Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Antlerman]

I don't think I would feel all self-congratulatory that people run to one's particular deity figure when they are frightened of death. It doesn't speak all that well for that god's appeal that it require fear to motivate people to devotion. Does it? "Ooh look! Another convert to our god, running for their lives from the grim reaper".

 

Apparently the message of love in their message isn't all that strong, and fear is much more persuasive? *sigh* That's really sad you guys. How rewarding is love at the end of fear anyway? But I suppose, you'll take where you can get it?

 

The real message of the Gospel for you then is self-preservation; self interest? I could go on and on about how immature this is.

[DesertBob]

Desertbob, In part you are correct, but many times I believe some cults or other wise known as "crazies" just use the bible to try to justify their sinful actions and preverse mind set. Not all who say "Jesus, Jesus" are from God, spiritually speaking.

I'm sure that Baptist church in Indiana would agree with you doctrinally, as would most every evangelical church that was part of the shepherding movement. It's only a very slight twist from there to living in terror of demons or demanding that your followers be "accountable" to the church elders for their conduct.

[BrotherJosh]

I don't think I would feel all self-congratulatory that people run to one's particular deity figure when they are frightened of death. It doesn't speak all that well for that god's appeal that it require fear to motivate people to devotion. Does it? "Ooh look! Another convert to our god, running for their lives from the grim reaper".

 

Apparently the message of love in their message isn't all that strong, and fear is much more persuasive? *sigh* That's really sad you guys. How rewarding is love at the end of fear anyway? But I suppose, you'll take where you can get it?

 

The real message of the Gospel for you then is self-preservation; self interest? I could go on and on about how immature this is.

 

+1

 

Because it's based on the inherent need to explain the horrible and disgusting things that happen in our lives. It's a need to try to make our suffering mean something. It's still based on an ego-centric view of our place in the universe, that our lives are the entire focus and center of this universe. That the entire "creation" is based around our lives and the deeds we do (especially in the bedroom). There's no arguing with a person who holds this view, because in their minds you are wrong, and the more they "witness" the bigger kudos they'll get in their imaginary heaven. It's a love based on fear of the whip.

 

I may be late to the game on this thread, but I just found that particular comment about how earthquakes and natural disasters "inspire" people to turn to god utterly reprehensible. The deaths of actual real people are excused because someone cried out to their own interpretation of a deity. These are people who would witness the sole survivor of a deadly plane crash and call it a miracle. It's this same thread of thinking that would lead the Church in the Middle Ages to instigate the Inquisition, "better they suffer finitely in this life, than infinitely in the next."

 

But of course, Gawd works all evil to his purposes...

[the stranger]

I'm curious. Which site are you referring to?

 

It is kind of a funny thing. Out of the three sites where I was active, two out of the three closed down. The one left (rapture ready) I just cannot bring myself to be on any more based on such a closed in feeling. Unless you agree with what the site puts out, watch out. There is some great Christians that I admired there, and in time, even the ones that ran the show, but in the end, I do not like to be caged in so to speak. I believe we all should have the right to free speech. The site that I was on was "prophecy talk.com" but no longer exist.

 

PS feeling like a cowboy ain't so bad. I use to be in to the cowboy boots and hat thing for a while (kid rock style I guess. What can I say. Even though I am from MI, I still every once in a while find myself listening to a country or bluegrass song. I know, I know, but what can I do. LOL

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

Anterhead, you are more than welcome to go on and on, I am listening. But please understand, those post was not about clapping our hands when disaster hits, because no one likes that. They were just stating the simple fact that when people lose all hope on earth, it is quite often God who they cry out to. This is just another reason why I personally believe that deep down, every body is at least aware of the possibility of the real true God. I do not get bonus points because they except Christ, but I cannot help but be happy when others receive everlasting life. If the angels in heaven rejoice, can't I do the same.

 

Sometimes God does use disaster to bring a people around to this understanding, but let us try to see it another way. Let us pretend that there is a God and that there is everlasting life to those who believe, and ever lasting death to those who do not. If this is true, would it be good or bad to bring many everlasting life of which other wise may of saw everlasting death.

 

I believe sickness sometimes can be related to these similarities, and I believe that mine was as well. I believe other wise I would of fallen back into the lust of my flesh, and would have been worse of at the end than before.

 

But hey, these are just my own humble opions. We all chose what we take and/or leave, but I just cannot leave the one true love of my life.

 

It is never about gloating on someone else that is suffering, and in fact, we are always called to help in such situations when we can.

[the stranger]

I'm sure that Baptist church in Indiana would agree with you doctrinally, as would most every evangelical church that was part of the shepherding movement. It's only a very slight twist from there to living in terror of demons or demanding that your followers be "accountable" to the church elders for their conduct.

 

Sadly, as I am sure that you already know, some of these cults came right out of and was supported be whatever church they began with. It is true, there are somethings that I just cannot understand, my friend.

[the stranger]

BrotherJosh, if I may be so bold. If there is a Satan, how do you believe he feels about you. Do you believe that there is evil? If so, where do you believe it comes from?

[Darklady]

Stranger, here's just one video that I'd like you to watch and really think about:

 

 

 

Wow, that was seriously interesting! I could watch that guy speak all day long because he is soooooo hot

 

I dont know how many of you guys know, but I am struggling with my christianity atm. It was eye opening to watch that vid anyway.

 

 

This guy is just spewing the same old tripe from that SAB website. Yes he is hot but beauty fades and God's word endures forever. Look at him, admire him as one admires a nice sunset but don't pay any attention to the swill he's spewing.

 

You know if that dude gets in some dire straits he won't call out "Big bang save me!" or "My brain help me!" and he won't be calling out to a monkey's uncle either; like Peter, he'll say " Lord save me!"

 

By beholding we become changed and it is important for the Christian to meditate on God's word daily. Even the hymn "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing" says we are "prone to wander; prone to leave the God I love". God loves us, we are the apple of His eye please remember that

 

Thumblina, Sadly if the guy cried out for help to ‘the lord’ he wouldn’t get any. In fact he would get more help by engaging his brain. Why would he call out to ‘big bang’ ? That’s illogical thinking at best. I suspect you have very limited knowledge of evolution from you sadly immature rambling here. Never mind, I am sure if you read some scientific material you will gain some insight into the subject.

 

I am also rather bemused by your attack on this young man, although I shouldn’t be given your track record of childish behaviour. What he says has merit, although I know that it is beyond your mental capabilities to understand his argument.

 

god does not love anything, as there is no god. If you have proof (provable, testable , not anecdotal) please supply it here.

[Antlerman]

Stranger, I want to thank for the time and sincere attention you gave in your response to my questions to you. I respect you for that and will attempt to offer some thoughts to you in response. They may be over a few posts over a couple days as I'm not sure how much time I have available at any one time...

 

I know what you're hoping to say, but I can tell you that this great "I am" is not understood by even the majority of those who claim it, and that the meaning of that surpasses the very religion that espouses it. In short, the mystical eludes the religion, and God to one is not God to the other. Process that, and get back to me.

Now the last part you say God to one is not God to the other. I want to start be saying that there are Christians in every country around the world, and I do not believe all religions can make that claim. I would like you to note any other "Gods" that you are aware of that claim that God Himself came down to earth to be crucified to pay for our sins and disobedience.....

 

I know of no other "religion" who makes these sort of claims, my friend. Am I wrong?

My point was to compare God to some within Christianity, to God to others within Christianity. Specifically I said, "In short, the mystical eludes the religion, and God to one is not God to the other." The mystics within a given tradition typically understands the nature of God very, very differently than your average parishioner. "God to one, is not God to the other."

 

So if I say I have a different understanding of what "I Am" means, it would be that I understand it symbolically to mean something beyond what your average-mode Christian parishioner images. Mysticism transcends any religion's particular traditions. But this is way beyond where you are at at this point, so I won't belabor the point.

 

In a Christians mind (and apart from that) there is one God, and one God only. Now whether one believes in the God, a fake God, a false God, or even no God at all, it still does not change that fact. Some say it takes faith to believe in "God" but does it not take faith to believe in no God, and that everything created was created by chance? Almost all other times and people have always worshiped a god of some sort, even if not the one true God.

Just an interesting thought to share, if God is infinite, then how do you suppose 'the buck stops' with your religion? Since when does infinite stop?

 

 

The key for you? Get rid of the belief you need absolute authority. Why is that necessary?? Look at the nasty trap you get in when you do? Trust me, your faith if it is strong doesn't need it, nor is based on it. Remind me to explain the difference between faith and belief to you, and that both are replaced in direct apprehension.

 

I lived with out what i believed to be absolute authority for way to long. I know already what it is like to deny Christ. I should have been dead many times, and I will never go back down that road because of my faith in Christ Jesus. You say I get in a trap, but I say I am free from my trap. I no longer have to live to hurt and for self pleasure. I am free to think with a clear conscience now, and with that, free to open communication with Christ my Savior. My faith apart from Christ is nothing. Christ is my solid rock. What more would or could I put my faith into except the one who changed my life? Every one has that choice, but for me that choice is easy. I would, however, like to know about this -- difference between faith and belief.

And this is where I say I have no desire whatsoever to do you any harm in what you need or have benefited from in your life. I'm happy for you, and if this gives you a greater sense of Life, stability, hope, love, and happiness, then I support that for you.

 

When I speak of traps, it is for what I have encountered for where I am at, in what I seek for. These are traps for me, even if for you at this place they are not. They too were important for me, but ultimately all things changes because we continue to grow. Believe it or not, at some point, there may be more for you. And at that point, your current framework might not work so well to support that place in yourself. All of what I talk about is valid, but valid for those who are in that place. You are not there right now.

 

Again, explain me. I believe in the existence of the Divine, yet find zero problems with any of this. In fact to me, it is way, way more inspiring that the nonsense of the YEC people. I find it increases my recognition of God, whereas believing in the sort of Sunday School trash of the AiG people with their Noah's Ark proof sort of thing, reduced God to a side-show oddity level, a magic man in the sky.

 

Isn't this all really more about your inability to remove God from your preconceptions? A lack of faith, in other words? (I'm looking in there again... and this is what I see. )

 

What you believe in, to be honest, I am still trying to grasp. It seems to me to be all over the place. In any event, that would make it easy to believe just about anything one wanted to about creation, including creation. I am not trying to knock you, but just relating my thoughts. Who I believe in is a personal God, One we have direct communication with, not one where we just kind of make it up as we go. Forgive me for not fully understanding where you are coming from.

Hey, not a problem. I certainly can understand it sounds pretty hard to fit into an easy understanding. You have to realize there is a great deal of thought behind it, but, the important thing to realize is that all that is more an intellectual model to talk about it in certain contexts. The real core of it is internal, it is what comes from within. To have the intellectual only gives mental strength to it, but it is not its Source.

 

As I went through Bible College (trying to relate this to you), my mind was growing in knowledge, but the heart of what you would call the Spirit, was at a place within me that it outgrew their simple frameworks of understanding and needed some other space for me to integrate it with my rational mind. Denials, such as rejecting science in favor of church doctrines and theologies, violated that Spirit within me. I could not grow, and as such I suffered spiritually as a result.

 

All you hear that you "can't grasp" is simply a certain level of sophistication rationally about this, but what you should be able to hear is what is behind and beyond all of that. At least I hope for you at some point that is what you hear, above and beyond all your apologetics and whatnot. Recall I said to look within?

 

As explained just a few post back, it is not about me putting God in a box, but about God teaching me more about Himself. He is God, and so how can i or any body else truly comprehend or fully understand him? How can anyone put God in their own preconceptions? He has never fit any of mine. The best way I have is to read the bible to the best of my ability and to try to understand it is the Gods honest truth. If I cannot believe in Gods word, what do I have? blind faith? I don't want to be like the many. I want something concrete to always put my faith into.

And what I bolded above says it all for you. You need structure. So did I when I was in that place. Perhaps at some point, you will see that there is no 'concrete' truth you can put your mind to to give you that, but that instead, forgive the reference, it is that Eternal Truth, that is not in any belief, nor in any faith, nor in any doctrine, nor any creed, nor any religion, nor any deity, but in Spirit Itself within you.

 

Just hold that, don't try to reason it. Maybe someday it makes sense.

 

 

I'm going to leave it there for now but will pick up some more to your response later....

[BrotherJosh]

BrotherJosh, if I may be so bold. If there is a Satan, how do you believe he feels about you. Do you believe that there is evil? If so, where do you believe it comes from?

 

Sure there is "evil" or rather actions taken (referencing human actions) that are not with someone's well being in mind. Where does evil come from? Well, let's say there was an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity who created everything in this world. An omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity would want to prevent evil fromentering this world. Being an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity, this being would know the perfect way to prevent evil from entering this world. If free will is the ultimate goal of this being ,are the benefits of a "loving" relationship with this being going to outweigh the costs of the gratuitous violence witnessed in our lives? If free will is the ultimate goal of our existence, how does it explain natural disasters since they are not caused by freewill decisions? If original sin is the reason for the suffering in this world, why couldn't a perfect, all powerful being create creatures who would be naturally inclined to not sin? If this violates their free will, than we are back to the circular free will argument and whether or not the benefits of having free will out weigh the costs of having it. If gratuitous violence could be prevented by an all powerful being, why isn't it? Surely, preventing the gratuitous suffering of an innocent (human or animal) would not usurp the ultimate greater good of free will, if this all powerful deity is still adhering to this idea?

 

 

 

If Satan is the ultimate cause of evil in this world, wouldn't the ultimate responsibility be on the creator? This creator had the foreknowledge of what this particular being would do, and yet still created this being. If I created a robot (with the knowledge of what this robot would do in the future) and this robot went on to perpetrate genocide and horrible, disgusting acts of murder, wouldn't I be responsible for the actions of this robot? Say even the robot has free will, but didn't I instill a sense of free will in the robot to begin with, because ultimately, free will is the greater good I am going for? And if free will is the ultimate good, why is there evil visited on animals, who some would argue don't have free will. On top of that, a rapist who violates the free will of a woman, who's freewill wins out here? Is it the rapists free will that perpetuates the ultimate good of free will? If we abandon the free will argument, and stick to original sin, than again we have to wonder about natural disasters, gratuitous violence, animal violence etc...

 

 

 

At the end of the day I don't believe evil is a "thing". So,we have to wonder, is an earthquake "evil" or is it a natural disaster? If it is evil, could it have been prevented? If it could have been prevented, why wasn't it? If it wasn't prevented, was it deserved? If it was deserved, who decided it was deserved? If it can be decided it was deserved, can we interpret natural disasters and decide that it was deserved for ourselves? If we determine it was deserved, than why should we give aid to those who deserved it?

BTW - Stranger, I am not being hostile to you, you seem pretty rational and level headed. And apologies, I don't mean this as a hijack or anything...

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

You know if that dude gets in some dire straits he won't call out "Big bang save me!" or "My brain help me!" and he won't be calling out to a monkey's uncle either; like Peter, he'll say " Lord save me!"

 

 

 

Here is the thing, personal responsibility is a moral thing to keep, unlike the replusive idea of vicarious redemption. Where is says you could be redeemed of the unforgivable like murder. How can some take the responsibility from someone, it logically doesn't work. One could take the punishment, but that doesn't take away responsibility. You still did the crime. And to me, morally you should do the time.

 

Just a matter of splitting hairs, the declaration of hoy, implies interest. That is adultery according the the bible.

 

Another thing about personal responsibility. Its more effect then prayer, are you going to pray to build a school or you going to actually build a school for example. Or another one, are you going to pray sickness away, or are you going to cure it by seeing a doctor.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Way to go Thumbelina. We heard who all the people called out to in the last big earthquake. They were singing praises of Jesus in the streets. Praise the Lord.

 

I saw a missionary on T.V who works down there. He was laughing and saying that the people are coming to Christianity because during the quake they heard the vodoo priests calling out to God

 

Yes, the people are going through a tough time but as long as they come to God death will only be a "sleep".

 

lol, Thumb! I give you 10 points for trying, but you are still so wrong! Even the most pious of people, those who are even more religious and effing annoying than you have called out to god and received absolutely nothing in reply.

 

Know how many little innocent children die from malaria each day? 3000, yes 3000 and your god could stop it all if he existed. Starvation, too. 16 million little innocent children die from starvation each year, many of them Christians.

 

To hell with Christianity and belief in fairy tales. Get with reality, do something worthwhile with your life.

[DesertBob]

This guy is just spewing the same old tripe from that SAB website. Yes he is hot but beauty fades and God's word endures forever. Look at him, admire him as one admires a nice sunset but don't pay any attention to the swill he's spewing.

Nothing to see here, folks, just move along ... pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, heh heh ...

 

;-)

 

Seriously, thumbs, that you have nothing to counter him with other than a hand-waving dismissal is pretty telling.

[Ouroboros]

You know if that dude gets in some dire straits he won't call out "Big bang save me!" or "My brain help me!" and he won't be calling out to a monkey's uncle either; like Peter, he'll say " Lord save me!"

Funny thing.

 

I've been in dire straits (almost killed at least once, and the other time I got injured, but it could have been worse), and in none of these cases did I call Jesus or God. My thoughts didn't go to God or afterlife or sins or such at all. Seriously.

 

What I did feel was peace, however, and I did feel a bit sad for my family if I would have to check out from this life, but did I think about Jesus? Nope. Not one second. Not even a fraction of a microsecond. I thought about it later though. I thought about why I didn't think about Jesus or God or called his name. And I could only conclude that I'm not afraid of dying anymore.

 

So how do you explain that in your little narrow worldview?

 

By beholding we become changed and it is important for the Christian to meditate on God's word daily. Even the hymn "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing" says we are "prone to wander; prone to leave the God I love". God loves us, we are the apple of His eye please remember that

So that's that answer to all the charges against your obviously evil God (based on the document you call The Bible)?

[Antlerman]

You know if that dude gets in some dire straits he won't call out "Big bang save me!" or "My brain help me!" and he won't be calling out to a monkey's uncle either; like Peter, he'll say " Lord save me!"

What I did feel was peace, however, and I did feel a bit sad for my family if I would have to check out from this life, but did I think about Jesus? Nope. Not one second. Not even a fraction of a microsecond. I thought about it later though. I thought about why I didn't think about Jesus or God or called his name. And I could only conclude that I'm not afraid of dying anymore.

 

So how do you explain that in your little narrow worldview?

Let me take a stab at it! The Devil. The Devil stole Jesus from you and that's why didn't think of him. The Devil blinded you.

 

 

See how easy that was when your parameters are very limited?

[Ouroboros]

Let me take a stab at it! The Devil. The Devil stole Jesus from you and that's why didn't think of him. The Devil blinded you.

 

 

See how easy that was when your parameters are very limited?

Yeah. I can totally see that as a response. It's the kind of response I would have done (or similar) during my fundamentalist days.

[the stranger]

http://www.near-death.com/index.html

 

just an interesting site full of after life experiences from all walks of life and religion. No matter how one believes, it does seem quite convincing that there is certainly life after this.

[Ouroboros]

http://www.near-death.com/index.html

 

just an interesting site full of after life experiences from all walks of life and religion. No matter how one believes, it does seem quite convincing that there is certainly life after this.

If one finds subjective experience by other parties being convincing, then yeah, sure.

 

There are many individuals who can swear they've had a very close encounter with aliens or saw UFOs. There's even a large church, now, for them.

[the stranger]

My point was to compare God to some within Christianity, to God to others within Christianity. Specifically I said, "In short, the mystical eludes the religion, and God to one is not God to the other." The mystics within a given tradition typically understands the nature of God very, very differently than your average parishioner. "God to one, is not God to the other."

 

So if I say I have a different understanding of what "I Am" means, it would be that I understand it symbolically to mean something beyond what your average-mode Christian parishioner images. Mysticism transcends any religion's particular traditions. But this is way beyond where you are at at this point, so I won't belabor the point.

 

 

My friend, you are so right! You really are way over my head on this one. Maybe there will be a day where I will be a little more able to relate. In any event, I really do appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

Just an interesting thought to share, if God is infinite, then how do you suppose 'the buck stops' with your religion? Since when does infinite stop?

 

I guess one would have to define religion. I actually do not consider myself religious, as I also do not see God as a God of religion per say. Now if you call Christianity a religion, then ya got me. My own belief is what the bible states, as I also believe most other religious books derived from the bible. I guess this would be one reason I hold the bible on so much higher ground. It is not as though the buck stops with MY God, but that the buck started with THE God. If one believes such as I do, that most religions came indirectly from the very word of God (OT) then this is not a hard concept to understand.

 

And this is where I say I have no desire whatsoever to do you any harm in what you need or have benefited from in your life. I'm happy for you, and if this gives you a greater sense of Life, stability, hope, love, and happiness, then I support that for you.

 

That means allot to me coming from you, Antlerman, and I want you to know that I appreciate it.

 

When I speak of traps, it is for what I have encountered for where I am at, in what I seek for. These are traps for me, even if for you at this place they are not. They too were important for me, but ultimately all things changes because we continue to grow. Believe it or not, at some point, there may be more for you. And at that point, your current framework might not work so well to support that place in yourself. All of what I talk about is valid, but valid for those who are in that place. You are not there right now.

 

Again, I really appreciate your insight. Maybe you are right, and some time down this long road I will be able to understand a little bit more on where you are coming from.

 

Denials, such as rejecting science in favor of church doctrines and theologies, violated that Spirit within me. I could not grow, and as such I suffered spiritually as a result.

 

Perhaps, my friend, if I would have been in your shoes, I would have made the same call. For me, on my own studies (mind you they have nothing in comparison to that of yours) I have not found science to be different than way the bible states, and in many ways, supportive of such. I guess this is where our different time frames and scources of study have lead us to different conclusions. I know you have many years in such, and I am not trying to take any of that away.

 

All you hear that you "can't grasp" is simply a certain level of sophistication rationally about this, but what you should be able to hear is what is behind and beyond all of that. At least I hope for you at some point that is what you hear, above and beyond all your apologetics and whatnot. Recall I said to look within?

 

I will try to always have my ears and mind listening and learning my friend, but I guess I do this best from the inside out, I would say.

 

Antlerman, you have been a real enlightful joy to talk with, and I appreciate your time talking with me. I have found you to be more than respectful and often polite, and I cannot say anything bad about you. I am sure that we will be talking much more in the future. If I gain more insight on such topics, I will most certainly share, my friend.

[Guest Spinoza]

Up here in Ojibwe land we are preparing to celebrate the birth of Giisiz (the Sun) who on Dec 21st will be reborn again and bring Light back to the earth, and the days will grow longer bringing life to all the herbs.

 

Niibaa' anami'egiizhigad

 

[Antlerman]

Up here in Ojibwe land we are preparing to celebrate the birth of Giisiz (the Sun) who on Dec 21st will be reborn again and bring Light back to the earth, and the days will grow longer bringing life to all the herbs.

 

Niibaa' anami'egiizhigad

 

Actually, that sounds pretty awesome.

[agnosticator]

PS feeling like a cowboy ain't so bad. I use to be in to the cowboy boots and hat thing for a while (kid rock style I guess. What can I say. Even though I am from MI, I still every once in a while find myself listening to a country or bluegrass song. I know, I know, but what can I do. LOL

 

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=GKeDcF1v_Y4&feature=related

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, sorry about the long delay in getting back to you. My daughter's been in the hospital, and we just got home a little while ago. Between that, my full time job, house renovations and Christmas shopping, it's been a bit hectic here lately.

 

I do plan to get back to you on our discussion so far, since there are things I think needed pointed out. In the meantime, though, let me leave you with something that I hope you'll read and really think about.

 

A few years ago, a Christian friend asked me what happened to my faith. In response, I wrote him a lengthy letter detailing a lot of Bible issues. One of the categories dealt with the fabricated prophetic fulfillments, and since time has been an issue for me recently, I'd like to post it here.

 

MISUSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled countless Old Testament prophecies, and therefore must be the Messiah. If Jesus has indeed fulfilled numerous prophecies specifically directed at him, then that would definitely be something to strongly consider. Many Christians assume (as I did for many years) that such is the case, and that there is no question that the First Century AD Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied savior. But did he really fulfill countless prophecies, as the New Testament claims? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

 

The Virgin Birth (Matthew 1:18-21; Isaiah 7:14)

 

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Spirit and the angel visiting Joseph (Matthew 1:18-21), we read, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' -- which means, 'God with us'" (1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy from Isaiah and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. Was it a fulfilled prophecy?

 

Let's look at Isaiah. During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Judah was afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (7:3-9).

 

Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14a). Now, who is the "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ!

 

Now, what is the "sign"? As the NIV renders it, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14b). Ironically, though, Jewish scholars indicate that the Hebrew word ("alma") in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman," with no "virgin" connotation. As such, they insist that it should read, "The young woman will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." In fact, a few versions (such as the NRSV) translate it "young woman." Christian commentators agree that the term means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation.

 

So, what can we make of this debate? I am not a Hebrew scholar (by a long shot), but we can examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

 

Isaiah continues by telling King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria" (7:8-9a). So, we're really dealing with a relatively immediate time-frame, not something that would happen many centuries later. In fact, Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

 

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Evidently his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, 'Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Before the boy knows how to say "My father" or "My mother," the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria'" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the account in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Aram and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even an oracle from "the LORD" (8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (8:8; compare to 7:14).

 

Some Christian commentators try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus. However, that doesn't work unless one concludes that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be a prophecy of Jesus.

 

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal fashion. Isaiah says that he "went to ('unto' in KJV) the prophetess, and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3), implying sexual contact. From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does mean "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

 

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming!

 

So, it seems that what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. And he may have even changed "young woman" to "virgin" (possibly by misunderstanding the Hebrew or using a faulty translation). Regardless of that, though, Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on.

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace (Matthew 2:3-4; Micah 5:2)

 

Matthew reports a visit of some "Magi" who go to Jerusalem, seeking the Christ-child (Matthew 2:1-2). King Herod calls the "chief priests and teachers of the law," asking them "where the Christ was to be born" (2:3-4). Then we read, "'In Bethlehem in Judea,' they replied, 'for this is what the prophet has written: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel"'" (2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the teachers and priests had indicated was prophesied (2:7-11; ref 2:1). Matthew has reported another fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

Matthew was indeed loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, not only is the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) supposed to "shepherd his flock" (5:4) as Christians would expect, but it also says, "He will deliver us [israel] from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders" (5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" of Israel anyway?

 

Some allege that this (like the previous one discussed) is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

 

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew.

 

As such, it appears that Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to make it appear to be about Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1)

 

Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matthew 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (2:14-15a). Then we read, "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son'" (2:15b). Another fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

Not quite. Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

 

Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

 

So, once again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

The Slaughtered Children (Matthew 2:17-18; Jeremiah 31:15)

 

Matthew continues his story by telling of Herod giving the "orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years and under" (Matthew 2:16). Then we read, "Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 'A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more'" (2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "no more" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

By now, you may have guessed that the answer is going to be negative. Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), he says, "This is what the LORD says: 'Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded,' declares the LORD. 'They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future,' declares the LORD. 'Your children will return to their own land'"(Jeremiah 31:16-17). He goes on to say that "the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel" will "bring them back from captivity" (31:23).

 

At the time that Jeremiah allegedly wrote this, the Israelites had been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children are no more" (Jeremiah 31:15), he was apparently referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly said that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

 

Once again, though, some argue that it's a "dual prophecy." And, once again, the context does not support it.

 

So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to have his story appear to fulfill prophecy.

 

The Chosen Servant (Matthew 12:17-21; Isaiah 42:1-4)

 

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read about Jesus healing some sick people and telling them "not to tell who he was" (Matthew 12:15-16). Then we read, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my spirit on him and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope" (12:17-21). So, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of this servant, right?

 

Well, let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

 

This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jeshurun" means "the upright one," and is also used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

 

He continues, "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you" (Isaiah 44:26). In addition, we read, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob" (48:2), and, "You are my servant, Israel" (49:3).

 

While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant!" In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

 

But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? We read, "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see! Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD? You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

 

Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. Yet, Isaiah claimed that God would make his servant (Israel) "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6).

 

So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to try to support his claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding (Matthew 13:14-15; Isaiah 6:9-10)

 

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matthew 13:10). Jesus responded with, "This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand'" (13:13).

 

Then Jesus, according to Matthew, claims, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them'" (Matthew 13:14-15). But, could the people of Jesus' time have been a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus allegedly quoted?

 

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

 

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "For how long, O Lord?" (Isaiah 6:11a), to which he was answered, "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land I utterly forsaken. And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste" (6:11b-13a). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

 

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time!

 

Again, therefore, Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to make it appear that prophecy had been fulfilled with his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Uttering Parables (Matthew 13:35; Psalm 78:2)

 

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matthew 13:34), we read, "So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: 'I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world'" (13:35). Was this really a fulfilled prophecy?

 

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "O my people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter hidden things, things from of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (78:5-72).

 

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

 

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Shared Bread (John 13:18; Psalm 41:9)

 

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a piece of dipped bread (13:26). One of Jesus' statements was, "But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me'" (13:18b). But, was Jesus quoting a prophecy about Judas and himself?

 

Jesus was quoting a psalm in which David said, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). In this psalm, he is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. He is most certainly talking about himself!

 

Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, 'O LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have sinned against you'" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

 

So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason (John 15:25; Psalm 69:4; 35:19)

 

John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason'" (15:25). Another fulfilled prophecy?

 

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one, we read, "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you" (69:5). Was Jesus guilty of folly?

 

The other psalm in question says, "Let not those gloat over me who are my enemies without cause; let not those who hate me without reason maliciously wink the eye" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take up shield and buckler; arise and come to my aid. Brandish spear and javelin against those who pursue me. Say to my soul, 'I am your salvation'" (35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear and javelin against them? It goes on to say, "O Lord, how long will you look on? Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (35:17), with no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

 

So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

 

No Bones Broken (John 19:36; Psalm 34:20)

 

John's gospel tells us that the solders to broke the legs of those being crucified, but that since Jesus was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:31-33). John claims, "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'" (19:36). Another fulfilled prophecy?

 

The quotation is from a psalm of David. Once again, though, the context does not support the claim that it was a prophecy of Jesus. We read, "A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken" (Psalm 34:19-20). Did God deliver Jesus from the trouble of the cross or expect him to endure it? David is making a generalized statement about "the righteous" (see 34:17) and implies that in life they will be protected, but Jesus was allegedly already dead, so what would be the point of protecting his bones then? Also, there is no hint whatsoever in David's words that he was envisioning a sacrifice of Jesus hundreds of years later in which no legs were broken.

 

So, again, we have a statement taken out of context and misused as a prophecy of Jesus.

 

The One They Have Pierced (John 19:34; Zechariah 12:10)

 

John says that when the soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones, they pierced him with a spear instead (John 19:33-34). John then claims that this was in fulfillment (19:36) of what "another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced'" (19:37). So, another fulfilled prophecy?

 

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (12:1), which is one of the reasons that Christians claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

 

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zechariah 12:1ff). He specifically states, "On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem" (12:9). Is that what Jesus set out to do when the people looked upon his piercing?

 

Again, we see that the statement has apparently been taken out of context.

 

Conclusion from the Misuses of the Old Testament in the New Testament

 

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament, and there are more like these. In a sense, these are more contradictions, but they seem to me to be even more problematic to the Bible than the issues raised under the "Contradictions" section.

 

How can the claims that Jesus fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused? Isn't it sounding more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character? Christians assert that it was a miracle for Jesus to fulfill so many prophecies about him and that nobody could fulfill them all by chance, but that is nonsense. One could easily hand-pick statements from a vast work like the Hebrew Scriptures, take them out of context and apply them to someone that the original authors never had in mind. It would be even easier if the character, or at least his story, is made up to begin with. In other words, all of these alleged prophetic fulfillments prove nothing about Jesus!

 

How can such a book be divinely inspired? The foundation to my belief in the Bible has crumbled some more.

 

You see, Stranger, there is substantial reason to not believe the Bible.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, here's just one video that I'd like you to watch and really think about:

 

 

 

Wow, that was seriously interesting! I could watch that guy speak all day long because he is soooooo hot

 

I dont know how many of you guys know, but I am struggling with my christianity atm. It was eye opening to watch that vid anyway.

 

 

This guy is just spewing the same old tripe from that SAB website. Yes he is hot but beauty fades and God's word endures forever. Look at him, admire him as one admires a nice sunset but don't pay any attention to the swill he's spewing.

 

You know if that dude gets in some dire straits he won't call out "Big bang save me!" or "My brain help me!" and he won't be calling out to a monkey's uncle either; like Peter, he'll say " Lord save me!"

 

By beholding we become changed and it is important for the Christian to meditate on God's word daily. Even the hymn "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing" says we are "prone to wander; prone to leave the God I love". God loves us, we are the apple of His eye please remember that

 

I see you dismiss him without even attempting to make a case against him. Quite lame, Thumby. Not surprising, though, since you've repeatedly shown yourself on this board to be weak in the reasoning department.

 

Way to go Thumbelina.

 

Lemme guess, Stranger, you probably didn't even bother to watch the video, did you? If that's the case, then perhaps you should check out his points and really think about them before just blindly swallowing someone else's thoughtless dismissal.

 

Night-night....

[Guest Spinoza]

 

Niibaa' anami'egiizhigad

[the stranger]

Dear Cits, yes, I did watch the video (well, most of it) and if you would like, I will go point by point with you. I know where the guy is coming from. Before I accepted Christ for who He is, I debated every pastor that came to the door. I already know most of the questions first hand, because I use to be the one asking. Quite often, the pastors were not able to give me very good answers, or any at all.

 

I want to be different. If it is truly the answers that you seek, the answers I will give my friend. This guy has nothing new on me, as I use to be him (you know what I mean).

 

Stranger, sorry about the long delay in getting back to you. My daughter's been in the hospital, and we just got home a little while ago. Between that, my full time job, house renovations and Christmas shopping, it's been a bit hectic here lately.

 

First, how is your daughter doing now? Did she come home with you?

 

It looks like you got allot on your plate. I have certainly been there myself, and often am, minus someone close to me in the hospital. Don't sweat it, my friend. We have as long is God gives us to talk about such things, but take care of #1 first. There is nothing like family. It is only by the grace of God our family (as different as it is) has held together. If need be, we will continue after the holidays. Whatever you do, DON'T FORGET YOUR WIFE'S PRESENT! (and maybe, perhaps, the birthday of the one who blesses)

 

Now concerning the site you copied all of that from, that is allot of information to go through all at one time. I would be delighted to go through any scripture with you in question, but we have to take it one scripture at a time, my friend. I too, find myself often with very little time.

 

 

 

Agnost, you got a tear in my eye. What a classic! That was great (and sad). Thanks for posting. It really does make ya wonder how life really was back in those days, to actually live them.