Word of God

[streetbob2006]

"The gain was not to Paul or Peter. They never submitted his letters to be formed into a Bible. They showed up hundreds of years later to be formed into a NT by organized religion and if you study history, the churches fought numerous battles to arrive at what they did. They were still split on the final version and there are over 40 versions in existance today that went through more than one translation and app 14 different books removed that were included in versions as late as the 1600s"

Hey Joesph, I wonder were you are getting this. In the bible itself Peter calls Pauls letters scripture 2 Peter 3:16. They are also read at church col 4:16 and public worship rev 3:1. You probobaly are saying but they were written later. We have the unical manuscripts that date back to 200 AD. Minuscule manuscripts written around 900; 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and some written in ECoptic. WE also have Lexionaries which are books used for public readings with corresponding paralell verses for cross reference to other scripture. We also have nontextual scripture written on pottery etc by the poor dating back to the early church which if all the written manuscripts were taken away there would be enough of these nontextual items to reconstruct almost the whole New Testament!

No we come to the 2nd and the 3 generation chruch fathers. Some of these men are disicples of the disicples. Justin Martyr qouted the New Testament 330 times. Origen quoted 17922 NT verses. Tertullian=7258 times. Clement of ALex 2406. This is just a few. These are men before the council of NIcea. Besides all the Council oF Nicea did was confirm what was already scripture due to the fact that heretical writtings were coming about and there was only a couple of books in question which over the course of 80 some years they were excepted.

 

[streetbob2006]

"I guess a lot depends on which scholars you ask. Christian scholars would of couse agree with your statement. Scholars and historians that have studied the Bible without a Christian bias may not agree with your statement"

Hey Joesph, Most unbiased scholars (non) Christians agree that the bible is the most accurate. The ones that dont are like Jesus seminar and other fringe scholarship groups with a bias to discredit Jesus and the Bible. They have an agenda.

"Men perceive things differently and from different points of view. In my view, As long as men write books, there will be errors."


I agree with this and that is why I am glad God and not man wrote the Bible.
God Bless DJ

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, I wonder were you are getting this. In the bible itself Peter calls Pauls letters scripture 2 Peter 3:16. They are also read at church col 4:16 and public worship rev 3:1. You probobaly are saying but they were written later. We have the unical manuscripts that date back to 200 AD. Minuscule manuscripts written around 900; 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and some written in ECoptic. WE also have Lexionaries which are books used for public readings with corresponding paralell verses for cross reference to other scripture. We also have nontextual scripture written on pottery etc by the poor dating back to the early church which if all the written manuscripts were taken away there would be enough of these nontextual items to reconstruct almost the whole New Testament!

Hi streetbob,
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unfortunately the word in Greek translated here as scripture is 'graphe' which in the Greek means document. Peter calls Pauls writings "epistles" from the greek word epistole which means letter. That's what Paul called them also. Sure the word 'graphe' can be used to refer to OT scripture but there was no such thing as NT scripture recognized when Peter is reported saying this so one must assume he is not equating Pauls letters to be formal scripture but only that his epistles or letters have in them things hard to understand as are things in other documents which could include scripture.

Col. 4:16
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul called it an epistle here also. It was inspired. He was a head over churches and he wrote them a letter to encourage them and instruct them as the head of any group of churches would do. But he never called them scripture for a reason. You guess why?

There is a reason that there are so many different versions and manuscripts but you assume they match. We have over 1000 denominations of Christians today. You won't find agreement there what makes you think you eill find agreement in the manuscripts?

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, Most unbiased scholars (non) Christians agree that the bible is the most accurate. The ones that dont are like Jesus seminar and other fringe scholarship groups with a bias to discredit Jesus and the Bible. They have an agenda.

"Men perceive things differently and from different points of view. In my view, As long as men write books, there will be errors."

I agree with this and that is why I am glad God and not man wrote the Bible.
God Bless DJ

I'm sorry, I never saw his signature nor did I ever read anything within it other than it contained inspired messages recorded as being from God. There seems to me to be a big difference. Not once will you find the "word of God" referring to the written book except by well meaning but misinformed pastors and teachers. The book itself claims no such author to cover its complete collection of books. Also I see no where at the end of any of the 66 books where it says the end. Perhaps God doesn't need to write a book. His NT was recorded and prophesied to be written on the hearts of men rather than on paper. Just another view to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Steetbob,

The link's odds specified on the first page is based on the assumption that the NT was accurately recorded and not made to purposely agree with the OT by those in control.


Hey Joesph,

Most scholars believe that the bible is the most accurate book from antiquity. There are over 25000 manuscripts of the New Testament in our hands dating within 200 years of the orginal documents so going back as close to the first century. Do you believe in the Trojan wars? There is only 8 documents recording the stories written 1000 years after the fact, yet scholars still take it as fact. THis is just an example.

Here's a good place to start educating yourself on what's really going on with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Bible and Archaeology, Bible news, Interpretation and Archaeology, Excavations in the Holy Land

Chris

 

[streetbob2006]

Here's a good place to start educating yourself on what's really going on with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Bible and Archaeology, Bible news, Interpretation and Archaeology, Excavations in the Holy Land

Chris

He CHris, if you do not think that biblical minimilists and the supposed "higher Critics" have an agenda then you have been had.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

He CHris, if you do not think that biblical minimilists and the supposed "higher Critics" have an agenda then you have been had.

Yeah, and Satan put the fossils there to fool us. C'mon dude, get with the knowlege program.

Chris

 

[streetbob2006]

Hi streetbob,
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unfortunately the word in Greek translated here as scripture is 'graphe' which in the Greek means document. Peter calls Pauls writings "epistles" from the greek word epistole which means letter. That's what Paul called them also. Sure the word 'graphe' can be used to refer to OT scripture but there was no such thing as NT scripture recognized when Peter is reported saying this so one must assume he is not equating Pauls letters to be formal scripture but only that his epistles or letters have in them things hard to understand as are things in other documents which could include scripture.

Col. 4:16
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul called it an epistle here also. It was inspired. He was a head over churches and he wrote them a letter to encourage them and instruct them as the head of any group of churches would do. But he never called them scripture for a reason. You guess why?

There is a reason that there are so many different versions and manuscripts but you assume they match. We have over 1000 denominations of Christians today. You won't find agreement there what makes you think you eill find agreement in the manuscripts?

Love in Christ
JM

Hey Joesph, in 2 Timothy 3:16 does the greek text use the word "graphe" for scripture? Is that word used anywhere else in the NT?


Paul clearly thought his epistles and letters were authorative. I am guessing he never called them scripture due to humilty. What is also interesting is that (2 Peter 3 16) Peter says those who distort Pauls letters (graphe) do so unto their own destruction. This implies authority and signifigance. Do not distort the Inspired scripture.

I never said there were many variations...There our thousands of manuscripts and even nontextual things that say the same thing! ONe can take the NT in Coptic and in Latin and cross refernce to see how accurate they are....and they are accurate.

Denominations are due to small disagreements in scripture and reactions to actions. Say the church becomes to Cold and ORthadox...well it then splits and the reaction is extreme charmaticism. Besides scripture is infallible and the church full of sinners is not.

 

[streetbob2006]

Yeah, and Satan put the fossils there to fool us. C'mon dude, get with the knowlege program.

Chris

Hey Chris, what fossils? Like Java man? Like the link between birds and dinosaurs that was glued together and sold to National Geographic for 80000 dollars which was a hoax? Or the hobbit people who were evidence fror evo until they found out it was a pigmy skull?

 

[streetbob2006]

I'm sorry, I never saw his signature nor did I ever read anything within it other than it contained inspired messages recorded as being from God. There seems to me to be a big difference. Not once will you find the "word of God" referring to the written book except by well meaning but misinformed pastors and teachers. The book itself claims no such author to cover its complete collection of books. Also I see no where at the end of any of the 66 books where it says the end. Perhaps God doesn't need to write a book. His NT was recorded and prophesied to be written on the hearts of men rather than on paper. Just another view to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hey Joesph, how do you know that Jesus's message was to be written on the hearts of men if you do not trust scripture? What if somebody added it? I was also curious...what do you think Christianity is about?
Thanks for interacting, I enjoy learning others perspectives,challenging mine and others beliefs, God Bless DJ

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Liberty!

…unless juantoo3 is ready to support his/her ad hominem, I'm off to another thread!

I do hope you haven't left so soon. Of course, there is the little matter of priorities…I suppose mine may be a bit different than yours. My new wife and my household are first on my list, an intellectual sparring match for the sake of stroking egos is way down the list somewhere.

Moderator Post.....

Hi All, Let's remember that we are all here for interesting discussion and debate. Please let's remain respectful, keep on topic and refrain from personal comments.

Oh , indeed Luna! The comment in which I allegedly leveled an ad hominem was merely my making an educated elucidation based on past experiential observation. The scientific method hard at work…

If the Bible is the Word of God, how is it so easily twisted by humans? Is this not the equivalent of humans meddling in God's plan? Could a human have doused the burning bush? Could a human have stopped the crucifixion? If not, then how could humans so easily interfere in the proper understanding of the Word of God?

StreetBob was essentially correct, apples and oranges.

There is an error in this assessment that would be common among those who are not familiar with the context and application, an error alluded to by Thomas in another thread:

and seeks, by attacking fundamentalism, to attack the whole of Christian orthodoxy on the same basis.

By opening a discussion in such a deliberately obfuscated manner, it is pretty well apparent to anybody familiar with the overall subject that the goal is to discredit Christianity with a series of *seemingly* profound questions. Questions deliberately designed to muddle the equation and mire the defense in explanations that the offense casually dismisses with little more than a wave of the hand and a bemused smirk.

The whole concept, crucial to Christianity specifically and as far as I know to Abrahamic religions in general, of FREE WILL, is completely neglected and ignored in the basic assumption. No harm, no foul, *if* that foundational element is re-inserted into the original equation:

Let us begin again; "If the Bible is the Word of God, how is it so easily twisted by humans?" Because, as Christians we generally are taught, that G-d created humans (Adam and Eve) with free will, and that by free will humans *chose* to forego (wittingly or unwittingly) an idyllic life in exchange for knowledge. G-d never did intend for humans to be automatons, He wanted a genuine return of the love He bestowed upon His *special* creation.

"Is this not the equivalent of humans meddling in God's plan?" No. Why would it be? If the Unmoved Mover can be dismissed with a casual "why?," there is no more reason to expect that exercise of Free Will is meddling in G-d's plan. If the Christian teaching holds any merit, then Free Will is exactly G-d's will for humans to have and use. Now, don't get lost on a tangent thinking that this excuses all activities humans can devise…there are reasonably clear parameters laid out over time about what is and what is not acceptable behavior. The point is, it is our choice to conduct our lives within acceptable parameters of behavior, or not.

"Could a human have doused the burning bush?" Would it not be presumptuous and arrogant on the part of an ungrateful human to try? Literally or figuratively.

"Could a human have stopped the crucifixion?" Would it not be presumptuous and arrogant on the part of an ungrateful human to try? Literally or figuratively.

" If not, then how could humans so easily interfere in the proper understanding of the Word of God?" Apples and oranges. How can one possibly take two critical points of learning and equate them with the human propensity to view the world through their own unique lenses. It is like pointing a finger at the blind men trying to describe the elephant, and mocking them because they have not reached *identical* conclusions, and that because no two of them reached identical conclusions, elephants must not exist.

Christianity is well aware of the challenge it faces within itself over doctrinal inconsistencies between denominations. So are the Jews and Muslims aware of their own inconsistencies. The are multiple threads on thois site that deal with these issues. But it seems far more rare to hear intellectual atheists admit to the doctrinal inconsistencies among their own ranks. Are we to believe there are no such doctrinal inconsistencies? Hardly, inconsistency is part and parcel of being human…ahem, free will.

juantoo3, Read the thread. Now what?

Good. I've read a little Dawkins, and I am equally nonplussed and unimpressed.

Nearly everything that people say about god/gods is unbelievable. The idea that God created anything at all is unbelievable.

Yet, amazingly, archeology and anthropology both tell us that people across a vast range of the Eurasian continents and Africa that peoples of antiquity uniformly believed in some form, kind or type of G-d. A rather complex invention for such simple minds, and not just the minds of Homo Sapiens, but of our closely related cousins Homo Neandertalensis as well. Not just a complex invention, but a counter productive and counter intuitive endeavor to be so uniformly engaged in, unless…there is something to it.

Trying to recast the human animal into a modern mold without consideration of where we came from and why we are what we are, is illogical and irrational reasoning. Casual dismissal does not explain case after case after case of evidentiary remains from prehistoric times. One need only begin at Lasceaux, and traverse from there…

Every creative mind resides in a body. Does God have a body?

This is an assumption. An educated, but biased, assumption.

Every body has evolved from an earlier life form (I wrote that very carefully). Did God evolve from an earlier life form?

This is another biased assumption. Even *if* G-d did evolve, would that make you believe He existed? Whether G-d evolved or not is irrelevant to any of us in this existence.

I would like to borrow a comment from Thomas' Aristotle / Aquinas thread, in which you replied:

let’s look at the First Way - The Prime Mover… What necessitates a Prime Mover, other than the arguer’s desire to postulate one?

I would think the Big Bang theory to be a pretty doggone good modern explanation of Aristotle's Prime Mover. If you cannot believe the Big Bang, (except, I presume, when it is more convenient to do so,) how can one expect you to believe whether or not G-d evolved? The evolution of G-d is a pointed and pointless question.

I owe it to my integrity, my intelligence, and my commitments to the people around me to not claim belief in something without either rational proof, or a personal experience that would leave me with no doubt that I was affected by something outside of the natural world.

Any Christian scholar worth his or her salt would say something quite similar.

I would need something as profoundly earth-moving as a "road to Damascus"-style revelation.

Old French proverb: Be careful what you pray for, you might get it.

I also agree with Dondi that the experience of god/gods is subjective.

Ahem: "then how could humans so easily interfere in the proper understanding of the Word of God?"
Playing all sides against the middle?

Since I have never experienced such a thing, in spite of my years of effort to do so, I have to conclude that these gods that people talk about are things they make up in their own heads …

Kinda like a meme? Which, when one gets down to analyzing the nuts and bolts of the situation, is another way of saying "system of belief." Not at all unlike the scientific method; a system of belief, used to define and explain the world to assuage the innate fear of the unknown and unknowable with the reassurance of the illusion of knowledge in combination with self-congratulatory smugness? The primary difference between the religious meme and the scientific meme is that the adherent of a religion is not so self-assured and seeks elsewhere for assurance (the Abrahamic faiths call this they seek to G-d, others seek by other names and other paradigms). The meme of the scientific method seeks to elevate humans into the role reserved in the Abrahamic faiths for G-d. The issue underlying the magnified negative emotional response elicited by Abrahamic faiths towards the meme of the scientific method is the arrogant assumption by the meme of the scientific method that man can somehow in any manner stand in that place reserved for an Almighty Creator of Universe(s).

When people try to claim that their gods actually have an effect on the world, then I challenge believers to prove that claim. They never do.

Why should they? What would it prove? You would deny you saw the evidence in front of your face anyway. Your mind would not allow you to admit it. Consider yourself fortunate…it is probably for your own safety.

If you want to have an in-depth discussion about the structure of the Bible as a book, I'm all for it. But we'd need to be sure to develop common understanding of the framework in which we will be conducting the discussion.

OK, whenever you are ready. I suggest we use the "common understanding of the framework" of those intimately familiar with it though. Why bother surrendering intellectual authority to amateurs? One doesn't go to their hair cutter for financial advice…I seriously doubt it being reasonable or rational to go to an atheist to lay out the parameters for a discussion about a religious text…

If God exists, why have I had no experience of Him?

I don't know. Perhaps you may have and don't understand. Perhaps it is just as well. I cannot say. But if you think a metaphysical experience is something that must be re-creatable in a laboratory environment for your personal amusement, you come at the whole "religious experience" thing with an incorrect attitude to begin with. Not everything in life is rational. Not everything in life is logical. Why do we dream? Why do we love. Why do we have rational, abstract thought and a conscience? What is beauty? What is peace? What is contentment? What is serenity? If you approach these questions purely and only with logic and reason, you will miss the very essence of every one of them.

 

[Prober]

Kindest Regards, Liberty! If you approach these questions purely and only with logic and reason, you will miss the very essence of every one of them.

Like looking at photos of someone else's vacation, the picture of the mountain is not the mountain.

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, in 2 Timothy 3:16 does the greek text use the word "graphe" for scripture? Is that word used anywhere else in the NT?

Hello streetbob,
Yes, it does use it elsewhere but it means written document and may or may not be scripture as to its current meaning. Peter and Paul both refer to Paul's letters as letters (Epistole).

Paul clearly thought his epistles and letters were authorative. I am guessing he never called them scripture due to humilty. What is also interesting is that (2 Peter 3 16) Peter says those who distort Pauls letters (graphe) do so unto their own destruction. This implies authority and signifigance. Do not distort the Inspired scripture.

Perhaps he did. And I do not oppose that much of it was inspired and authorative in nature. But it also contained his opinions and customs and things clearly not represented as what God told him. People who distort my words also do to their own destruction when I speak a truth. That his writings contain true sayings and wisdom is not an issue. That they all are 100% a record of truth from God and accurate recordings and not opinion and custom and occasionally in error is what is in question.

I never said there were many variations...There our thousands of manuscripts and even nontextual things that say the same thing! ONe can take the NT in Coptic and in Latin and cross refernce to see how accurate they are....and they are accurate.

In 1611 there were 80 books that made up the King James English Bible of our forefathers that landed in America. Since then 14 books have been deleted with the last in 1885. That has to say something about men having control over the Bible. Perhaps there were things in those 14 books that were deemed the inerrant word of God in 1611 that no longer is.

Denominations are due to small disagreements in scripture and reactions to actions. Say the church becomes to Cold and ORthadox...well it then splits and the reaction is extreme charmaticism. Besides scripture is infallible and the church full of sinners is not.

Perhaps both the writings have errors and also the church is full of men. Perhaps it was this same type of men that determined what went in and what was to be removed. IE: the 80 books up until 1885.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, how do you know that Jesus's message was to be written on the hearts of men if you do not trust scripture? What if somebody added it? I was also curious...what do you think Christianity is about?
Thanks for interacting, I enjoy learning others perspectives,challenging mine and others beliefs, God Bless DJ

Hello streetbob,

Because I trust God and he has quickened that particular writing to me. If it were not written it would still be true and God can and does reveal these things directly. Others He has revealed to me are in error. I accept nothing as true until it is revealed. That way God builds the building rather than man.

Christianity is just a name for a religion or religious sect and is just a word that means different things to different people. The word Christian means Christ-like. It need not be associated with a religion per SE as religions are more a product of man and his dogmas and doctrines. Christ is the anointing spirit of God that presses us (as in a type of smearing) together with God and manifests as the essence of divinity within us which is the essence of love. Jesus's church is not found in organization but rather in the body of believers where his spirit is free to manifest wherever they may be.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[streetbob2006]

Hello streetbob,
Yes, it does use it elsewhere but it means written document and may or may not be scripture as to its current meaning. Peter and Paul both refer to Paul's letters as letters (Epistole).




Perhaps he did. And I do not oppose that much of it was inspired and authorative in nature. But it also contained his opinions and customs and things clearly not represented as what God told him. People who distort my words also do to their own destruction when I speak a truth. That his writings contain true sayings and wisdom is not an issue. That they all are 100% a record of truth from God and accurate recordings and not opinion and custom and occasionally in error is what is in question.


In 1611 there were 80 books that made up the King James English Bible of our forefathers that landed in America. Since then 14 books have been deleted with the last in 1885. That has to say something about men having control over the Bible. Perhaps there were things in those 14 books that were deemed the inerrant word of God in 1611 that no longer is.




Perhaps both the writings have errors and also the church is full of men. Perhaps it was this same type of men that determined what went in and what was to be removed. IE: the 80 books up until 1885.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hey Joesph, Does Jesus use that greek word when he refers to the OT?


I am not sure it says "when I speak truth". That might be your opinion. Again Paul says all scripture is inspired, not just parts.


The King James was revised due to that the books of the Apocrphya were added 1000 years after Christ to support the Catholics view of purgatory. It was obvious the Protestants especially since the orginal bible cannonized in 325 ad only had the the 27 books that we have to this day. Those later were added to fit an agenda.

I know men are fallible and that is why I am glad to have a soverign God who is all powerful and able to keep his book pure so that people of our day may recieve salvation instead of Justice.

 

[streetbob2006]

Hello streetbob,

Because I trust God and he has quickened that particular writing to me. If it were not written it would still be true and God can and does reveal these things directly. Others He has revealed to me are in error. I accept nothing as true until it is revealed. That way God builds the building rather than man.



Christianity is just a name for a religion or religious sect and is just a word that means different things to different people. The word Christian means Christ-like. It need not be associated with a religion per SE as religions are more a product of man and his dogmas and doctrines. Christ is the anointing spirit of God that presses us (as in a type of smearing) together with God and manifests as the essence of divinity within us which is the essence of love. Jesus's church is not found in organization but rather in the body of believers where his spirit is free to manifest wherever they may be.

Love in Christ,
JM

How do you know that he revealed it to you? How do you know that you are not building it instead of God? Is not the reason for the bible is because it is a revelation of GOd? Are you an gnositc?
What do you believe CHrist died on a cross? I am curious. Can I be a buddist and still go to heaven? Yes the church of CHrist is the in the body of believers, but works best together in an organized setting know as the institution of Church.
Talk to you soon DJ

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, Does Jesus use that greek word when he refers to the OT?

This is the word used and translated to the old testament. 2 Cor 3:14
diatheke, dee-ath-ay'-kay; from Greek 1303 (diatithemai); properly a disposition, i.e. (special) a contract (especially a devisory will) :- covenant, testament.

Jesus uses the word Grapho meaning writing or written with the statement "it is written" and then quotes the writing to reference the OT as it was in those days. Grapho did not mean OT it meant writing and if quoted from the OT then it was speaking of that writing.

Jesus never used the word meaning Old Testament. He merely used the word 'writing and then specified the wrting. Grapho can be any written document.

I am not sure it says "when I speak truth". That might be your opinion. Again Paul says all scripture is inspired, not just parts.

Again streetbob I must insist that you are saying Paul said his espitles were holy scripture. He said no such thing. He was speaking of OT scripture as existed at that time. In his letters Galatians 6:11
Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.

He claims full authorship by his own hand, not the hand of God. Only once in one of all the entire writings of Paul does he preface what he says by "And this I say by word of the Lord" The rest is the words of Paul of which much is true sayings, personal revelations from God and much is merely his letter sharing his best wishes for the churches and his advice on settling squabbles, small talk on what he has been doing and quite a bit of some really good teachings concerning his experience of God and understanding of the Old Testament and teachings concerning his understanding of Jesus the walk of the believer in Christ. Your quote "all scripture is inspired, not just parts" is simply unfounded as relates to NT writings. No NT existed until after the death of Paul so how could he be referring to that which did not exist as scripture? Obviously he was referring to the OT.

The King James was revised due to that the books of the Apocrphya were added 1000 years after Christ to support the Catholics view of purgatory. It was obvious the Protestants especially since the orginal bible cannonized in 325 ad only had the the 27 books that we have to this day. Those later were added to fit an agenda.

Well said. Men had an agenda when they added and men had an agenda when they removed and might I add men were no different when they formed it. The english Bible was not available to the general public until 1539. Engllish and other Bibles were pretty well kept secret and out of public eyes until 1539 and then they were chained to the pulpit. Men haven't changed in 2000 years. The jewish church had an agenda in Jesus's day and since that day all organized religions have had an agenda. Fortunately God has no such limitation as a Book.

I know men are fallible and that is why I am glad to have a soverign God who is all powerful and able to keep his book pure so that people of our day may recieve salvation instead of Justice.

You are most correct that men are fallible and God is soverign but you assume much to think his method of communication is a book written by men with agendas. God has no such limitation or need for a book to reveal that which is innate in all men. At best the book still contains enough pointers to that which may be experienced personally to him whose thirst goes beyond the theology of a book.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[JosephM]

How do you know that he revealed it to you?

Hi DJ,

Direct knowing. No explanation is needed. It is beyond thinking or a thought and no proof is necessary.

How do you know that you are not building it instead of God?

Because I know what it is to build it myself. I did my 4 years of Bible College over 20 years ago and made the same mistakes as most building my own building. And by the grace of God it crumbled and I now know what it is to let God build it.

Is not the reason for the bible is because it is a revelation of GOd?

No.

Are you an gnositc?

Just a man with the spirit of Christ.

What do you believe CHrist died on a cross? I am curious.

Because he (Jesus) was crucified. Christ never died. Its impossible to kill Christ. Christ is not a man, its a spirit. It a title for the annointed of God. It is your hope of glory. It is being manifested in you and is eternal.

Can I be a buddist and still go to heaven?

You can call yourself whatever you like. It is just a label. God looks on the heart not your label.

Yes the church of CHrist is the in the body of believers, but works best together in an organized setting know as the institution of Church.
Talk to you soon DJ

Not always. Jesus could not work very well in the organized religion (institution) of his day. And much can be said the same today in many of our institutions called church. Some of my best moments as a servant/son of God has been doing the works of God out in the public rather than in an institution.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[streetbob2006]

Hi DJ,

Direct knowing. No explanation is needed. It is beyond thinking or a thought and no proof is necessary.



Because I know what it is to build it myself. I did my 4 years of Bible College over 20 years ago and made the same mistakes as most building my own building. And by the grace of God it crumbled and I now know what it is to let God build it.


No.

Just a man with the spirit of Christ.


Because he (Jesus) was crucified. Christ never died. Its impossible to kill Christ. Christ is not a man, its a spirit. It a title for the annointed of God. It is your hope of glory. It is being manifested in you and is eternal.


You can call yourself whatever you like. It is just a label. God looks on the heart not your label.



Not always. Jesus could not work very well in the organized religion (institution) of his day. And much can be said the same today in many of our institutions called church. Some of my best moments as a servant/son of God has been doing the works of God out in the public rather than in an institution.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hey Joesph, in the bible it says that the heart is full of every kind of wickedness and evil, do you believe in a judgment day when GOd judges the heart of man?
DJ

 

[JosephM]

Hey Joesph, in the bible it says that the heart is full of every kind of wickedness and evil, do you believe in a judgment day when GOd judges the heart of man?
DJ

Is this a quiz or something? There is no need to fill up this thread with personal questions. God has not revealed all that there is to me as of this time but I am well aware of what the Bible says so whats your point?

Love in Christ,
JM