Total posts: 3,500
-->
@Stephen
Sorry Stephen but you have not addressed my point at all. In fact you continue to go to verses after the fact and try and suggest it has something to do with the prior. What a load of nonsense and you know it. Do you agree God issued a command or not? At least answer that one.
As for the man being driven out of the garden, would you care to at least address why you think it is important because it remains a mystery to me. As I said, I don't know the answer to the question. I can speculate as I did above. I could say - other things such as man and woman had become one in marriage - but that does not seem probable in the circumstance. I could say that God had used the generic term for humanity - "the man" (After all the Hebrew term Adam means man), but this seems a little trite from my point of view. I could say it was because the woman had no rights - but this is inconsistent. So I really don't know the answer. but I am sure you have a brilliant answer - probably taken from one of those other books you are referring to. As I see it, both Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to this time and afterwards they were both out in the world. I suspect it was probably to do with the fact that Adam was the representative of humanity including Eve, and that as such whatever happened to him, happened by virtue of his representative of all humanity. This is consistent with the theology of breaching the covenant of works which is what eating the fruit did and for which they were translated from life to death by way of covenant.
I totally agree that God did not want humanity to die by eating from the fruit which he commanded them not to eat. I totally agree that God wanted them to remain faithful to him and to obtain eternal life. The tree of life gives eternal life, not life per se. They were already alive without eating from that tree. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought death because it is a tree which opened their eyes to deciding for themselves what good and evil was. You still have not addressed why they thought nakedness was bad when it had been declared good by God. You have not explained how this "opening of their eyes" actually gave them knowledge. If you are correct and they now knew good from evil, then this opening of their eyes would surely let them know that God had already declared it good before hand. But what happens is not such a revealing of knowledge, they actually change what was good and now think it is so bad they have to hide it. This is one reason why your view does not make sense.
If it was true that they now became moral creatures, and they now knew the difference between good and evil when before they did not know it, then things which were good, they would know and things which were bad or evil, they would know. Hence, they would now know that nakedness was good, but they did not. They would now know that God had commanded them not to eat from that tree and accept the consequences of it. But this is not what happened.
What is your explanation? I find your answers presently weak and pathetic and inconsistent. I am at least attempting to follow your logic but it just does not work.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen,
thanks again for your reply. I am glad I have not scared you away.
I am puzzled as to why you found my post rambling. Others I have shown it to were also surprised by your response. All of them made the same observation as I did. You failed to engage with my questions and did not answer but chose rather to attack me. I hope this is not how you intend to conduct yourself in the future as it does not demonstrate that you are prepared to show an objective look at positions other than your own.
My opinion is based upon a close reading of the text. This is confirmed by others who also have proper qualifications to make such an assessment. By your response it seems clear, that you value your opinion higher than others. That is fine. You go for it. It does not change the facts nor how academics from all walks of life perceive it.
As for seeing other books as irrelevant, that does not mean I don't read widely, nor that they don't hold helpful information. What it meant in this particular situation is that I hold to the sola scriptura position - Scripture interprets Scripture. This principle of interpretation is valid and whether you agree or not is again irrelevant. Even if I chose to read your other material - which you rely upon … "the Lady Of All Life" is not identical to "mother of all living". Is there a possible connection? Perhaps. But if we were to use your own interpretational method that you are relying upon here, they are nothing alike and obviously unrelated. If you are going to use the word "touch" as translated in whatever bible you use - and not rely upon the greek text which I did, then the two statements are only similar but nothing more.
Your suggestion that I simply say you are misinterpreting the text and that I simply could not see it your ways is obviously a lie. I, actually, indicated that even if your interpretation was true - it was impossible given the text. This is taking your own interpretation and attempting to give it the benefit of the doubt to see if actually could give sustenance to your meaning. I notice you are the one who did not return the good will but chose rather to lie and say that I am simply saying you are wrong and I am right. Attacking me is not attacking the arguments I made which you continue to avoid and run from.
Even your reference to thorns is evidence of your character and preparedness to fabricate untruths. in the first instance I was talking to another poster and made no reference to thorns to you. In the second instance I was referring to the particular time - just post fall when Adam made the comment about nakedness and before God had cursed the ground. I was not saying there were no thorns in Jesus' time or at any other time in the scriptures. Your pathetic attempt to paint me as not having read the bible reveals how weak your arguments are.
My point has been and remains the same. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He made this as a command to moral beings. You have not engaged with this point at all. It seems to me that non-engagement concedes it validity.
As for the point about the man only being driven out of the garden, I did not know it was an important point - and still don't. Nevertheless, I don't have an answer. It is the case though, that both Adam and Eve were outside the garden. It may be related to Paul's point in the NT that females ought to wear a head covering because Eve's part in the fall was less intentional than Adam's. She was reckless, yet his part was intentional and therefore more serious.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Ok it is your thread - you take it where you want. I don't have to go there though and I wont because it is irrelevant to me. As for facts, I think you are over-reaching again.
What is plain as day is that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You simply ignore this or suggest that this command somehow is a suggestion because Adam and Eve could not possibly know it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. It is not me misreading the passage.
It is you who is reading into the passage an interpretation that fits your pre-conceived prejudices. The likely reason you are re-interpreting the command from God to be a suggestion is because it contradicts completely your pre-conceived prejudice that the tree of knowledge of good and evil made them able to discern the difference. The fact that they know it is wrong already makes it impossible for you to follow your logic that God has stopped them from knowing wisdom.
Your interpretation does not however give any reason for Eve's discussion and attempted rebuttal with the serpent. Nor does it give any explanation for why Adam and Eve were suddenly aware of their nakedness, to the point that they needed to be clothed. Even if God's command not to obey is seen as a suggestion and even if Adam and Eve were unable to discern good and evil, they were not totally devoid of knowledge. Eve spoke as did Adam. Adam in fact was naming animals and tending to the garden. How in the world then does suddenly being aware that you were naked - which is something they obviously already knew - become a moral concern? This you cannot explain satisfactorily.
Nor do you explain how knowing the difference between good and evil is godlike. I reject it as a concept. It is nothing ever explored at any point in the bible. God wanted his creatures to obey him. Satan knew the difference between right and wrong. Gee even animals do to an extent and can feel guilt over it. But how does knowing the difference between good and evil be a picture or a description of divinity? I can think of no mythology which takes this position - I can think of no religion which takes this position. I can think of no philosophy or worldview that takes this position. And the reason for this is clear. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is not something that belongs to the realm of divinity exclusively.
Yet, deciding what is right and what is wrong is clearly a divine prerogative. And this is why it is much more plausible that this story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the symbolic picture of humanity trying to usurp this divine prerogative and why God says "now they have become like us".
Adam and Eve were made moral beings when God made them after his own image. They already had the law of God written on their hearts so that they would be without excuse. Your interpretation makes them out to be nothing more than animals who can talk. Perhaps, that is all you see here. Hence, these moral beings decided that to be human was not good enough - they wanted to be divine. This was a moral decision they made - knowing full well that such a decision would give them death. As the verse states, you will surely die, although in Hebrew it says "Dying you will die."
You will immediately be cut off - become dead to God's family, by being cast out of his presence and then because you are cut off from the tree of life, you will die physically. and lo and behold this is what happened. Not having access to the tree of life, Adam and Eve die. As the doctrines of the church have articulated, humanity fell out of their relationship with God and then inevitably died. They inherited death rather than life. And so from Adam forward death reigned. Until the second Adam came and provided access to the tree of life.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility.
They do, and so do others here. They will ask a question such as " do you think that god is so stupid to not notice the contradiction in his own words"?
Then they will, in the very next breath, insist that what is actually written means something else entirely.
Tradesecret for instance, will have it that when god wrote the word "touch" , what he actually meant was any number of things including "light". he then point blank tried to change the verse completely, here:
Tradesecret "note however, Jesus never said to Mary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me".the word in the greek is the word hapto. It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or light..
This is what the verse actually says:>
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: John 20:17 KJV
This BLATANT! misleading and purposeful mistranslation of the GOSPEL text is something devout Christians do when they have painted themselves tightly into a corner and challenged.
And this is what any serious studier of these scriptures will find themselves up against. Liars and backsliders.
But then what is one to expect when their own leader instructs them to be two faced:>
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV) be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Notice this man god actually instructs them to be WISE like the Serpent. This would be the same serpent that is said to have "deceived" brainless eve", I take it.
It really gets up your goat doesn't? That there are people who disagree with you and have good reasons and explanations for what they think. It is sad that your eyes really are closed to the truth. Still, I will pray for you. God may have mercy on you.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
--> @Tradesecret
What lie is there?
That A&E knew right from wrong, that's the reason you have avoided supplying a passage that supports your claim.
I have provided the verse - you just refuse to consider its truth. God said "you must not eat the fruit from that tree". This is a command - an imperative. It is not a suggestion. You don't like the idea that they already knew right from wrong. I wonder why that is such a big thing for you grasp hold to. when God said "don't … or you will die", we know that it would be wrong to do it.
Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason
Most especially when death didn't exist. How frightened are you of being cripsterneened? It's as meaningless a word as death was before death existed.
Who said death did not exist? It may well be true that no human had died at this time. But this does not mean that other creatures did not die in that time period. It would be pointless for God to use a term unless it had meaning to Eve and to Adam. Even they use it themselves. It is bizarre that you are hanging onto this element so strongly, without any evidence to support what you are saying and with plenty disagreeing with you.
She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam.
That's not possible, they were never taught right from wrong, obedience from disobedience. Obedience meant as much as death did and that was NOTHING.
You don't have evidence to support this. You are basing this completely on a definition that is not even warranted. And I wonder why? Is it because you have to find God to a liar? What would be the point of God issuing a command if they did not know what a command is? You seem to rely heavily on the words of Satan and minimise the words of God.
It is a more plausible explanation than thinking - gee she did not know it was wrong and had to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree to figure it out. Which is what your want to imply. But that is not possible - is highly implausible and not probable.
The entire story has no plausibility, you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility. The story says that A&E new right from wrong after eating the fruit. Try reading the story not writing it.
I am not rewriting history. My interpretation is well known and has a long history. Your interpretation on the other hand is modern. this interpretation has plausibility and yours just does not make sense.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Yes, that is very childish and immature, adults don't represent things that way. If they did, it would be to a five year old. Perhaps, that's for who the Bible was written?
Adults represent things in metaphors and symbols all of the time. It was not childish in this instance - and you really don't have reasons to think that - except you don't like it.
Nakedness in a forest? I would not know. perhaps you could enlighten us?
You don't know? You've never been in a forest? Seriously? Go and spend time in a forest naked and you will very quickly understand how badly you need clothes. Clearly, Adam understood this but God didn't. God is a dummy.
I certainly have never spent time in a forest naked. That I suppose is my loss. but as to whether it was clever or not clever - the thing is at that time there were no thorns - so perhaps it would have been nice. Still …
Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness
Ah, so God is happiest when we don't use our brains, Gotcha. That would stand to reason if God was an imbecile who hated smarter people.
what a facile thing to say. I said God does not get jealous over humanities wisdom and you still turn it in a nasty way. God wants us to use our brains. He says "come and reason with me". He says be transformed in your thinking. He says - have an answer for the reason for the hope that is in you. when people apply the scriptures it comes through the mind.
The point is - you want to eat the fruit to be able to decide what is right and wrong for yourself - and you don't like the idea that your wisdom without God is really quite foolish. You want God to turn around and think how smart you are - and congratulate you. And the funniest thing about this is you don't even believe in God. How wise is it to continually be talking about discussing something you don't even believe in? Something you think is a myth.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
disgusted,
Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God by eating this fruit. God clearly say in 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
This was not a suggestion, it was a command. even the consequence of eating it is given.
You suggest that eating the fruit gave them knowledge of right and wrong. but that is clearly incorrect. How do we know? Simple, because the first thing they did after their eyes were opened was to notice that he was naked and needed to hide. If the eating of the fruit was giving them knowledge to know what right and wrong was, then this would not have been an issue for God already knew that they were naked and declared it was very good. In other words, it was right to be naked and not ashamed.
So if being naked was right and not wrong, then Adam receiving the ability to know right from wrong makes no sense for he immediately gets it wrong. On the other hand, if the interpretation of what I have suggested which is in line with the traditions of the church is correct, which is that by eating the fruit, he is declaring what good and bad is, then it is very plausible that his very first act of wisdom - could be in contradiction what has been declared good before that time.
This is what made Adam and Eve like God. Interestingly, Satan suggested that to be like God was something they could do by eating this fruit. And in one sense Satan was correct, and this is clarified by God. But how exactly were they to be like God? It was not about power or immortality. In fact it was not even about knowing right and wrong. the Bible has always been clear that it is God who determines what is right and what is evil. humanity hates this. humanity likes to think that God has got it wrong - and hates to think that God is the one who makes the rules. Satan hates this too and this is what he tempted Adam and Eve to do. To eat the fruit would not give them the ability to know right from wrong, but to decide what is right and what is wrong. This is the most plausible explanation of this passage. They had rejected life and chose death.
Other verses which support this in the OT, include the fact that humanity was made in the image of God with the moral ability to discern right from wrong because they have the law of God written on their hearts. Romans 1 also follows this thinking.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes Stephen, it was wrong of me to suggest you were following Satan. I apologise - it was uncalled for.
I am not arguing over the semantics of the word "touch".
Here, God never used the term at all. He said, don't eat it. Eve added the words touch. Now it is true that it is impossible to eat without touching - but on the other hand it is quite possible to touch and do other things with - without eating. I often used to throw apples at people like balls for example. And sometimes I would pick a fruit, feel it in my hand, look at it, and then put it down again.
My point is that Eve added even the pharisaical addition because she already knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - and like the Pharisees attempted to make it even more difficult to break the law. In any event, God issued a command - it was an imperative - not just a suggestion. To break the law was to do wrong. Even knew this and so did Adam. Satan did as well - but his entire point was to tempt them away from listening to and obeying the words of God.
I'm discussing the story as related in Genesis. I don't really have anything to say about any other story. If you want to go to Enlil et al., then start a new topic discussing that story.
At this point in time, you have not established that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. Your premise is not only weak, it is non existent.
Created:
It seems to me you would prefer to believe the ridiculous in order to ignore the obvious. In that case, I would rather talk to my grade threes at least they have the brains to recognise what they are looking at.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
What lie is there?
Eve knew it was wrong to eat the fruit. She knew she was not meant to eat it - indeed she went further and said she should not even touch it lest she die.
Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason. She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam.
If you can't see this then it is a waste of my time trying to show it more.
It is a more plausible explanation than thinking - gee she did not know it was wrong and had to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree to figure it out. Which is what your want to imply. But that is not possible - is highly implausible and not probable.
the fact is she must have known - because God told her and Adam - don't eat the fruit or you will die. Unless she felt death was not a threat, which makes it even more nonsensical.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Wow!
Stephen, you are priceless!
can you produce a verse where God said don't touch?
No you cannot. It was Eve's creation. LOL!
I tell no lies. Read that again. I tell no lies. come on darling - please find one.
Yes, he wanted us to know what we could handle. On a needs to know basis. but what does that mean ??? there are many things in life where this applies.
the serpent, satan, whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy. disgusting. ugly. \
Yes, nakedness, this is the first thing they came up with . A joke really. come and join the wisdom of God - oh no we want to be wise ourselves - and eghhh we are naked - let us run and hide because we are such pitiable demonic creatures.
what a joke you write. satan was a dick. Useless and without any power. I reckon all the girls and all the boys rejected him. Impotent. Yes. trying to blame God or the lord is idiotic. Cain murdered his brother because he had rejected God.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Oh Goldtop,
so nice of you to drop in.
It is not the fruit which was the issue, it is the what it represented. God's wisdom or humanity.
Nakedness in a forest? I would not know. perhaps you could enlighten us?
Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness.
H
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Are you saying that Adam and Eve did not know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit?
"but God did say, "you must not eat the fruit from the tree …" Genesis 3:3. Is this not what Eve said to the serpent?
The very fact Even responded to the serpent is because she knew it was wrong.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
To begin with, just the name of this deadly life threatening tree puzzles me. Good and evil: The reader is introduced to two trees specifically:
Genesis 2:9 King James Version (KJV)9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:17 King James Version (KJV)But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Why Wouldn’t the lord not want us to “eat from” this tree that not only held knowledge of evil, but also of good? Why Doesn’t this lord want us to know good?
Why was this tree created in such a way that it held knowledge of both evil and good?Why not simply two separate trees: one good, one bad?
We need to consider some of the context here. the first thing is this: Adam and Eve already knew good from evil. Eating this tree was not going to give them knowledge to knowing good and evil. They knew it was good not to eat from the tree and they knew it was evil to eat of the tree. So the question really is not about them becoming knowing these things - it is something else. Similarly, the tree of life did not give them life for they were alive and had not yet eaten from the tree - so when they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they die - their death must be similar in kind.
So when the serpent says that they become wise - and knew they were naked, how is that wise? God never said it was wrong to be naked - he made them naked and said it was very good - so how is now wise that they were naked? After all, all of the other beasts were naked too and this was not a problem. Why is it a wise thing to recognise what you already were? It is ironic isn't? The first act of real wisdom is "I am naked, please hide me".
I personally take the view that what happened here is not about them starting to understand good and evil - but in the manner in which it makes them like God. Prior to that time, good and evil were defined by God for humanity. After the eating of the forbidden fruit, they, namely humanity decided for themselves what good and evil were going to be. This is for those of you who want to define God, the essence of what it means to be God. humanity became gods because they decided what right and wrong was going to be. And their first wise saying is "it is bad to be naked". LOL! humans - you got to hand it to them. So from then on - all humans wore clothes. Interestingly, one of the significant differences between humans and the animals is the human decision to wear clothes.
And Although it was of this forbidden tree that they ate from and eventually were sentenced to die; the Tree of Life didn’t lose any immediate problem.
But the noticeable thing here is that once this couple had “eaten” from said tree they become wise. They had had their eyes opened by a so called “serpent” or mores thecase, on the face of it, a much wiser honest god that the one who said they would die.
I am reminded here that Jesus talks somewhat admirably about serpents being wise and instructs his disciples to imitate them:
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV)Behold,I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
It appears then that this Lord of Genesis wanted us only to know what he wanted us know, and not a thing more: kept in the dark and ignorant.
It seems the wise ole’ snake had done mankind a great big favour.
God did not want us to be ignorant. He wanted us to be truly wise. He wanted us to listen to him and to obey him so that we could experience real life and in his presence. Humanity however chose to listen to Satan, and to reject God's wisdom. He wanted to be wise in his own eyes and after his own counsel and to reject God and his revelation. His first pearl of wisdom is "give me some clothes so that I am not naked." and behold God had to kill a beast to cover him because his fig trees really did not do the job.
Oh humanity fell into darkness because they did not want to remain in the light. They followed their own course and did their own thing and look at the wonderful world we now live in. A delightful paradise full of murderers, and perverts, and rejecters of the light. Oh yes, and we still think nakedness is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked could someone explain it to me.
SkepticalOne had no problem with my question. He replied right of the bat and not with 9 billion questions of his own before he would actually get around to answering the question
Yes, skepticalone did answer. Obviously, it was not a problem for him or her because he or she is coming from a similar position to yourself. Me on the other hand do see your posing of questions vague, which they are. I notice you did not bother trying to answer them - even in good faith. This leads me to conclude you did not ask in good faith but had an ulterior motive.
Then why don't you pose it that way, rather than closing down the discussion by attempting to make people look dumb?
It is straightforward request for an explanation. You seem to be struggling with it. Who have I “made look dumb”?
I think your intention was to close down everyone's argument who was opposed to you. You already had your understanding or interpretation and just wanted others to put up something so you could throw it down. Hence, why I asked you what your position was and possibly why you chose not to answer in good faith but resorted rather to attack.
You seem to be losing all of your debates.
That would be in your opinion... again. opinions do not win arguments.
Yes, it is my opinion. and others as well. It may not be your opinion but I am not sure you have yet succeeded in winning any arguments - because you turn people of with your aggressive attitude. You close down people's views rather than engage in meaningful dialogue unless of course it is someone who agrees with you.
I happen to agree here. I don't believe I need another explanation and you haven't got one either.
I am simply asking you to explain what you are trying to achieve by asking such questions and once you have done so, I am only asking that tell us how you came to that conclusion. I don't think that is asking too much. you are clearly much more clever than everyone else on this site and we need to think about the wisdom that you are putting forward.
SkepticalOne Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation (whichI recognize one of the verses above is from)and this was his attempt to keephis writing unchanged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
sorry, skepticalone, you made the assertion so it is up to you to put up or back down and apologise.
I never said anything and you know it. So either put up and back up your claim or acknowledge it is only speculation based on no evidence at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
This is an assertion not a question. Why do you think you are right and yet religions must be wrong? Seems a little arrogant to me.
Created:
Why do you need anyone to provide evidence for life? Why don't you provide evidence for how life evolved from non-life?
Created:
Posted in:
Floods are not known to organize much less organize by complexity. If you were to find a human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur fossil then a flood could be considered. However, we dont find this. What we find is simpler organisms in lower/older strata and more complex organisms in shallower/younger strata. A flood does not explain this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How can you be so sure? you have not given a reason but an opinion. This is a debate isn't? Possible? Plausible? Probable? I say no on at least two out of three cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Added: 09.27.18 01:29AM
--> @Stephen
Yes, of course. The author of Revelation had no clue his book would be lashed to others in a future canon. His warning was meant to protect his writing only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is no point in trying to answer a question when it is posed quite vaguely.
Hence, why I asked you the purpose behind wanting to know what it means.
Obviously, you have an agenda, I just want to know what that agenda is before I start answering the question.
Surely, if your question is bone fide, that is not too much to ask?
What do you think it means? And why does it matter?
If you point is simply to prove the bible has contradictions or that Christians don't think about where the NT comes from, then why don't you pose it that way, rather than closing down the discussion by attempting to make people look dumb? One of the principle rules of debate or an argument is that if either side closes down, then the debate has been lost by both sides. You seem to be losing all of your debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Someone who has studied and been peer reviewed by his field. Not wikapedia or an armchair theologian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That is a delightfully full assertion. Do you have any support for this from credible experts or is it something you came up with all by yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why would it matter which parts it applies to?
Are you wanting to add parts or delete parts? Or do think someone else has and wonder whether they have either received curses or been deleted from the book of life?
Do you have a pastoral concern for someone - or perhaps even yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Would it matter? Why would it matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why do you want to know? What do you think it means?
Do you think it is correct or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why do you want to know? What do you think it means?
Do you think it is incorrect or that it has no merit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Money is representative of an asset that belongs to someone. It is not something that arises from imagination or on a computer screen. It is a tool that enables people to exchange goods and services.
Inflation is not perception.
you realise that there are two different definitions for inflation. the Keynesian definition - of a pervasive increase in a basket of goods over a set period of time. and if you are talking about that definition - I agree it is a myth. But I am talking about inflation under the classical definition which is simply an increase in the money supply. and inflation under that definition is not a myth because the money supply does increase and decrease all of the time.
When the money supply increases, every piece of unitary measure in the system by definition loses value in accordance with the market. This is inflation. This is not perception but explains why the price of assets and services do increase in price over time and why the value of real wages decrease. It is not the CPI that I am talking about - it is real inflation - i.e. the increase in the money supply.
Your concept of injecting units into the system by electronic means will mean in the short term that real money in people's hands will lose value. The units being backed - not pegged - but backed by the confidence we have in the government - similar to the backing or the confidence we have in our money now. Remember that neither in USA or Australia that our dollar is backed by gold or silver anymore - but simply confidence in the government - although we have reserve bank - and it holds some gold - the fractional banking system means only a very small fraction is backed.
I think it is fraught with problems - personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
money or units, however you describe it, is not determined or valued by the wealth of a country. All money is at the of the day a tool that represents the lowest common denominator. whether it is in cash or electronic or is a rock or a piece of sand or gold, it is still only useful if people want it. In other words, the value of money is going to be determined by the market.
It may well start of as equal to one unit of $ on the first day, but it will either increase or decrease by the end of the day. Especially if people are using or not using it.
It is an artificial increase of the money supply into the market. It has to be artificial unless it is simply replacing money already in the system. And who is going to give away 350 Trillions dollars? and it is an injection into money supply - because it was not there previously and now it is going to be used for the same purposes - buying and selling goods and services. It may not be cash but it is the same thing. Hence it will lead to inflation across all forms of currency in the market. to say it is imaginary does not make sense. It has to happen because suddenly every other form of currency is less valuable.
Reducing poverty requires a different approach. first poverty has to be defined - as a constant in every community. not just a relative concept. Secondly, we need to evaluate where the wealth in the world exists now. And it is not just in the hands of the private sector but mostly tied up in hands of the public sector which actually accounts for over 90% of all wealth. Then we need to decide what the public sector needs the wealth it has for. and whether a reduction or a re - examination of the way it uses it wealth is appropriate and or would cause it not to be effective in its role. That of course also requires a discussion of what is a government's role. I take a small government approach - so I have no particular issue if the government lost most of its wealth and instead transferred it either into the hands of the less wealthy or re-invested it into schemes which would pay for and provide for most of the larger government programs such as health, education, welfare on an ad finitum basis. poverty could be come a thing of the past but it requires thinking outside of the box - not just handing people money - but figuring out what poverty is and what the government's real role ought to be.
unfortunately most socialists and capitalists have yet to figure out where most of the wealth in the world is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
someone has to pay for everyone else to have money.
Economically, money has to be scarce for it to be valuable. If everyone has money, then technically it is not scarce and then it become less valuable. It certainly would lose purchasing power.
In the end it will have a short term sense of everyone feeling wealthy. but within weeks, perhaps days, it will become depressing. It actually would lead to inflation which is the same things as money losing its value.
There is also a historical precedent - at the end of world war 2 everyone in Germany was given the equivalent of $50. within one week, 90% of the money was in the hands of 10%. one week. This is pretty interesting in that money always goes to the ones who know how to use it properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Forum posts: 55Topic's authorAdded: 09.23.18 01:49AM--> @TradesecretFair enough. And to ( me ) this is the ultimate fair way anyone can explain what believing in god has to do with joining a group.I've not a single argument against it. And it's damaging to my case.But trade? What I am expecting to be the case is, now get this, stay with me.What I think might be happening is people a person may in fact join a religion and like be in a religious group without ever actually meeting a god and having it/him/her ever tell them that it/he/her wants them to join the A's or like join the C's.Trade, its not like you would join a group if god didn't actually tell you hey.?Good gameGood game
Hello Deb, can I call you that? I apologise if it is presuming too much (But you did call me Trade)
Thanks in the first instance for conceding that my position does go against yours and does not help you. I must say that you made me smile when you said "I've not a single argument against it" and then proceeded to lay out and argument. It was kind of cute in a backwards sort of way.
Secondly, I think you are correct in that many people do join religious groups without ever meeting a god face to face or even hearing a god audibly telling them to join a group. Of course it does depend upon what you mean by god. Some cults have self-professing leaders who are gods who call people to join them. In those cases gods are not necessarily non-human or supernatural or divine, just humans with a charismatic personality like Pharaoh who takes on the title of god. In fact I think most people are born into their religion although you would have to concede that actually also goes against the idea of choosing religion. It was chosen for them by their parents or perhaps by God through their parents. Still it was not necessarily their personal choice. and I would think this accounts for most people in religions today.
On the other hand there are many people who choose to join or convert to a new religion. These people probably in the large part have chosen to join a group for all sorts of reasons. They might prefer the company, or the doctrine, or are attracted to the stability, or wish to own their parent's religion for themselves or perhaps they read up, investigated a particular religion and found a kinship with it and decided to join.
For me, I grew up in a home with a dad who was an atheist and a mum who was a committed Christian. They fought all of the time, and by the time I had reached 17 I decided for myself that religion and God was nothing more than a story - perhaps invented to enslave the masses. I passed through various stages of political theories such as socialism, anarchy, and communism. I used various substances and I experimented sexually in a variety of ways. I attended uni, studied law, economics, psychology, and chemistry. In other words, I did what lots of other people have done throughout history. I played about with mysticism, and spirituality - got into dungeons and dragons, Ouija boards, and seances. traveled the world, met lots of so called spiritual people in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Tibet, Mexico and Lesotho.
And then the Spirit of God worked in my heart. I went from being antagonistic against God and Jesus to believing Jesus was God. I went from thinking Christianity was fraudulent to seeing that it was truth. I went from thinking that I had it all and needed no one to knowing I needed a saviour. Can I explain how this happened? No, I cannot. I did not believe and suddenly I did. It was like I was dead and then I was alive.
C. S Lewis describes a similar experience in relation to his conversion. He left his home to go to the movies and did not believe but by the time he got to the movies he believed. Like me, he does not recall thinking necessarily about these things - or having some kind of amazing emotional experience - simply that he was dead and then he was alive.
Did I hear the voice of God speaking to me? Not audibly. but my eyes had opened and suddenly everything had changed. Can I explain it? no. it is inexplicable. But Jesus spoke of this in John 3 about the spirit. He is like the wind and where he goes - you cannot see him. but you know he has been there. I have not seen him, but my life has definitely had all the hallmarks of him being in my life.
I would never have chosen God. In fact I had already so I thought rejected him. and then God moved in me and I was compelled to believe and now I am totally sold on him. It was not an experience - it was simply that he moved and I responded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are getting sick of me disagreeing with you. But you are clearly wrong. You selectively read Zechariah's account and interpret it to mean no unfaithfulness and then suggest that the angel who was there at the time was wrong when he said that Zechariah disbelieved him.
Cant you see the difficulty of your point? No I don't suppose you can. This is not a matter of you making a point - go ahead and do it. It is a matter of proving your point -which you clearly have not done so. Otherwise everyone would agree with you.
My other views on the touching and clinging too are solid and based in good grounded rhetoric - your view has been soundly refuted as ignorant and self serving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
the word in the greek is the word hapto. It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or light. In the various versions of the NT, it variously translated as cling, hold, or even touch. In the version you are using, it is translated as touch. In my version it is cling to. There are also two other words for touch that might be more appropriate. Katago and prosphano.
These are both not simply translations but interpretations. In that sense, I would suggest the context and the circumstances might assist in the more accurate interpretation.
In the specific context, for it to mean simply "touch" as opposed to "cling to" which is what you are insisting upon has some problems as you by your further insistence that it contradicts the later passage relating to Thomas. I personally think that it is not unreasonable to think that the author of the gospel is not so dumb that he misses this alleged contradiction. Nor is there any reason to suspect that Jesus was so mixed up that he sends contradictory messages within such a short period of time.
There also does not seem to be any particular reason why Jesus would say don't touch and then touch to either Mary or Thomas. The notion that he somehow discriminated between the two seems inconsistent with the rest of the gospels and really has no merit to it.
What we do know from the context is that Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus after he rose from the dead. Was this because she did not believe as the two men on the road to Emmaus or indeed like Thomas in the next few verses. This is possible of course and I don't immediately discount it. It seems that all of the disciples found it difficult to believe Jesus' words that he would rise from the dead even though he had told them countless times and had also demonstrated numerous miracles before their eyes. The fact is people are hard hearted even when confronted with the truth directly in front of their eyes.
Of course with Mary, it may well be that she really was grief stricken which also would not be unreasonable given the recent events and the stories that someone had stolen his body. When she saw Jesus, and recognised who he was, it is also not unreasonable that she would immediately hug him, and cling to him and not wish to let him go. You seem to think this is extrapolation, but the word in the greek can be translated that way so it is not extrapolation. It makes better sense than simply Jesus saying "don't touch me". Why would Jesus say "don't touch me"? It does not make sense. Christian theology has never been about the body being evil or even sinful. Christian theology has only ever taught that the heart is sinful. And Jesus heart in particular was not sinful and nor was his body. Sometimes some crazy Pentecostals suggest that Jesus had to go heaven to see his father and then come back again before seeing Thomas and the other disciples. I think that is nonsense. There is no evidence and no data to support this idea either.
Although I concede that the word might be interpreted touch, I think it does not fit the context and it is certainly not the best fit. You can insist upon it if you like, but you are using a version that other versions and many scholars disagree with and clearly you require to insist upon it so that there is a contradiction. That makes it a subjective decision you are drawing your conclusion upon. I on the other hand am drawing upon scholarly work, the greek language, the context of the passage and don't have any particular subjective need to bear. I say this last one, because apparent contradictions have no bearing upon whether the bible is true or not. That may well be the atheist's or agnostic's position but it is not the Christian position. We after all believe in the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit, where God is one and God is three persons. And we don't see this as a contradiction because it is not a contradiction. We also acknowledge that these things are spiritually discerned.
but in relation to the above passage, you have not demonstrated even on a basic level that there is a contradiction. you have not shown conclusively or even at all that the word means touch in this context. Yes, you have provided one version which says touch. But I have provided other translations which show otherwise and furthermore I have provided the underlying Greek which provides alternative translations. Your theory makes no sense either in the context, or in the circumstances and by your own admission - tends towards contradicting the passage. Why make such an insistence unless you have an axe to grind? It certainly is not very scholarly or becoming.
You also made an observation that it does not matter whether it means cling because that still means touch. If that is your position, then whatever. If Jesus says "don't touch", I suggest to you that it is quite different to "don't cling". the first may have been before she touched him and might be a command not to touch her. It might be after she had already touched her and he is commanding her not to do it. This seems to be what you are saying. The "don't cling" has more implications. It suggests she was touching him already and that she does not want to let go. For him to say don't cling, does not mean that he did not want her to touch him, it means that he does not want her to cling to him. In this sense he is actually caring for her in her grieving state. Your interpretation makes him out to be mean spirited which again is inconsistent with his character from the rest of the gospels. Where else has he ever rejected people wanting to come to him?
At the end of the day, your position is soundly refuted. There is no contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, this is not circular. It is quite clear. Jesus did not forbid Mary from touching him. He forbid Mary from clinging to him and not letting him go. These are quite different things. Your literalistic sticking to your own version is what is circular, nothing else. There is no contradiction here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
the words in greek is the word for cling not merely touch. Not that it matters. She was touching him and she did not wish to let go. Jesus told her to stop clinging to her. I reject your notion that he did not want her to touch him especially since that is only an interpretation in one translation. she could not prevent him from leaving again. This is the point of what he is saying. He is not saying - don't touch me fullstop.
With Thomas he did invite him to touch him - but this was in response to Thomas saying earlier that he would not believe unless he touched his wounds with his own hands. Yes, it was rhetorical - because Jesus knew Thomas' heart. And if Thomas had touched him - it would not have changed anything anyway. Jesus did not have an issue with people touching him. He did have a problem with people trying to keep him and trying to prevent him from leaving. He had yet to go to his father and this was going to happen whether they liked it or not.
It is not a biblical contradiction. It is quite plain what has happened here. hence why he reiterates this to Mary, go and tell them I am going to my father. you want it to be a contradiction - yet you have not made your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, I am not assuming you are a dunce.
I was making statements as a response to what I read in your original post.
I hardly think that referring to what babies jumping for joy within wombs when they were not even born might give light upon whether Jesus and john knew each other later. John jumped at that stage. I am not convinced that is sufficient by itself to prove they knew each other.
I have many cousins I have never met throughout life. And they live in the same town as I do. It is not anything more than probable. Not that I actually think it is an issue anyway.
As I said I think he probably knew Jesus - but not as the messiah until his baptism. I reject your view about it being a power play. But what is your evidence for such a statement. He certainly was fulfilling the prophecies of the OT. He certainly wanted to see God's kingdom come in. He did not think that he himself was the messiah. He was waiting for the one who would baptise with the Holy Spirit and who was greater than him - so much he was not worthy to untie his shoe laces.
That John's confidence was shaken when he was put in prison is not unreasonable. You seem to think he must have been superman or something. That once he was filled with the Spirit that he was suddenly unable to lose confidence. John was human. He sent his disciples. I don't know why you think he must divest himself of his disciples. We don't know how long they had been with him. We don't know what their relationship was with him. Just because the messiah had arrived was not a signal that he to stop doing his ministry of preparing people for the coming messiah.
I assume you understand OT theology relating to the Passover lamb and also to the sacrificial system of the Jewish system. Hebrews reminds us that it was a shadow of things to come and that it pointed to the coming of the messiah. In the OT, when people thought of lambs, they did not think like we did today of cute cuddly little lambs who bleat for their milk and who sit in the arms of children. They immediately thought of the sacrificial lamb who was used as part of the atoning sacrifice at the temple for the sins of the priest and then of the people of God. When John labeled Jesus as the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, it was obvious that he was linking Jesus with the sacrificial lamb in the OT system. So no I reject your assertion that I have added to the scriptures by extrapolation or otherwise. This has been the teaching of the church since day dot and I am following in their traditions of which I find logical procession of thought from the OT to the NT.
I don't think I know better than others. but what I do know is that I have the NT and the interpretation as provided by the Spirit of God that those people did not have at that time. John was in the old covenant - hence with an understanding prior to the coming of the messiah. We live in the time since then with the benefit of the Messiah's wisdom and Spirit.
I never said John was a high priest. I said he was a levite and the son of Zechariah who was at one time high priest. Actually I am not sure he was high priest although he certainly was appointed to enter the holy of holies in that particular year. Jewish children were not illiterate. Of all the cultures in the world at that time, they had a high level of literacy. they were people of the book and having the ability to read the book or the scrolls meant that the nation had a high motivation for ensuring that children were taught from a young age. John was literate. And he was intelligent and he was called by God. But how much did he know of what the messiah was meant to be - I don't know. Obviously, he knew Jesus was the lamb of God. Significantly, he also was meant to understand Jesus' reference about healing the sick and making the blind see. But he was human and he was prone to all of the same cultural issues of the time and of the Jewish nation. Gee, even Christians today get mixed up about the kingdom - and they are in the new covenant.
but my point is and remains the same. John was not perfect. He did not have perfect knowledge. He had doubts like the rest of us - even when he was confronted by the truth. Experiences one day can quickly turn into doubts in the future. Think of the Jewish people. released from Egypt - walked through water - and then less than a month later were turning to another god - in the shape of a golden calf. All this proves is that humans are fickle. john was human. John had a job and he fulfilled it. But he also had doubts which were laid to rest after his disciples visited and spoke with Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you seem to think that people in the bible such as Zechariah had perfect knowledge and also perfect responses to such knowledge. That is unreasonable and ignorant.
the people of Israel throughout their history often had significant information imparted to them - they did not respond righteously but in accordance with their own sinfulness.
Zechariah was no different. I am not convinced he had perfect knowledge, but even if he did, there is no reason for him to react to this information in a faithful manner. It is certainly to be expected that he would be cynical and without belief that this was happening to him. Certainly, this happened many times in the bible that people heard directly from God but acted without faith. This is human. In any event, what happened to Zechariah does not have to be a punishment. It may well have been a sign for him and others about him - that something significant was about to happen. which incidentally is the case - John the Baptist was born - and he was the forecomer to Christ.
As I look at the passage - it does not have to be seen as a punishment - but even if it was - the angel clearly says that Zechariah did not believe his words. so whatever spin you put on Zechariah's words, the angels are quite clear. It seems to be that Zechariah was not so sure that God would do this thing - Zechariah is human just like you and me. His skepticism was evident and it was counted as unbelief. Was it a punishment or a sign? That is another question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I assume you realise that Luke and John were written by different people. And to different audiences.
Hence they had different purposes. Yet they are in agreement.
you seem to have difficulty with John's rendition of the events surrounding Mary and then Thomas. Firstly Jesus says don't touch - actually he says "don't hold onto me" for "I have not returned to my father" . and then in v 27 he says to Thomas "put your finger here". I think you are suggesting that Jesus is inconsistent about whether he can be touched or not and that he is being inconsistent and John in fact is contradicting himself.
note however, Jesus never said to Mary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me. This was not a simple touching - it was a full on significant hug of some description. In the second place - despite Jesus' suggestion to Thomas, there is no evidence that Thomas ever actually touched Jesus. Jesus' words were more of a rhetorical sense once Thomas had actually seen him in the flesh. Remember that Jews did not have the same idea about ghosts that we do today.
Hence, the bible only says that Mary was told not to hold onto him and that Jesus suggested to Thomas that he touch him. So there is no data that goes the extra step and says that Jesus did not let Mary touch him but did let Thomas touch him. I am not even sure that the essence of the story goes that far. In fact Mary did touch him. But we don't know about Thomas.
But why did Jesus say what he did to Mary? What was that about? I think it is fairly easy to explain. She was clinging to him in the hope that he would not simply disappear before his eyes. the words do not describe a simple touch but a clinging a holding a not wanting to let him go sense. He tells her to stop- in other words there will be other opportunities for her to see him before he goes to his father. perhaps she was clinging to him in a sense that her clinging might prevent him from going. she was being obstinate in her grief. she had lost him once - it was not going to happen again if she could help it. Jesus simply tells her to get serious. she cannot stop what is happening.
so when Jesus sees Thomas later it does not contradict his words at all to Mary, but makes perfect sense. no issues with the resurrection - simply revealing normal human flaws for all to see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Calling John the least in the kingdom was not an insult. It can be interpreted in a couple of ways.
Firstly, the kingdom is never about being first - it is always about being the servant. John was the servant - and therefore being least is the highest compliment.
secondly, Jesus was distinguishing between the new and the old covenants. anyone in the old covenant is going to be less than those in the new covenant. not in status or importance but in the sense of knowing Jesus as he was. People born and dying before Jesus would not understand the significance of his death and resurrection. they would only understand the shadow not the reality.
It is not an insult, merely a recognition that those who knew Jesus in the new covenant will have a deeper understanding than anyone under the old covenant. I prefer this second understanding over the first one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I have never had a personal communication from God without the Scriptures being involved. Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A god or gods does not need any special attributes. History shows that people worshiped anything and everyone. sometimes it was bird or the sun or the moon or the earth or our parents or the king or a stone or a tree or the lightening or thunder or even ourselves.
In most cases, humans like their gods to be useful for them - so like to have them on a string. If a god wants to do something different from us - then we reject that thing as a god. if it does not listen to then we reject it. but we like others to think our god is big and strong and can do whatever he wants - mostly we want others to think that our god will do whatever we want -
in modern times, this historical idea of god gets rejected for all sorts of reasons - today we worship our minds our reason our abilities to be famous or skillful - we worship these things because they are an authority. Celebrity, sports heroes, authors, scientists, even politicians, pop stars, and movie stars.
I think most people worship themselves - as their own biggest authority.
the secular world has changed the definition of religion and of god. they want to make it a thing of the past and superstitious nonsense - primarily because they want to determine for themselves how they want to live - hence they want religion to be about the supernatural and therefore god must be of the same ilk. but this is a modern idea and definition with a very small timeline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not sure that John is having as many problems as you might think.
John was a levite priest. We know this because his father is one and levites followed the family business. John may or may not have known Jesus. Sure their parents knew each other - but they were a significant distance from each other. It is not like they could simply jump into a car and go visit whenever they felt like it. Also both boys would have commenced work pretty early in their lives - and it is not like they had it easy like us - to have weekends and a 38 hour week. Remember they were in a land captured by Romans and probably needed consent to go from one place to another.
John was at the river for more than one day. the gospels clearly give the idea that all of the Jerusalem and Judea went out to him to be baptised. This would have taken more than one day to do - especially given that many people would have had jobs and the Pharisees and the soldiers are not going to appear after one day.
I think John probably did know Jesus - but that does not mean he knew Jesus was the messiah. This may never have occurred to him until this moment when he came to be baptised. you are correct that John was full of the spirit - as was Jesus. And at Jesus's baptism this was evident in the way he spoke to Jesus and by the confirmation of God the Father and the Spirit of God at that time. I think there is no doubt that John believed Jesus was the messiah.
Later on when John was in prison - John sent his disciples to ask the question about whether Jesus really was the messiah or not. I am not sure that at this time John was so confident about Jesus. I am not sure that at that time he was so confident of much. He knew he was a prophet but had been thrown into prison. He had been watching Jesus but Jesus did not seem to the messiah he was imagining. The Pharisees, and Israel and by extension John probably believed the messiah was going to come and rescue Israel from the Romans and restore all things back to Israel and set up his kingdom. Gee, even Jesus disciples thought this as well. Perhaps John was getting nervous sitting in prison.
Yet Jesus response to John's disciples was not what they were expecting - he reminded them of the promises of what the messiah would be like from the Isaiah passages. Look at what I have been doing - this is my kingdom - it is not of this world. It is not a political kingdom. It is one as you proclaimed when you baptised me - as the lamb of God, dying for the sins of his people to bring reconciliation between God and man and his kingdom was going to be a spiritual one.
I am of the view that John had along with everyone else of his generation completely missed how God's messiah was going to set up his kingdom. Instead of reading passages such as Is 53, they read passages like Psalm 2. They started with his kingdom and not with their heart.
So I do not think that John had any more problems than most people did at the time including Jesus' own disciples. Even after he died, they still did not get it. It was only after he had risen from the grave and had seen him that things began to dawn upon them. and then it changed everything - and the world was turned upside down. today - people still don't get it. We want a god who will turn up like superman and save us - rather than a saviour who wants to deal with our hearts. We want a god after our hearts - not one who is going to fix our heart and transform it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I did not choose my religion. God chose me. I did not have the capacity or the ability to reject him. He outsmarted me. And now I am sold on him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What is the other main religion? I think Christianity is the ONLY true and correct religion. I would not go on to say that everything Christianity teaches is true and correct and some of the things it practices are surely incorrect.
Nevertheless, it is correct in so far as believing that Jesus is LORD and that he died and rose again from the dead and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.
So far as denominations go, any Christian denomination which believes in the Trinity and the Atoning work of Christ through his death on the cross is correct. Hence, cults like the LDS or the JWs or the wacky independent unitarian churches are not Christian in accordance with the traditions of the church.
but from my point of view, the more denominations, the better. It shows that the church contains thinking people within the framework of its tenants and that is a good thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Do you talk to God? What's this experience like? Is it one-way, where you're sending God prayers, or does God ever touch your mind in response? If there is a response, what is it like? Does God respond in words? Is it just a feeling or emotion, like a wordless sense of wellbeing or reassurance?
Yes. It is the same as when I talk to other persons. It is not one way. Yet it is not like talking to someone face to face. Yes, I talk to God orally, but he talks to me typically through the Scriptures. Of course, he also talks to me by other means, but mostly that is more of a means of comfort or encouragement. It is also quite vague. When someone preaches to me, so far as they are actually preaching God's words then I understand God is talking to me. Sometimes people preach moralism and their own thoughts. This is not God, but man or woman. I don't know what you mean by God touching my mind. I understand that the Spirit of God impresses me through the words of Christ as flowing through the scriptures. The words that God responds with are the Scriptures. It is always quite clear and objective.
Is there ever a doubting part of you that whispers that you're just talking to yourself? If so, how do you overcome it? Is there a quality to "God's voice" that is immediately and fundamentally distinct from your own inner voice, so that you can always tell when it's supposedly God and when it's just your own mind?
Because I hear God's word primarily through the Scriptures whether it is being read or preached, the only questions which arise are meaning and application. Sometimes a preacher will say something which is really an application of the idea being preached. This can cause questions in my mind and I think this is a good thing. People need to question all things they hear. Even when I read something directly from the Bible, I need to stop and ask what does it mean? What did it mean in the time it was written, how was it meant to be applied then? What differences exist between then and now - has anything changed for me to see how it might apply to me now. For example, some of the OT laws in Exodus were written directly to Jewish people after they left Egypt but before they arrived in the promised land and prior to Jesus coming. since Jesus has come and gone and left us his Spirit, with the birth of the church, many of these OT laws are now changed in form, but not substance. the Sacrifices are now sufficiently fulfilled in Jesus' death on the cross - and this flows eternally. Hence the OT law is now in substance fulfilled all of the time, but the form has changed. Now we don't need to look forward to a better time, but look back to his death in the communion.
Do I ever think I am just talking to myself? I think we all think that from time to time. But typically I don't go about talking to myself and knowing that I can talk to God anytime - is not just about prayer, but reminds me that God is always watching over me. I think when you hear God's voice, you know it. But I don't think that God chooses to talk audibly to people now. Hebrews 1:1 tells us that God used to talk in various ways in the past - but now he talks to us through his son - Jesus who ensured that his words were written down by the Apostles and we now have his words in the form of the NT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
He was struck dumb for not believing the angel. He was an old man and his wife was barren. He like Abraham and Sarah many years prior did not have faith at the time that God would keep his promise.
The NT readers would have known the previous stories in respect of God promising barren women babies. Of course Zechariah like most of us would have been skeptical if someone promised us the same even if we did believe in God.
Hence it is not about whether all of it was written down for the readers or indeed hearers of the gospel. It also included relying upon the history of the nation of Israel.
John the Baptist is an interesting story - but quite profound once you look into it further. Not only was he a prophet, he was a Levite priest.
How do we know this? Because his father was a high priest. What was the ceremony he was performing at the River Jordan? Why was it significant that Jesus came when he was 30 years of age? Was it immersion or was it sprinkling?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nathaniel_B
Jesus was a Jew. Hence he was more than likely a man of middle eastern descent.
Created: