I doubt Jesus ever said such a thing. If he did, the Jewish priests would have corrected him on the mistake. And Jesus would have had to answer what he meant by what he said. It's easy to read into things when you are looking for answers. To compare Abiathar and David to Jesus and the church is a long stretch. You can also say that George W. Bush and his cabinet are like Jesus and the apostles. Heck, those comparisons could go on forever.

 

[Zalf]

So really short people have an easier path into heaven because they require less water?

Does God use the metric system when determining how much water is enough water? Does the quality over quantity come into play if you are using really good water? What is the pastor gets the yips and only gets me 3/4 of the way under do I have to get a do over?

Baptism isnt about the amount of water or how far you get dunked in it. Its the public declaration of your faith before your congragation.

If God is actually this technical, then we are all totally screwed and no one is getting into Heaven.

The fact that someone who obviously reads the Bible as much as LB does can build up and maintain so much angst for an entire christian denomination over something this minor is reason #1 why I cant stand what man has done with organized religion. This is just another wedge that man has created that drives people away from the christian faith. Do you realize how the last 16 pages of this 17 page thread look to someone considering Christianity? Do you think these last 16 pages have done more to turn people toward Christ or away from him?

Christians need to wake up and realize it is about believing in, accepting, and worshipping God in any way, not just YOUR way. This tone of you have to do it MY way or you might as well not do it at all is complete BS.

 

[Jayrok]

If you find a “mistake,” I find meaning.

That sort of sums it up. To you, there is always "meaning" no matter how hard you have to stretch and bend it or how bankrupt it may be.

 

[Mrs. Tipsy]

So really short people have an easier path into heaven because they require less water?

Does God use the metric system when determining how much water is enough water? Does the quality over quantity come into play if you are using really good water? What is the pastor gets the yips and only gets me 3/4 of the way under do I have to get a do over?

Baptism isnt about the amount of water or how far you get dunked in it. Its the public declaration of your faith before your congragation.

If God is actually this technical, then we are all totally screwed and no one is getting into Heaven.

The fact that someone who obviously reads the Bible as much as LB does can build up and maintain so much angst for an entire christian denomination over something this minor is reason #1 why I cant stand what man has done with organized religion. This is just another wedge that man has created that drives people away from the christian faith. Do you realize how the last 16 pages of this 17 page thread look to someone considering Christianity? Do you think these last 16 pages have done more to turn people toward Christ or away from him?

Christians need to wake up and realize it is about believing in, accepting, and worshipping God in any way, not just YOUR way. This tone of you have to do it MY way or you might as well not do it at all is complete BS.

Hey now. Not all of us have that tunnel vision. I know of many Christians (including me) that believe that it is about believing in, accepting, and worshipping God and that there are many paths one can take in that pursuit. (Of course, as a Catholic who has been damned to the fires of hell by LB, you can take what I say with a grain of salt.)

 

[Jayrok]

Men make mistakes. But does the Holy Spirit? I would hope not.. so a logical explanation is that these men really weren't inspired by any Holy Spirit 

By the way, don’t apologize for the length of the posts. So much good stuff in here, since we ditched the pillowfight (man, I’m still laughing about that one). I just had to choose a few to scope down my thoughts. Feel free to bring something else back up if I missed it… On this quote here, I didn’t really want to get into this one, because I am not sure I know what I am talking about on this point - That is the inspired/inerrant debate.

But I couldn’t let it go.

There is no question about where my loyalty is – the KJV bible and its inherent Truth. Does that mean that God penned it, through the Holy Spirit, through a human author? Is that the point of the bible? I don’t think so. If God wanted to do that, he could have done it a lot more efficiently, it seems. I just think it is simpler than that:

God created people. Occasionally, he talks to them. He has them write some stuff down. He comes down here and shows us a couple things. He gives us signs and miracles, and prophets and saviors and holy men and woman, and a conscience, and on and on. He can’t make us do anything – because he chooses not to. A forced relationship is not a meaningful one. But he has plenty of leads for us to come to him. When we do, he gives us a manual – a bible, if you will, in our language. One that WE can read, one that WE can hear, one that WE can share. He tells us that many will try to discredit it and take it out of our hands. Don’t let them do it…

When I read the bible, that is how I hear it. Human beings are spreading the Truth about the greatness of God, and that activity is directed by God. I just don’t think you should parse that too specifically. The bible doesn’t. In the bible, God communicates in everyway possible – literally, historically, allegorically, through burning bushes, through prophets, through his Son, through himself, poetically, through letter writers, through kings, through murders and adulterers, figuratively, symbolically. It a simple message, spread in every way possible to reach all people.

I think that people who find contradictions either ignore or have not yet found the way they bible speaks to them. The bible is presented as Truth. It is up to you to accept or reject it.

I understand your loyalty is with the King James Bible.

I quote this as just one sample. Doesn’t this speak to the issue of Faith? I think you believe that my “faith” gets in the way of my rational thought. I clearly disagree. I believe we both have to have a little “faith.” We approach the bible differently. If you believe that Mark’s intention was to write a story, nothing in his “story” is going to convince you of the Good News of Jesus.

You interpret the bible with your “belief” that Mark wrote a story.

I interpret the bible with my “faith” that Mark was delivering the Good News of Jesus.

I make no more leaps than you.

I don't necessarily believe that "faith" gets in your way. I believe that you want it to be true and inpsired very badly, and that desire gets in your way of rational thought. You are willing to dismiss any discrepancy because basically... It simply can't be faulty. It isn't a "religion" to me. I don't have "faith" that Mark wrote a story. It's a logical conclusion what he did. Reading it all as a whole, it makes the most sense.

you want the good news of Jesus to be true, you may have built your life around it. So of course you have faith in it.

 

[Zalf]

So really short people have an easier path into heaven because they require less water?

Does God use the metric system when determining how much water is enough water? Does the quality over quantity come into play if you are using really good water? What is the pastor gets the yips and only gets me 3/4 of the way under do I have to get a do over?

Baptism isnt about the amount of water or how far you get dunked in it. Its the public declaration of your faith before your congragation.

If God is actually this technical, then we are all totally screwed and no one is getting into Heaven.

The fact that someone who obviously reads the Bible as much as LB does can build up and maintain so much angst for an entire christian denomination over something this minor is reason #1 why I cant stand what man has done with organized religion. This is just another wedge that man has created that drives people away from the christian faith. Do you realize how the last 16 pages of this 17 page thread look to someone considering Christianity? Do you think these last 16 pages have done more to turn people toward Christ or away from him?

Christians need to wake up and realize it is about believing in, accepting, and worshipping God in any way, not just YOUR way. This tone of you have to do it MY way or you might as well not do it at all is complete BS.

Hey now. Not all of us have that tunnel vision. I know of many Christians (including me) that believe that it is about believing in, accepting, and worshipping God and that there are many paths one can take in that pursuit. (Of course, as a Catholic who has been damned to the fires of hell by LB, you can take what I say with a grain of salt.)

Youre right, I need to clarify that my "Christians need to wake up" isnt to all Christians individually, but more to the religion as a whole, myself included. As a whole we spend way too much time trying to point out how other denominations arent as saved as ours. Some that drives people alot more people away from Christianity as a whole then it brings to it. That simple fact should be enough to convince most sane people that arguing about it probably isnt what God would want from us.

 

[Jayrok]

Oh okay..I have a better understanding of where you're coming from now. You're kinda like a modern day Thomas Paine eh?

It's all good Jayrok, I enjoy talking Bible too, I've actually learned a lot from this forum and I finished Misquoting Jesus this weekend and it was pretty interesting.

But despite all of the 'changes' that were made to the New Testament via error or direct intention, I still think it's the key to the gateway of understanding God's plan for man.

I picked it up as an Agnostic, but once I read all of it, and what it's instructing mankind to do, I was convicted. On top of that, there's been too many miracles in my life (directly and indirectly) for me to think that this is all a random excursion.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and I'm not smart enough to try and live my life completely off my own understanding. So thus, I lean on the Bible for my lamp and my hope.

Of course, I know a lot of people laugh at Christians (i.e. the pillowfight going on in here), but at the same time, if whatever you're doing is bringing you peace and fulfillment and allowing you to sleep good at night, then I guess that's where you should be.

So do you believe the Old Testament to be God inspired or do you think the entire Bible is a collection of stories, kinda like the Iliad or Odyssey?

Thomas Paine was a pioneer. But I don't know about being a modern day TP.I do not think the OT is inspired by any deity. But I also do not believe it is just a collection of fairy tales. Far from it. The OT is a road map of the Jewish nation. People and places in it are factual, to a degree. I mean, the Kings listed and kingdoms did in fact exist I believe.

The creation story is clearly mythological. The exodus was not a single event where one million jews fled from Egypt. It just didn't happen that way. The patriarchs probably didn't exist as described either, nor Moses or even Joshua.

I believe the OT was written for more political reasons that for a religion. The Jews were telling their story and they used a lot of exaggeration in many areas. The Jews were defeated time and time again and they always blamed their defeats on that fact that God was angry with them. But they always clung to hope. They hoped that God would restore their beloved nation in the land that they considered promised by God. When they got ousted from it, time and time again, they turned to God and blamed each other (kings) on their perals.

It has much historical fact, lots of mythology, blended with poetry and hopeful narratives. The thing about the OT that many christians don't realize is that it basically stands alone from the jewish standpoint. It has a beginning and an end.

 

[Jayrok]

I know this thread barreled down the toilet when these boys started slapping each other around with the hot mops..

But just one more thought going back to the "picking bits and pieces from various psalms" to fit into the Jesus story.

I believe the NT writers searched through the scriptures trying to find something they can have Jesus say on the cross, like psalms 22, the first line anyway.. Course David has said this in more than one psalm about why has God forsaken him or forgotten him.

If God's plan "A" really included sending his Son, Jesus, to be a sacrifice for all mankind's sin.. from the beginning, like someone on this board suggested, literature like psalms would be full of songs to God's son and his holy mission.

We would have a psalm like:

My God, My God, we praise you mighty God

you have been our blessed redeemer

you have kept our enemies away

your light has been our salvation

we were a lost people, destined for eternal damnation

you showed pity on us, through your love

you sent your son, to redeem us from our sins

though he will be pierced for our transgressions

he will rise in the glory of your resurrection

this precious act has preserved us in your love

we are forever greatful, and sing songs

praising your blessed and holy name

praise be to God, the Father

praise be to God, the Son

Satan will forever be chained

cast into the pit

forever tormented in fire

deceiving your people no more

praise be to God, the Father

praise be to God, the Son

and God the Holy Spirit

your kingdom shall reign

forever and ever, amen

Why aren't there any psalms like this?

No psalm even mentions a trinity

No psalm even mentions a cross

No psalm even mentions satan

No psalm even mentions a Eucharist

No psalm even mentions baptism

No psalm even mentions the 12

No psalm even mentions God's son in the flesh

No psalm even mentions eternal flames

No psalm even mentions the all important resurrection

Why is this... if this was God's plan for us all along?

 

[cocoagirl]

I know this thread barreled down the toilet when these boys started slapping each other around with the hot mops..

Funny visual

 

[Politician Spock]

Larry_boy,

I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace. In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law. Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar. So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up. Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

He has asked us.

 

[Politician Spock]

Larry_boy,

I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace. In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law. Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar. So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up. Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

He doesn't.

He definately considered the washing at the basin a part of the OT plan for asking for forgiveness... why do we think ours is so much different?

Because washing at the basin in the OT plan didn't result in salvation either.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry_boy,

  I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace.  In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law.  Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar.  So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up.  Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

  Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

  Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

He doesn't.

He definately considered the washing at the basin a part of the OT plan for asking for forgiveness... why do we think ours is so much different?

Because washing at the basin in the OT plan didn't result in salvation either.

niether does baptism in the New Testament, HOWEVER you cannot recieve salvation unless you have washed at the New Testament Basin (baptism)...baptism doesn't save you, its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

 

[Zalf]

its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

This is an EXTREME claim to state as fact. You are not qualified to make it. And you have nothing biblical whatsoever to back it up.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

baptism doesn't save you, its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

Interesting. Do you have a scripture reference for this particular belief?

 

[Politician Spock]

Larry_boy,

I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace. In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law. Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar. So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up. Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

He doesn't.

He definately considered the washing at the basin a part of the OT plan for asking for forgiveness... why do we think ours is so much different?

Because washing at the basin in the OT plan didn't result in salvation either.

niether does baptism in the New Testament,

You're correct up to this point. You should have stopped right here.

HOWEVER you cannot recieve salvation unless you have washed at the New Testament Basin (baptism)...

So says Larry 4:23.

baptism doesn't save you, its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

Everyone who believes has been baptized by the Holy Spirit regardless of whether or not they've done the symbolic action yet.While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

(Act 10:44-48)

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

(Joh 6:37)

 

[The Commish]

So really short people have an easier path into heaven because they require less water?

Does God use the metric system when determining how much water is enough water? Does the quality over quantity come into play if you are using really good water? What is the pastor gets the yips and only gets me 3/4 of the way under do I have to get a do over?

Baptism isnt about the amount of water or how far you get dunked in it. Its the public declaration of your faith before your congragation.

If God is actually this technical, then we are all totally screwed and no one is getting into Heaven.

The fact that someone who obviously reads the Bible as much as LB does can build up and maintain so much angst for an entire christian denomination over something this minor is reason #1 why I cant stand what man has done with organized religion. This is just another wedge that man has created that drives people away from the christian faith. Do you realize how the last 16 pages of this 17 page thread look to someone considering Christianity? Do you think these last 16 pages have done more to turn people toward Christ or away from him?

Christians need to wake up and realize it is about believing in, accepting, and worshipping God in any way, not just YOUR way. This tone of you have to do it MY way or you might as well not do it at all is complete BS.

Let me apologize one last time to EVERYONE in this thread. I had to step away for a few hours because of what I was reading. I had to regroup and reflect on what I believe. A little prayer here, a little prayer there, I am better now...well I was until coming back in here to reread what has been posted thus far. I need to work on letting God change people. After all, he is the only one that can really get in to our hearts. For as much as I want to help LB, I see that it's not my place to change his heart and in trying to change it, I have put a damper on Christianity IMO. For that I apologize. I now remember why I don't get in these "discussions".

 

[bentley]

Man, I'm gonna be so pissed when I end up in hell because the Methodists only sprinkled me.

 

[CrossEyed]

I know this thread barreled down the toilet when these boys started slapping each other around with the hot mops..

But just one more thought going back to the "picking bits and pieces from various psalms" to fit into the Jesus story.

I believe the NT writers searched through the scriptures trying to find something they can have Jesus say on the cross, like psalms 22, the first line anyway.. Course David has said this in more than one psalm about why has God forsaken him or forgotten him.

If God's plan "A" really included sending his Son, Jesus, to be a sacrifice for all mankind's sin.. from the beginning, like someone on this board suggested, literature like psalms would be full of songs to God's son and his holy mission.

We would have a psalm like:

My God, My God, we praise you mighty God

you have been our blessed redeemer

you have kept our enemies away

your light has been our salvation

we were a lost people, destined for eternal damnation

you showed pity on us, through your love

you sent your son, to redeem us from our sins

though he will be pierced for our transgressions

he will rise in the glory of your resurrection

this precious act has preserved us in your love

we are forever greatful, and sing songs

praising your blessed and holy name

praise be to God, the Father

praise be to God, the Son

Satan will forever be chained

cast into the pit

forever tormented in fire

deceiving your people no more

praise be to God, the Father

praise be to God, the Son

and God the Holy Spirit

your kingdom shall reign

forever and ever, amen

Why aren't there any psalms like this?

No psalm even mentions a trinity

No psalm even mentions a cross

No psalm even mentions satan

No psalm even mentions a Eucharist

No psalm even mentions baptism

No psalm even mentions the 12

No psalm even mentions God's son in the flesh

No psalm even mentions eternal flames

No psalm even mentions the all important resurrection

Why is this... if this was God's plan for us all along?

Someday you can ask God why He didn't do it your way.

 

[fightingchick]

Having his men with him was part of the lie, along with the fantom mission from Saul.

(and very much alone).

David's men know nothing of this, but learn later on.

He is afraid (and alone) so he acts like he is crazy or mad.

If he was meeting his men close by, he wouldn't have asked the priest for a weapon

I simply disagree with most of your points up here. It sounds like you've added most of the above because none of it was in there. It never says he was alone in any of those places. I can see how you might read that in there, but it simply doesn't say that. You're overlaying your thoughts to the text.

It doesn't say "the days of Abiathar". It says "In the days of Abiathar the high priest". It was a simply mixup. The author made a mistake, and Jesus never uttered the words. I've had someone tell me that "well, it was in the days of Abiathar", even if he wasn't the high priest. So technically it is correct. That would be like claiming it is correct to say that World War II happened in the days of President George Bush.

The OT identifies neither as the high priest. I think your analogy is a bit of stretch. The two priests in question came from the same house (not 50 years apart). And I read the passage as saying Abiathar is more critical to the life of David that has father. The readers of the OT would likely identify Abiathar to the better days of David. My point is conjecture too, but I just don't see an obvious mistake here.

Clearly, Jesus was teaching situational ethics.

See, this is the best example of what I hear your approach the bible. You are using 20th century thinking. Modern Americanized Nihilism will never be able to figure out the ways of God. You are very smart person, no doubt, but most of your points elevate your rationality above the writers of the texts and first had eye-witnesses to the life and times of Jesus.

 

[fightingchick]

I don't necessarily believe that "faith" gets in your way. I believe that you want it to be true and inspired very badly, and that desire gets in your way of rational thought. You are willing to dismiss any discrepancy because basically... It simply can't be faulty.

I was an atheist and an agnostic most of my life (particularly after growing up Catholic) which led to disillusionment with, especially myself and my own capacity for logic and rationality (you see that as you may!!)...But it was the strength of an intellectual argument that brought me to Christ. There is simple logic in that every other worldview leads to nothing. So, I opened the bible and talked to a friend. I found out Faith was my only job and God would show me the rest. The contradictions melt away under the enormous weight of the Truth presented in my book. I think you believe backward about me. I'll turn your quote around a bit: If it's faulty, it’s because of me. My rational thought gives me the desire to seek truth. The finding of Truth supports my faith. The details that get in the way, are easily overcome.

I don't have "faith"

Everyone has faith in something.

 

[Jayrok]

I simply disagree with most of your points up here. It sounds like you've added most of the above because none of it was in there. It never says he was alone in any of those places. I can see how you might read that in there, but it simply doesn't say that. You're overlaying your thoughts to the text.

believe what ever sets well with your faith, fchick. The story stands.

The OT identifies neither as the high priest. I think your analogy is a bit of stretch. The two priests in question came from the same house (not 50 years apart). And I read the passage as saying Abiathar is more critical to the life of David that has father. The readers of the OT would likely identify Abiathar to the better days of David. My point is conjecture too, but I just don't see an obvious mistake here.

You said that David and Abiathar's relationship paralleled Jesus and the church, and my anaology was the stretch? The relationship between either of these priests and David is not the issue in this debate. The point is that David fabricated a story to tell the priest as he was on the run from King Saul. NT writers mistook the name of the priest during a particular scene that Jesus was using to teach the pharisees.

Your not supposed to work on the sabbath.. Jesus countered with "oh yeah, well, David did what was unlawful on the sabbath, and he became King". His point was the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

See, this is the best example of what I hear your approach the bible. You are using 20th century thinking. Modern Americanized Nihilism will never be able to figure out the ways of God.

You are very smart person, no doubt, but most of your points elevate your rationality above the writers of the texts and first had eye-witnesses to the life and times of Jesus.

Not trying to figure out the ways of God. Just showing that the NT writers were not infallible. Oh, and the NT writers were not eye witnesses. We don't even know for sure who wrote the gospels, as they were anonymous. Paul was not an eye witness to the earthly life of Jesus. If Peter and the disciples were, then Paul chose not to use any material from these other disciples who might have walked with jesus. Paul claims he got 100% of his material from personal revelation.

 

[Jayrok]

I was an atheist and an agnostic most of my life (particularly after growing up Catholic) which led to disillusionment with, especially myself and my own capacity for logic and rationality (you see that as you may!!)...

But it was the strength of an intellectual argument that brought me to Christ. There is simple logic in that every other worldview leads to nothing. So, I opened the bible and talked to a friend. I found out Faith was my only job and God would show me the rest. The contradictions melt away under the enormous weight of the Truth presented in my book.

I think you believe backward about me. I'll turn your quote around a bit: If it's faulty, it’s because of me. My rational thought gives me the desire to seek truth. The finding of Truth supports my faith. The details that get in the way, are easily overcome.

If you feel like God showed you the way, then that's great for you. Contradictions don't melt away under the weight of Truth presented in the bible. If they melt away, then that is what you want them to do. It's easy to say none exists, but it doesn't make it true. You said your job was to have faith. You don't have to look any further in your bible beyond what makes your faith flourish. Unfortunately, that does not mean that contradictions disappear. You just choose not to see them.

BTW, the story in Mark 2 is not really a contradiction. It is just an example of a simple mistake by the writers. The contradictions come when writers have to expound on Jesus' story when they don't have a mutual source to follow.

 

[Jayrok]

I know this thread barreled down the toilet when these boys started slapping each other around with the hot mops.. 

But just one more thought going back to the "picking bits and pieces from various psalms" to fit into the Jesus story. 

I believe the NT writers searched through the scriptures trying to find something they can have Jesus say on the cross, like psalms 22, the first line anyway.. Course David has said this in more than one psalm about why has God forsaken him or forgotten him.

If God's plan "A" really included sending his Son, Jesus, to be a sacrifice for all mankind's sin.. from the beginning, like someone on this board suggested, literature like psalms would be full of songs to God's son and his holy mission.

We would have a psalm like:

My God, My God, we praise you mighty God

you have been our blessed redeemer

you have kept our enemies away

your light has been our salvation

we were a lost people, destined for eternal damnation

you showed pity on us, through your love

you sent your son, to redeem us from our sins

though he will be pierced for our transgressions

he will rise in the glory of your resurrection

this precious act has preserved us in your love

we are forever greatful, and sing songs

praising your blessed and holy name

praise be to God, the Father

praise be to God, the Son

Satan will forever be chained

cast into the pit

forever tormented in fire

deceiving your people no more

praise be to God, the Father

praise be to God, the Son

and God the Holy Spirit

your kingdom shall reign

forever and ever, amen

Why aren't there any psalms like this?

No psalm even mentions a trinity

No psalm even mentions a cross

No psalm even mentions satan

No psalm even mentions a Eucharist

No psalm even mentions baptism

No psalm even mentions the 12

No psalm even mentions God's son in the flesh

No psalm even mentions eternal flames

No psalm even mentions the all important resurrection

Why is this... if this was God's plan for us all along?

Someday you can ask God why He didn't do it your way.

I'm thinking of writing a strongly worded letter.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Another question. When I wipe it is usually front to back, but after reading through all these pages I am beginning to wonder if I am doing it wrong. Should I be wiping back to front or is either technique acceptable?

Enough of this banter, I need an answer to my question.

 

[larry_boy_44]

baptism doesn't save you, its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

Interesting. Do you have a scripture reference for this particular belief?

I'm going to answer all the replies to my post here...the reasons that I believe baptism is essential:

1. The Old Testament Tabernacle shows us our plan of salvation... first step is the altar of sacrifice (repentance), second step is washing the blood away at the basin (baptism in Jesus' name), the third step is entering into the Holy Place/Holy of Holies (gift of the Holy Ghost)

2. If it weren't required Jesus (Matther 28:19), Peter (Acts 2 & 10), & Paul (Acts 19) wouldn't have commanded it...

3. if baptism didn't matter, why was it changed so much? First it changed from immersion (what the word means) to sprinkling... then they changed it from Jesus' name (what the command really was) to the titles... and finally (or sometime in the middle) they started baptizing infants (to garuntee they would enter heaven)...

why would something so un-important be changed to fit the "modern church's" new views so many times??? It doesn't make sense if it didn't matter...

4. Why all the fuss? Seriously. Look at the reaction to simply saying "the only valid baptism is immersion in Jesus' name", the "mainstream church" will fly off the handle if you tell them thier baptism wasn't valid (whether you say it is required or not)... why? Because they really do see it as important and necessary, they just don't have the guts to admit that, because as long as it isn't necessary it doesn't matter if they do it right or not...

Jesus didn't say "believe and is baptized by the holy spirit" when He said that, He simply said "Believes and is baptized"... in fact the phrase "baptised with the Holy Ghost" or "baptized with the Holy Spirit" doesn't actually appear in the Bible.. and what Jesus was referring to in John is HIGHLY debateable...

also:

5. If baptism wasn't something that MUST be done by new converts, why did the Jewish Christians want to deny the Gentile Christians baptism because they were Gentiles?? The Jews didn't think that Gentiles could be saved, so God proved that He could save them by filling them with the Holy Spirit, but if all they needed was that, why did Peter then baptize them, too?? Obviously baptism has some importance more than simply some meaningless right...

 

[Limp Ditka]

baptism doesn't save you, its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

Interesting. Do you have a scripture reference for this particular belief?

I'm going to answer all the replies to my post here...the reasons that I believe baptism is essential:

1. The Old Testament Tabernacle shows us our plan of salvation... first step is the altar of sacrifice (repentance), second step is washing the blood away at the basin (baptism in Jesus' name), the third step is entering into the Holy Place/Holy of Holies (gift of the Holy Ghost)

2. If it weren't required Jesus (Matther 28:19), Peter (Acts 2 & 10), & Paul (Acts 19) wouldn't have commanded it...

3. if baptism didn't matter, why was it changed so much? First it changed from immersion (what the word means) to sprinkling... then they changed it from Jesus' name (what the command really was) to the titles... and finally (or sometime in the middle) they started baptizing infants (to garuntee they would enter heaven)...

why would something so un-important be changed to fit the "modern church's" new views so many times??? It doesn't make sense if it didn't matter...

4. Why all the fuss? Seriously. Look at the reaction to simply saying "the only valid baptism is immersion in Jesus' name", the "mainstream church" will fly off the handle if you tell them thier baptism wasn't valid (whether you say it is required or not)... why? Because they really do see it as important and necessary, they just don't have the guts to admit that, because as long as it isn't necessary it doesn't matter if they do it right or not...

Jesus didn't say "believe and is baptized by the holy spirit" when He said that, He simply said "Believes and is baptized"... in fact the phrase "baptised with the Holy Ghost" or "baptized with the Holy Spirit" doesn't actually appear in the Bible.. and what Jesus was referring to in John is HIGHLY debateable...

also:

5. If baptism wasn't something that MUST be done by new converts, why did the Jewish Christians want to deny the Gentile Christians baptism because they were Gentiles?? The Jews didn't think that Gentiles could be saved, so God proved that He could save them by filling them with the Holy Spirit, but if all they needed was that, why did Peter then baptize them, too?? Obviously baptism has some importance more than simply some meaningless right...

3. if baptism didn't matter, why was it changed so much? First it changed from immersion (what the word means) to sprinkling... then they changed it from Jesus' name (what the command really was) to the titles... and finally (or sometime in the middle) they started baptizing infants (to garuntee they would enter heaven)...why would something so un-important be changed to fit the "modern church's" new views so many times??? It doesn't make sense if it didn't matter...

You'd think that if something mattered so much, they would just leave it they way it was originally performed.

 

[larry_boy_44]

baptism doesn't save you, its just that without baptism you cannot be saved...

Interesting. Do you have a scripture reference for this particular belief?

I'm going to answer all the replies to my post here...the reasons that I believe baptism is essential:

1. The Old Testament Tabernacle shows us our plan of salvation... first step is the altar of sacrifice (repentance), second step is washing the blood away at the basin (baptism in Jesus' name), the third step is entering into the Holy Place/Holy of Holies (gift of the Holy Ghost)

2. If it weren't required Jesus (Matther 28:19), Peter (Acts 2 & 10), & Paul (Acts 19) wouldn't have commanded it...

3. if baptism didn't matter, why was it changed so much? First it changed from immersion (what the word means) to sprinkling... then they changed it from Jesus' name (what the command really was) to the titles... and finally (or sometime in the middle) they started baptizing infants (to garuntee they would enter heaven)...

why would something so un-important be changed to fit the "modern church's" new views so many times??? It doesn't make sense if it didn't matter...

4. Why all the fuss? Seriously. Look at the reaction to simply saying "the only valid baptism is immersion in Jesus' name", the "mainstream church" will fly off the handle if you tell them thier baptism wasn't valid (whether you say it is required or not)... why? Because they really do see it as important and necessary, they just don't have the guts to admit that, because as long as it isn't necessary it doesn't matter if they do it right or not...

Jesus didn't say "believe and is baptized by the holy spirit" when He said that, He simply said "Believes and is baptized"... in fact the phrase "baptised with the Holy Ghost" or "baptized with the Holy Spirit" doesn't actually appear in the Bible.. and what Jesus was referring to in John is HIGHLY debateable...

also:

5. If baptism wasn't something that MUST be done by new converts, why did the Jewish Christians want to deny the Gentile Christians baptism because they were Gentiles?? The Jews didn't think that Gentiles could be saved, so God proved that He could save them by filling them with the Holy Spirit, but if all they needed was that, why did Peter then baptize them, too?? Obviously baptism has some importance more than simply some meaningless right...

3. if baptism didn't matter, why was it changed so much? First it changed from immersion (what the word means) to sprinkling... then they changed it from Jesus' name (what the command really was) to the titles... and finally (or sometime in the middle) they started baptizing infants (to garuntee they would enter heaven)...why would something so un-important be changed to fit the "modern church's" new views so many times??? It doesn't make sense if it didn't matter...

You'd think that if something mattered so much, they would just leave it they way it was originally performed.

no, because the church changed dramatically from teh 1st century to the 4th... the beliefs were, really, barely similar...EVERYTHING got changed when Catholocism became official in 325...

 

[dwashington]

Oh okay..I have a better understanding of where you're coming from now. You're kinda like a modern day Thomas Paine eh?

It's all good Jayrok, I enjoy talking Bible too, I've actually learned a lot from this forum and I finished Misquoting Jesus this weekend and it was pretty interesting.

But despite all of the 'changes' that were made  to the New Testament via error or direct intention, I still think it's the key to the gateway of understanding God's plan for man.

I picked it up as an Agnostic, but once I read all of it,  and what it's instructing mankind to do, I was convicted. On top of that, there's been too many miracles in my life (directly and indirectly) for me to think that this is all a random excursion.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and I'm not smart enough to try and live my life completely off my own understanding. So thus, I lean on the Bible for my lamp and my hope.

Of course, I know a lot of people laugh at Christians (i.e. the pillowfight going on in here), but at the same time, if whatever you're doing is bringing you peace and fulfillment and allowing you to sleep good at night, then I guess that's where you should be.

So do you believe the Old Testament to be God inspired or do you think the entire Bible is a collection of stories, kinda like the Iliad or Odyssey?

Thomas Paine was a pioneer. But I don't know about being a modern day TP.I do not think the OT is inspired by any deity. But I also do not believe it is just a collection of fairy tales. Far from it. The OT is a road map of the Jewish nation. People and places in it are factual, to a degree. I mean, the Kings listed and kingdoms did in fact exist I believe.

The creation story is clearly mythological. The exodus was not a single event where one million jews fled from Egypt. It just didn't happen that way. The patriarchs probably didn't exist as described either, nor Moses or even Joshua.

I believe the OT was written for more political reasons that for a religion. The Jews were telling their story and they used a lot of exaggeration in many areas. The Jews were defeated time and time again and they always blamed their defeats on that fact that God was angry with them. But they always clung to hope. They hoped that God would restore their beloved nation in the land that they considered promised by God. When they got ousted from it, time and time again, they turned to God and blamed each other (kings) on their perals.

It has much historical fact, lots of mythology, blended with poetry and hopeful narratives. The thing about the OT that many christians don't realize is that it basically stands alone from the jewish standpoint. It has a beginning and an end.

Soooo...you DO believe in 'a God' but you don't think He (or She) has inspired any Scripture?It's obvious you've spent more time studying the Bible than most 'professed' Christians and I'm not ashamed to admit that there are things in the Bible that I don't understand, but that doesn't keep me from believing.

I believe in an infinite God, who's thoughts and ways are on a much higher plane than us mere mortals (even the smart ones! ). I don't think we should be ignorant animals that are susceptible to believing whatever the priest/pastor/bishop/pope or minister tells us, but I do think we should constantly strive for the truth and pray to God for understanding.

What are deists beliefs on what happens to people when we die?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Another question. When I wipe it is usually front to back, but after reading through all these pages I am beginning to wonder if I am doing it wrong. Should I be wiping back to front or is either technique acceptable?

Enough of this banter, I need an answer to my question.

Thomas Crapper 2:13 And Crapper's disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine wipe shall be front to back.

However, there is controversy over Thomas Crapper's authority in the matter, since he was mearly a plumber that existed long after the crapper was invented. Additionally, toliet paper was creditted to Joseph Coyetty in 1857, four years before Mr. Crapper was born. Back to front wipers claim the Coyetty was clear on the subject that back to front was the only way to go.

 

[Jayrok]

Oh okay..I have a better understanding of where you're coming from now. You're kinda like a modern day Thomas Paine eh?

It's all good Jayrok, I enjoy talking Bible too, I've actually learned a lot from this forum and I finished Misquoting Jesus this weekend and it was pretty interesting.

But despite all of the 'changes' that were made  to the New Testament via error or direct intention, I still think it's the key to the gateway of understanding God's plan for man.

I picked it up as an Agnostic, but once I read all of it,  and what it's instructing mankind to do, I was convicted. On top of that, there's been too many miracles in my life (directly and indirectly) for me to think that this is all a random excursion.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and I'm not smart enough to try and live my life completely off my own understanding. So thus, I lean on the Bible for my lamp and my hope.

Of course, I know a lot of people laugh at Christians (i.e. the pillowfight going on in here), but at the same time, if whatever you're doing is bringing you peace and fulfillment and allowing you to sleep good at night, then I guess that's where you should be.

So do you believe the Old Testament to be God inspired or do you think the entire Bible is a collection of stories, kinda like the Iliad or Odyssey?

Thomas Paine was a pioneer. But I don't know about being a modern day TP.I do not think the OT is inspired by any deity. But I also do not believe it is just a collection of fairy tales. Far from it. The OT is a road map of the Jewish nation. People and places in it are factual, to a degree. I mean, the Kings listed and kingdoms did in fact exist I believe.

The creation story is clearly mythological. The exodus was not a single event where one million jews fled from Egypt. It just didn't happen that way. The patriarchs probably didn't exist as described either, nor Moses or even Joshua.

I believe the OT was written for more political reasons that for a religion. The Jews were telling their story and they used a lot of exaggeration in many areas. The Jews were defeated time and time again and they always blamed their defeats on that fact that God was angry with them. But they always clung to hope. They hoped that God would restore their beloved nation in the land that they considered promised by God. When they got ousted from it, time and time again, they turned to God and blamed each other (kings) on their perals.

It has much historical fact, lots of mythology, blended with poetry and hopeful narratives. The thing about the OT that many christians don't realize is that it basically stands alone from the jewish standpoint. It has a beginning and an end.

Soooo...you DO believe in 'a God' but you don't think He (or She) has inspired any Scripture?It's obvious you've spent more time studying the Bible than most 'professed' Christians and I'm not ashamed to admit that there are things in the Bible that I don't understand, but that doesn't keep me from believing.

I believe in an infinite God, who's thoughts and ways are on a much higher plane than us mere mortals (even the smart ones! ). I don't think we should be ignorant animals that are susceptible to believing whatever the priest/pastor/bishop/pope or minister tells us, but I do think we should constantly strive for the truth and pray to God for understanding.

What are deists beliefs on what happens to people when we die?

I believe in tbe "possibility" of a higher power, or creator. I believe in Evolution as described how things evolve over time. I don't claim to know how everything began, though. I also believe we should always strive for truth. Nothing wrong with questioning belief systems.

I'm not a card carrying Deist. But here's a definition of a Deist and some of their beliefs. Deism

I don't know what the Deist belief is about life after death. I would expect their beliefs vary depending on who you talk to. They reject revealed religions such as christianity and Islam, but do not reject God.

What are my beliefs on what happens when we die? Does the human body have some type of "spirit" that is released somewhere? I don't know for sure. Could be. Once the brain dies, that's pretty much it for your body. Once you are dead, you are dead.

If you want to read an excellent article on this topic, and the existence of the human "soul", check this one out:

Do we have a Soul?

It's a good read.

 

[fightingchick]

I was an atheist and an agnostic most of my life (particularly after growing up Catholic) which led to disillusionment with, especially myself and my own capacity for logic and rationality (you see that as you may!!)...

But it was the strength of an intellectual argument that brought me to Christ.  There is simple logic in that every other worldview leads to nothing.  So, I opened the bible and talked to a friend.  I found out Faith was my only job and God would show me the rest.  The contradictions melt away under the enormous weight of the Truth presented in my book. 

I think you believe backward about me.  I'll turn your quote around a bit: If it's faulty, it’s because of me.  My rational thought gives me the desire to seek truth.  The finding of Truth supports my faith.  The details that get in the way, are easily overcome.

If you feel like God showed you the way, then that's great for you. Contradictions don't melt away under the weight of Truth presented in the bible. If they melt away, then that is what you want them to do. It's easy to say none exists, but it doesn't make it true. You said your job was to have faith. You don't have to look any further in your bible beyond what makes your faith flourish. Unfortunately, that does not mean that contradictions disappear. You just choose not to see them.

BTW, the story in Mark 2 is not really a contradiction. It is just an example of a simple mistake by the writers. The contradictions come when writers have to expound on Jesus' story when they don't have a mutual source to follow.

I believe I covered this in an earlier post. You argument about infallibility of the NT writers is for someone else. I am not sure I would try to make the case that they were infallible. In sum, they did not make a mistake here, because 1 Samuel 20 never says David was alone and there is no reason why you can't call them days of Abaithar. If it was a mistake, that says nothing about the inherent truth about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean that the NT writers overshot their entire case. It CAN mean either they overshot, or they really did get new info from Christ and accurately recorded it. Which do you believe (have faith in)?

The NT writers were spreading something THEY believed in, because they met Jesus. There is plenty of historical evidence for this. Also, I know who wrote the books, their names are at the beginning of them.

You see mistakes because you look for them. Like you said, the point of the story was about eating on the Sabbath - you went into the details. You looked at the OT story and couldn't fit the pieces into your rational thought process. So does say something about the pieces or what you have done with them? You threw up your hands and figured it was a mistake. I read further and learned more about Abaithar and why his father's house was destroyed.

Also, my parallel was not intended to be that much of a stretch... I think it grew over the course of our communication. It was a simple statement of "anointed one" in 1 Samuel 2 that I found interesting. This term has been used for both David and Jesus. The fact that Abaithar later ended up with David was the interesting part. The fact that Jesus then considered him the High Priest of the times (instead of his soon to be killed father) I find interesting. Not inaccurate.

Maybe that story means nothing, but it was a lot more interesting that concluding that Mark didn't know the OT very well. I still can't get over your claim that you know it better than he.

 

[fightingchick]

I believe the NT writers searched through the scriptures trying to find something they can have Jesus say on the cross,

See how your lack of faith has just as much belief in it?

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm going to answer all the replies to my post here...

the reasons that I believe baptism is essential:

1. The Old Testament Tabernacle shows us our plan of salvation... first step is the altar of sacrifice (repentance), second step is washing the blood away at the basin (baptism in Jesus' name), the third step is entering into the Holy Place/Holy of Holies (gift of the Holy Ghost)

The Old Testament Tabernacle couldn't give us salvation any more than baptism can. There's no logical association to salvation to be made despite the similarities between baptism and the Old Testament Tabernacle.

2. If it weren't required Jesus (Matther 28:19), Peter (Acts 2 & 10), & Paul (Acts 19) wouldn't have commanded it...

Jesus commanded that we do communion "in remembrance of me", but you don't think that's required for salvation. The only reason you think baptism is required for salvation is because in some passages the command to get baptized followed belief in Christ. It's not a logical conclusion when we see in other passages the command to get baptized did not follow belief in Christ.

3. if baptism didn't matter, why was it changed so much? First it changed from immersion (what the word means) to sprinkling... then they changed it from Jesus' name (what the command really was) to the titles... and finally (or sometime in the middle) they started baptizing infants (to garuntee they would enter heaven)...

why would something so un-important be changed to fit the "modern church's" new views so many times??? It doesn't make sense if it didn't matter...

Personally I think baptizing infants is meaningless. As for the changes, you've insinuated that the changes were motivated by conspiracies. Have you ever thought that the changes were made because it's being baptized by the Holy Spirit that really matters and not how the water is applied or the words that are uttered during the baptism?

4. Why all the fuss? Seriously. Look at the reaction to simply saying "the only valid baptism is immersion in Jesus' name", the "mainstream church" will fly off the handle if you tell them their baptism wasn't valid (whether you say it is required or not)... why? Because they really do see it as important and necessary, they just don't have the guts to admit that, because as long as it isn't necessary it doesn't matter if they do it right or not...

The issue isn't whether or not the baptism is valid. The issue is you telling people that they are not saved despite that they've lived a life professing belief in Jesus Christ, serving Christ, and producing good fruit. People "fly off the handle" because it's ludicrous to say they've been damned to hell because the water wasn't used right, or forbidden words were uttered during their baptism.

Jesus didn't say "believe and is baptized by the holy spirit" when He said that, He simply said "Believes and is baptized"... in fact the phrase "baptized with the Holy Ghost" or "baptized with the Holy Spirit" doesn't actually appear in the Bible.. and what Jesus was referring to in John is HIGHLY debateable...

Stop spreading lies:And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Act 1:4-5)

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Mat 3:11)

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. (Mar 1:8)

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: (Luk 3:16)

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (Joh 1:33)

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Act 11:16)

also:

5. If baptism wasn't something that MUST be done by new converts, why did the Jewish Christians want to deny the Gentile Christians baptism because they were Gentiles?? The Jews didn't think that Gentiles could be saved, so God proved that He could save them by filling them with the Holy Spirit, but if all they needed was that, why did Peter then baptize them, too?? Obviously baptism has some importance more than simply some meaningless right...

It's important to us, not to God. The Jewish Christians didn't want the Gentiles Christians to be baptized because baptism is important to man, and they didn't think the Gentiles qualified for that importance. God baptized them with the Holy Spirit before the water baptism to show the Jewish Christians that God will chose who can receive the Holy Spirit and not let other Christians (such as you) determine who can and who can't.

 

[dwashington]

Oh okay..I have a better understanding of where you're coming from now. You're kinda like a modern day Thomas Paine eh?

It's all good Jayrok, I enjoy talking Bible too, I've actually learned a lot from this forum and I finished Misquoting Jesus this weekend and it was pretty interesting.

But despite all of the 'changes' that were made  to the New Testament via error or direct intention, I still think it's the key to the gateway of understanding God's plan for man.

I picked it up as an Agnostic, but once I read all of it,  and what it's instructing mankind to do, I was convicted. On top of that, there's been too many miracles in my life (directly and indirectly) for me to think that this is all a random excursion.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and I'm not smart enough to try and live my life completely off my own understanding. So thus, I lean on the Bible for my lamp and my hope.

Of course, I know a lot of people laugh at Christians (i.e. the pillowfight going on in here), but at the same time, if whatever you're doing is bringing you peace and fulfillment and allowing you to sleep good at night, then I guess that's where you should be.

So do you believe the Old Testament to be God inspired or do you think the entire Bible is a collection of stories, kinda like the Iliad or Odyssey?

Thomas Paine was a pioneer. But I don't know about being a modern day TP.I do not think the OT is inspired by any deity. But I also do not believe it is just a collection of fairy tales. Far from it. The OT is a road map of the Jewish nation. People and places in it are factual, to a degree. I mean, the Kings listed and kingdoms did in fact exist I believe.

The creation story is clearly mythological. The exodus was not a single event where one million jews fled from Egypt. It just didn't happen that way. The patriarchs probably didn't exist as described either, nor Moses or even Joshua.

I believe the OT was written for more political reasons that for a religion. The Jews were telling their story and they used a lot of exaggeration in many areas. The Jews were defeated time and time again and they always blamed their defeats on that fact that God was angry with them. But they always clung to hope. They hoped that God would restore their beloved nation in the land that they considered promised by God. When they got ousted from it, time and time again, they turned to God and blamed each other (kings) on their perals.

It has much historical fact, lots of mythology, blended with poetry and hopeful narratives. The thing about the OT that many christians don't realize is that it basically stands alone from the jewish standpoint. It has a beginning and an end.

Soooo...you DO believe in 'a God' but you don't think He (or She) has inspired any Scripture?It's obvious you've spent more time studying the Bible than most 'professed' Christians and I'm not ashamed to admit that there are things in the Bible that I don't understand, but that doesn't keep me from believing.

I believe in an infinite God, who's thoughts and ways are on a much higher plane than us mere mortals (even the smart ones! ). I don't think we should be ignorant animals that are susceptible to believing whatever the priest/pastor/bishop/pope or minister tells us, but I do think we should constantly strive for the truth and pray to God for understanding.

What are deists beliefs on what happens to people when we die?

I believe in tbe "possibility" of a higher power, or creator. I believe in Evolution as described how things evolve over time. I don't claim to know how everything began, though. I also believe we should always strive for truth. Nothing wrong with questioning belief systems.

I'm not a card carrying Deist. But here's a definition of a Deist and some of their beliefs. Deism

I don't know what the Deist belief is about life after death. I would expect their beliefs vary depending on who you talk to. They reject revealed religions such as christianity and Islam, but do not reject God.

What are my beliefs on what happens when we die? Does the human body have some type of "spirit" that is released somewhere? I don't know for sure. Could be. Once the brain dies, that's pretty much it for your body. Once you are dead, you are dead.

If you want to read an excellent article on this topic, and the existence of the human "soul", check this one out:

Do we have a Soul?

It's a good read.

That article and refutation of the existence of the human 'soul' is an atheist slant rather than a deist perspective.I too believe in the search for truth, but at some point, I think there are questions that man just can't answer without making a leap of faith.

You are quick to dismiss those who made this leap as being 'gullible', the kind of folks that are willing to let someone pee on their head and tell them it's raining.

But the mere fact that you are so immersed in Biblical discussion is encouraging. Obviously you can feel the truths in it, but you just can't close that gap where your understanding stops and God's keeps going.

Without faith, it is impossible to please Him.

Have you ever experienced (been close to) a miracle in your life?

 

[Jayrok]

It CAN mean either they overshot, or they really did get new info from Christ and accurately recorded it. Which do you believe (have faith in)?

Maybe they misunderstood Jesus. Maybe Jesus misunderstood Samuel. Maybe the writer made a mistake (likely). I doubt this exchange ever took place between Jesus and the pharisees.

The NT writers were spreading something THEY believed in, because they met Jesus. There is plenty of historical evidence for this. Also, I know who wrote the books, their names are at the beginning of them.

You haven't done much study on the origins of the Gospels. If there was plenty of credible historical evidence, then there wouldn't be continuous debate between biblical scholars on this very subject. Making a sweeping statement like "Mark's name is on the book, so he absolutely wrote it" is naive and says a lot about this conversation and where you are coming from.

You looked at the OT story and couldn't fit the pieces into your rational thought process. So does say something about the pieces or what you have done with them? You threw up your hands and figured it was a mistake. I read further and learned more about Abaithar and why his father's house was destroyed.

Abiathar's family being killed has nothing to do with the discussion.

Also, my parallel was not intended to be that much of a stretch... I think it grew over the course of our communication.

no, it grew from your mind and your desire to reconcile what you believe is a viable answer to a questionable scenario. Instead of focusing on the issue, you want to take the conversation to something else like how characters parallel Jesus and the church.

It was a simple statement of "anointed one" in 1 Samuel 2 that I found interesting. This term has been used for both David and Jesus. The fact that Abaithar later ended up with David was the interesting part. The fact that Jesus then considered him the High Priest of the times (instead of his soon to be killed father) I find interesting. Not inaccurate.

Maybe that story means nothing, but it was a lot more interesting that concluding that Mark didn't know the OT very well. I still can't get over your claim that you know it better than he.

Being more "interesting" doesn't equate to it being correct. I never claimed that I knew it better than Mark. I think he made a mistake.

 

[Jayrok]

I believe the NT writers searched through the scriptures trying to find something they can have Jesus say on the cross,

See how your lack of faith has just as much belief in it?

This question doesn't make sense to me.

 

[fightingchick]

I believe the NT writers searched through the scriptures trying to find something they can have Jesus say on the cross,

See how your lack of faith has just as much belief in it?

This question doesn't make sense to me.

I know.

 

[Jayrok]

That article and refutation of the existence of the human 'soul' is an atheist slant rather than a deist perspective.

So you automatically dismiss it then? I'm not an atheist. But this article makes a great deal of sense. It doesn't matter to me who wrote it. The logic, and historical examples are compelling.

You are quick to dismiss those who made this leap as being 'gullible', the kind of folks that are willing to let someone pee on their head and tell them it's raining.

Not all faithful are gullible.

But the mere fact that you are so immersed in Biblical discussion is encouraging. Obviously you can feel the truths in it, but you just can't close that gap where your understanding stops and God's keeps going.

I'm willing to listen to God. I've often asked him to speak to me. Show me where I'm wrong and what is truth. If you are saying that I must rely on what is written, because God doesn't work that way, then I have a problem with that... as I don't believe the bible is divinely inspired.

Have you ever experienced (been close to) a miracle in your life?

nothing that isn't logically explained. The Bible is littered with these types of miracles. Miracles that are larger than life and such that leave no doubt to the witnesses' mind that they were acts of God. Burning bushes, pillars of fire, dead people getting up and walking around the streets of a city, large bodies of water opening up to allow folks to walk on dry land... all of these things are extraordinary and should require extraordinary evidence. Miracles today don't involve such dramatics... why? Today, a miracle would be someone with cancer, or another disease making it through surgery and full recovery. And some folks like to see Mary's image in a piece of cheese toast.

A few months ago my brother had surgery to remove the gal bladder. He said if it wasn't for God he would not have made it through the surgery and because of him, he is here today. While I am happy and thankful that he came out fine, I can't help but think about what he claimed. I mean, God took the time to help him out of his dire condition... but remains silent when thousands of children starve and die around the world every day. Children are abused, homeless, etc.. silence.

But I'm glad he intervened in when it came to someone's surgery.

 

[fightingchick]

You haven't done much study on the origins of the Gospels. If there was plenty of credible historical evidence, then there wouldn't be continuous debate between biblical scholars on this very subject. Making a sweeping statement like "Mark's name is on the book, so he absolutely wrote it" is naive and says a lot about this conversation and where you are coming from.

You don't know how much studying I have done, nor did I say, "He absolutely wrote it." But, it does say something about where I come from and who I trust.When I see Mark's name on the book, why would I question it from the beginning? Particularly when an overwhelming majority of it is true and verifiable. (Odd how now I am naive and you are paranoid). Suddenly, everyone's lying to you. The best summary I have read on the historical evidence for Christ, is "The Case for Christ." Good summary by Lee Strobel.Sure there is debate. But where does it come from? There are people who seek to learn more about God and find evidence that supports it. There are people who seek to destroy the message and find evidence against it. Or, more typically as you are doing here, they make assumptions based on current 20th century American logic, and dismiss evidence because "It doesn't make sense to me." What sort of bankrupt intellectual argument is that? I admit that my Faith and logic intermingle. But you don't? You're hanging on to your faculties FAR more tightly that I to my Faith...The Jesus Seminar is a good example of what I see in "disinterested" parties and their arguments. They started with the assumption that miracles are impossible. Why go any further if you assume away key evidence? What sort of intellectual closes his mind like that?Has it ever bothered you that Darwin's first arguments directly contradict the Genesis account too neatly and on purpose. He uses a whale as an example of mammal evolution, backward (This is one of the few animals mentioned in Genesis, specifically). He claims common ancestry and Genesis talks about each animal and it’s "after his kind." He talks about birds mutating, and Genesis talks about every "winged fowl after his kind."Darwin set out to destroy the bible. It was his mission – his starting point. He wasn't just hanging around some birds and wrote a book. Does that not bother you about his results since you are so bothered by the result of Mark's work (or, more to the issue, Matthew's intentions)?

 

[dwashington]

So you automatically dismiss it then? I'm not an atheist. But this article makes a great deal of sense. It doesn't matter to me who wrote it. The logic, and historical examples are compelling.

No..I think everyone has a right to their opinion. All I'm saying, is that when a person doesn't believe in God tries to explain the non-existence of my soul, I realize that we're coming from ENTIRELY different viewpoints that has an impassable breach.

I'm willing to listen to God. I've often asked him to speak to me. Show me where I'm wrong and what is truth. If you are saying that I must rely on what is written, because God doesn't work that way, then I have a problem with that... as I don't believe the bible is divinely inspired.

Whatever you do..don't keep asking!!

nothing that isn't logically explained. The Bible is littered with these types of miracles. Miracles that are larger than life and such that leave no doubt to the witnesses' mind that they were acts of God. Burning bushes, pillars of fire, dead people getting up and walking around the streets of a city, large bodies of water opening up to allow folks to walk on dry land... all of these things are extraordinary and should require extraordinary evidence.

This reminds me of that scene from Pulp Fiction when that guy came out of the room and unloaded a clip towards Samuel Jackson and John Travolta and all the bullets missed.

Miracles today don't involve such dramatics...

I disagree. As I've stated before, I've seen (or heard 1st hand accounts) of a plethora of modern day miracles. My mother suffered 3rd degree burns on over 60% of her body as a child and the doctors informed her parents to prepare for her burial, because there was no way she could survive such trauma. Instead of going to the funeral parlor, they went straight to church and started calling on the name of the Lord for deliverance. Once she survived the initial shock and trauma, the doctors said she would never walk, but she ended up running. They also said she would never be able to have children..I'm her 2nd. So when it comes to miracles and the power of the Lord, I'm definitely a believer.

A few months ago my brother had surgery to remove the gal bladder. He said if it wasn't for God he would not have made it through the surgery and because of him, he is here today. While I am happy and thankful that he came out fine, I can't help but think about what he claimed. I mean, God took the time to help him out of his dire condition... but remains silent when thousands of children starve and die around the world every day. Children are abused, homeless, etc.. silence.

This is the common lament of people who question the existence of God. "Why would He allow bad things to happen to innocent people?" As you know, the Bible addresses the spiritual realm of warfare. Job didn't do anything wrong, but yet God allowed Satan (oops..I forgot, you don't believe in the spiritual leader of evil!).I'm sure you've had countless debates/discussions with others in your life about the existence of God and the Bible's claim to be God's Word. All I know, is that without Jesus, there is no forgiveness for mankind.

We would all be subjected to doing what feels right to us. 'Laws are made for people who want to abide by them'. I don't know about you, but a world without God, without love, without forgiveness would make me too paranoid. I'd feel like I was in a Charles Bronson movie everyday.

But I must say, your points and slants are very challenging and thought provoking. I just pray that you keep searching Jayrok...you've got a lot of talents to offer.

 

[Jayrok]

You don't know how much studying I have done, nor did I say, "He absolutely wrote it." But, it does say something about where I come from and who I trust.

When I see Mark's name on the book, why would I question it from the beginning? Particularly when an overwhelming majority of it is true and verifiable. (Odd how now I am naive and you are paranoid). Suddenly, everyone's lying to you.

No one is questioning it "from the beginning". There has been loads of discussion and study on those books. Would you care to list your "overwhelming majority of verifiable" evidence that the gospel is absolute truth?

do you honestly think that I am alone in believing this and everyone else believes it is truth? wow.

The best summary I have read on the historical evidence for Christ, is "The Case for Christ." Good summary by Lee Strobel.

and we have a winner. Please don't tell me you hang your faith that all of it is truth based on Lee Strobel. Even the christians I know call him a hack. Lee had an agenda and there are numerous commentaries on his book. It has been called by some the christian equivalent to "The davinci Code". All of his interviews were with christian commentators. I wonder why. Lee claimed to be atheist and ask questions from that perspective. When he gets a half-baked answer, he follows with something like "that's good enough for me". Please. I read this book twice. After each interview I found myself wanting to ask so many followup questions to the interviewers. Lee Strobel.. that's a hoot.

You're hanging on to your faculties FAR more tightly that I to my Faith...

from what I'm reading, all you have is your faith. And a book written by Lee Strobel.

Has it ever bothered you that Darwin's first arguments directly contradict the Genesis account too neatly and on purpose. He uses a whale as an example of mammal evolution, backward (This is one of the few animals mentioned in Genesis, specifically). He claims common ancestry and Genesis talks about each animal and it’s "after his kind." He talks about birds mutating, and Genesis talks about every "winged fowl after his kind."

Darwin set out to destroy the bible. It was his mission – his starting point. He wasn't just hanging around some birds and wrote a book. Does that not bother you about his results since you are so bothered by the result of Mark's work (or, more to the issue, Matthew's intentions)?

I'm not a Darwin disciple. There are many evolutionists on this board that would be much better at answering such accusations than me. In fact, on this board there has been numerous evolution/creation discussions that you can refer to. The genesis account is mythology. Unless, you can prove that it happened precisely as described. If you can, I'm all ears.

Open a new thread claiming creation is correct and evolution is wrong and see what happens.

 

[Jayrok]

No..I think everyone has a right to their opinion. All I'm saying, is that when a person doesn't believe in God tries to explain the non-existence of my soul, I realize that we're coming from ENTIRELY different viewpoints that has an impassable breach.

understood.

This reminds me of that scene from Pulp Fiction when that guy came out of the room and unloaded a clip towards Samuel Jackson and John Travolta and all the bullets missed.

Jackson's speech and quoting of Ezekiel is a trip. "When you heard that, that meant your ###"..

I disagree. As I've stated before, I've seen (or heard 1st hand accounts) of a plethora of modern day miracles. My mother suffered 3rd degree burns on over 60% of her body as a child and the doctors informed her parents to prepare for her burial, because there was no way she could survive such trauma. Instead of going to the funeral parlor, they went straight to church and started calling on the name of the Lord for deliverance. Once she survived the initial shock and trauma, the doctors said she would never walk, but she ended up running. They also said she would never be able to have children..I'm her 2nd. So when it comes to miracles and the power of the Lord, I'm definitely a believer.

I'm glad to hear about your mother... and if that gives you a source to confirm your beliefs, that is great. I wish your family continued health and prosperity.

This is the common lament of people who question the existence of God. "Why would He allow bad things to happen to innocent people?" As you know, the Bible addresses the spiritual realm of warfare. Job didn't do anything wrong, but yet God allowed Satan (oops..I forgot, you don't believe in the spiritual leader of evil!).

The story of Job is a work of fiction. Even Jews claim this (scholars I mean). It is metaphorical. Satan didn't do anything God didn't allow. He was under God's complete control in the story. The idea that Satan evolved into the arch enemy of God developed after this story was written and studied.

I'm sure you've had countless debates/discussions with others in your life about the existence of God and the Bible's claim to be God's Word. All I know, is that without Jesus, there is no forgiveness for mankind.

Why does man need forgiveness simply for being born?

We would all be subjected to doing what feels right to us. 'Laws are made for people who want to abide by them'.

I disagree. In tribal communities well before the bible was written, humans got along. They had to. To survive as a species, you must adapt. If these humans were not civil to each other and anarchy reigned, the species wouldn't survive. I'd say when they learned that by males killing each other off over trivial matters, the result being less males to further/preserve the clan, they realized they must adapt and live under a type of social structure. They learned this by struggle. They didn't have an ancient book describing a God who governs everything. So I believe man became civil for survival well before he learned about.. or invented God.

But I must say, your points and slants are very challenging and thought provoking. I just pray that you keep searching Jayrok...you've got a lot of talents to offer.

thank you. Always searching. We haven't really scratched the surface of some of my questions. If I recall, your favorite prophet was Isaiah? I have a running topic on some of his writings too. But that would be another thread. This one is worn out and so far off original topic... you know.

 

[Zalf]

all you have is your faith.

In the end, thats all he;or any of us; needs, no matter how much it irks you. Until you come up with something that destroys The Message, you arent going to discredit The Book. Faith is; or atleast should be; in God and his message not in the writers or the translators.

 

[Jayrok]

all you have is your faith.

In the end, thats all he;or any of us; needs, no matter how much it irks you. Until you come up with something that destroys The Message, you arent going to discredit The Book. Faith is; or atleast should be; in God and his message not in the writers or the translators.

You having faith, nor the bible "irks" me. Why would it? I enjoy the bible. I'm not looking to destroy the message or discredit anything. Just raising ideas and observations hopefully to spark convesation and thought. If I didn't have interest in discussion I wouldn't care what the book said, nor would I argue over it. If your mind is set, it's like talking with a brick wall anyway. And that isn't just true about the bible. Any subject you are passionate about. So why would I argue with you if I didn't care?

 

[dwashington]

Jackson's speech and quoting of Ezekiel is a trip. "When you heard that, that meant your ###"..

I REALLY like that movie! Actually, you're kinda like Jackson's character evolved to be..Kung Fu..roaming the earth searching for truth.

I wish your family continued health and prosperity.

ditto

The story of Job is a work of fiction. Even Jews claim this (scholars I mean). It is metaphorical. Satan didn't do anything God didn't allow. He was under God's complete control in the story. The idea that Satan evolved into the arch enemy of God developed after this story was written and studied.

I believe God allowed Satan to do those things (everything except kill Job or Job's wife). Which falls in line with the tragedies/devastation that God allows to happen today.

Why does man need forgiveness simply for being born?

If you (kinda) believe in a Supreme God, then you should also believe that this God is perfect. For man to become at-one with God, there has to be an atonement for our sin NATURE. That newborn baby may not have ever done anything evil or corrupt (yet), but the propensity to do so is in him, as it is in all of us. That's the importance of the virgin birth, corruption is transmuted through the father. But when I say forgiveness, I'm not just talking about reconciling to the Creator, I'm also talking about forgiving each other. I don't think forgiveness is a natural trait of man, but instead I think we're predisposed for vengeance.

I disagree. In tribal communities well before the bible was written, humans got along. They had to. To survive as a species, you must adapt. If these humans were not civil to each other and anarchy reigned, the species wouldn't survive. I'd say when they learned that by males killing each other off over trivial matters, the result being less males to further/preserve the clan, they realized they must adapt and live under a type of social structure. They learned this by struggle. They didn't have an ancient book describing a God who governs everything. So I believe man became civil for survival well before he learned about.. or invented God.

You believe (or know?) all of these things about pre-Biblical civilizations because you read it in a book, right? You weren't there, you never saw any of these tribal communities, photographs, etc, but yet you believe. Interesting.

thank you. Always searching. We haven't really scratched the surface of some of my questions. If I recall, your favorite prophet was Isaiah? I have a running topic on some of his writings too. But that would be another thread. This one is worn out and so far off original topic... you know.

I don't know how you know Isaiah is my favorite prophet..but you're right. I noticed the little exchange you and fightingchick had over 7:14 and the word 'almah', as well as the topic of the Suffering Servant presented by Isaiah. I understand your motif to be that the New Testament writers pretty much 'cherry picked' through the Old Testament to validate their claim of Jesus Christ being the prophesied Messiah. I've considered that before I became a believer..but all the doubts I had were erased when I read Isaiah in it's entirety.

 

[Jayrok]

I REALLY like that movie! Actually, you're kinda like Jackson's character evolved to be..Kung Fu..roaming the earth searching for truth.

The whole pigs/dogs being filthy animals discussion over the muffin is great.

You believe (or know?) all of these things about pre-Biblical civilizations because you read it in a book, right? You weren't there, you never saw any of these tribal communities, photographs, etc, but yet you believe. Interesting.

I didn't read about tribal communities in a book. It's common sense. If they destroyed one another, they wouldn't have lasted as a species. Man adapted. 99% of all species to ever walk the earth are now extinct... because they didn't adapt, natural selection, etc.. man survived. Man came up with tools and the ability to reason things out.

I don't know how you know Isaiah is my favorite prophet..but you're right. I noticed the little exchange you and fightingchick had over 7:14 and the word 'almah', as well as the topic of the Suffering Servant presented by Isaiah.

I understand your motif to be that the New Testament writers pretty much 'cherry picked' through the Old Testament to validate their claim of Jesus Christ being the prophesied Messiah. I've considered that before I became a believer..but all the doubts I had were erased when I read Isaiah in it's entirety.

Isaiah is critical to Christian faith. When I read Isaiah through, I was a believer. Once I read it again all the way through, from the Jewish point of view, I began to see why Jesus was rejected as the messiah. Isaiah 53 is easily the most highlighted passage by the christian faith with regards to Jesus Christ. But in truth, that chapter is not even talking about the prophesied messiah. This isn't my view, it is the Jewish orthodox view. Isaiah 53

(at the bottom of the webpage, there is a drop down box to get to the other parts of this 6-part essay). This set of articles is not from atheist sources, but from the Jewish point of view.

Here's another shorter article on Isaiah 53: Isaiah 53 question

ask Moses

A site where you can ask Jewish questions about the bible.

No, I'm not Jewish. And I don't believe that Judaism is the one true religion either. I just believe that the Jews know how to interpret their own scriptures better than some 1st century Greek writers.

After understanding the Jewish idea of the Messiah and then reading Isaiah again, I found that he is talking about the travels and perils of the nation of Israel. The servant is implicitly named in multiple passages as being Israel. Even in the first chapter, Isaiah sets the tone for what he is talking about:

Isaiah 1:5-6 -- Why should you be beaten anymore?

Why do you persist in rebellion?

Your whole head is injured, your whole heart afflicted.

6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head

there is no soundness—

only wounds and welts

and open sores,

not cleansed or bandaged

or soothed with oil.

This is figurative language of course, but he is talking about a rebellious nation. The nation of Israel. By "beaten" he is talking about the conquest and being exiled.

"your whole head is injured... From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is only wounds and welts and open sores".. This very much sounds like Isaiah 53, doesn't it? It should, because the subject of both chapters is the nation of israel and them being punished by God by being sent into exile.

The nation itself is the glaring theme throughout Isaiah.

Now... is Jesus the personification of Israel? could be. But that raises other questions about the texts.

Isaiah's servant is beaten (exiled) but is redeemed by God and the nation is said to return to Jerusalem where God would never again turn on them. Isaiah doesn't write about a jewish messiah who will die and rise again 3 days later to redeem all of mankind for sins. His context is the welfare of the Israeli nation.

Isaiah 53 is a huge debate. One that likely will never be resolved.

There are other, smaller parts of Isaiah that I have questions on.

 

[fightingchick]

all you have is your faith.

In the end, thats all he;or any of us; needs, no matter how much it irks you. Until you come up with something that destroys The Message, you arent going to discredit The Book. Faith is; or atleast should be; in God and his message not in the writers or the translators.

Said so much better than me. Excellent.