The Doctrine Of Hell

[Grandpa Harley]

Imprecation... since you're still alive, it's more proof there is no God...

 

now, you grinning loon, tell me why your God would manifest in a culture that couldn't communicate what you claim happened... or, perhaps it's just that you are stultifying and loudly ignorant, like most Christians I have the dire misfortune of meeting... and playing the 'mystery' card at this point won't cut it... nor claiming ignorance... you've swanned into EX-Chrisitans, promoting ytour poisonous shit like it's gold, when you have not even the rudimentary knowledge to be much more than irritatingly STUPID.

 

Please, tell me you're not going to breed... give me some hope...

[pneuma]

Hi GH I am not the one who said concerning Logos“Which is something that cannot be said of 1st Century Jews…†that was your statement.

 

I only said “this may be true and might explain why they stumbled when the Logos came to themâ€

 

I never said this is true or it explained why they stumbled, I was only postulating this as a possibility given you said the 1st. Century Jews would not understand Logos.

 

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.

[Mythra]

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C.

 

You're right here. It is apparent that the Logos originated in Greek thought. But it sure looks like the idea came to the author of GJohn via Philo Judaeus - a first century jewish philosopher who talked about the Son of God and the Logos - but shows no evidence that he ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Antlerman]

While here’s the problem as I see it AM. We have so many different translations of what was actually written that I don’t believe it is infallible anymore. And as one who does not understand Hebrew or Greek I am at the mercy of the translators of the bible. And it is for this reason I do not just read one bible but many different translations, plus use concordances and lexicon to search out for myself what was really said.

But then again here I am still at the mercy of those that put the concordances and lexicon together.

I do however believe that the scriptures in their original language is infallible, but today we have much searching out of the matter to get at the infallible word of God.

I think only the most extreme head cases would argue that a translation is infallible, like the KJV 1611 folks. “It’s the AUTHORIZED version. It’s the only inspired translation from God Himself!” Now say that out loud with this deep twanging accent, and imagine that on the radio. That’s what I heard one preacher say on the radio, while I was in a fundamentalist Bible College! Even I thought that was nuts back then, and I was a fundamentalist.

 

Of course I suppose I shouldn’t forget many believed the Greek Septuagint was divinely translated too, which the NT writers used heavily BTW. Of course too, there’s the Book of Mormon. Let’s not overlook the use of those two magical stones used in this divine translation: the good ‘ole Urim and Thummim from the Jewish High Priest’s breast plate that just happened to have wound up in upstate New York to be unearthed by Joseph Smith that Brigham Young then took and held over the Golden Tablets which then shined the translation up onto the wall for Joseph Smith to write down!!!

 

Ok, coming back to reality now, I’m well familiar with the saying that the “Bible is the infallible word of God, in its original form.” That’s what they taught at the College I graduated from. I think most people who say the Bible is infallible believe it that way, yet they still turn to scripture as authoritative, which always seemed a bit of a contradiction. The point is they will use the tools of lexicons, and whatnot to try to get at the original truth they believe was there.

 

But to me this just is looking at this all wrong. So what if they found the original manuscripts and it still said that God ordered Joshua to commit genocide on an entire race of human beings, and their little dog Toto too? I don’t think scribal errors, language translation problems, etc account for the presence of things like this. However, the evolving and varying ideas about God written by a tribal people does quite reasonably.

 

When people say the Bible is the word of God, I don't think they mean it in the sense of the Divine Logos of John's Gospel.

 

You would be surprised then AM for I have come across many who believe just that and at one time I to believed it.

Yeah, like my KJV 1611 radio preacher guy. Or are these just lay people who were presuming that their translation was perfect? I’m just curious, because I was completely taken back by this one woman I worked with, who when I made mention in passing of Jesus being Jewish, she got livid and said to me defiently, “Are you trying to tell me my God was a Jew!!!???” I was stunned. I was still a Christian at the time, and simply said, “His followers called him Rabbi?” I think I forget that lay people are stunningly ignorant sometimes about these things I assume is understood as general knowledge.

 

So my question is can you still have faith without believing in the Bible as a book literally written by God Himself through human hands? If you find outright errors, plagiarism from other religions, or outdated cultural ideas attributed to God, would your faith stand or fall? I think the answer to that, would answer my question on how one views the Bible and what drives their faith.

 

Your thoughts?

 

I believe we can have faith without believing in the bible.

If it is true Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible then is goes without saying many a men believed in God and had faith in Him though they had no recorded words from Him.

My faith in God does not stand on the bible but I do use the bible to support my faith.

But to restate my question with a bit more of point on it, if you were through research to discover that the books of the Bible in any form, including the all the originals from Genesis to Revelation, were not the words of God Himself through human hands, but instead were only the words of men who at times wrote inspiring things, and at other time expressed the misconceptions of their culture at the time, would you still be able to use the Bible to support your faith? What would happen to your faith.

 

I will add here like I said to Sojourner, I'm not setting you up for anything. I'm genuinely curious to hear how you would respond to this sort of knowledge.

[Antlerman]

P.S. Yes the Jews in the 1st Century would have understood the Logos concept. Their more traditional term they used was the Memra of Jehovah. The author of Gospel John was likely using that language to bridge the gap between the Greco-Roman world and the Jewish world using that Mediator concept each group was familiar with, then taking it and expanding into his Gospel message. It was a vehicle for communication.

 

(footnote: or as I would see it, the evolution of Jesus to Christ).

[Grandpa Harley]

Hi GH I am not the one who said concerning Logos“Which is something that cannot be said of 1st Century Jews…†that was your statement.

 

I only said “this may be true and might explain why they stumbled when the Logos came to themâ€

 

I never said this is true or it explained why they stumbled, I was only postulating this as a possibility given you said the 1st. Century Jews would not understand Logos.

 

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.

 

Excrement... based on your logic, I could expect to be able to discuss Newton's Principa Mathematica (in the latin) with bus driver and a woman who works in Starbucks. If you can't communicate the idea in Aramaic, then a fisherman and his cronies are not going to hear it from a carpenter anytime soon, unless he did it in Greek... It's like expecting a dirt farmer in 1920s Arkansas to be discussing Lenin in Russian... muppet.

[Grandpa Harley]

P.S. Yes the Jews in the 1st Century would have understood the Logos concept. Their more traditional term they used was the Memra of Jehovah. The author of Gospel John was likely using that language to bridge the gap between the Greco-Roman world and the Jewish world using that Mediator concept each group was familiar with, then taking it and expanding into his Gospel message. It was a vehicle for communication.

 

(footnote: or as I would see it, the evolution of Jesus to Christ).

 

and even then, that is being taken through the lens of 2000 years of Classical (Western) thought...

[Antlerman]

P.S. Yes the Jews in the 1st Century would have understood the Logos concept. Their more traditional term they used was the Memra of Jehovah. The author of Gospel John was likely using that language to bridge the gap between the Greco-Roman world and the Jewish world using that Mediator concept each group was familiar with, then taking it and expanding into his Gospel message. It was a vehicle for communication.

 

(footnote: or as I would see it, the evolution of Jesus to Christ).

 

and even then, that is being taken through the lens of 2000 years of Classical (Western) thought...

Oh yes, certainly. We don't understand those concepts of that world very well in our thinking today. It's not part of how we see things. At best we can understand the basic concepts, but what it looked like through their eyes, and what words really meant in that context, at best is colored and dim through our eyes 2000 years, and many cultures removed.

[Fweethawt]

You, sir, have just won one (1) Internets...

I have no idea wtf you're talking about. But that's cool, too.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...in+the+Internet

 

That, and I'm also a bit of a /b/tard...

Sorry, CT, I can't view that site here at work.

 

The filter says that it's 'Adult/Mature content'. And they certainly don't want us viewing adult and mature content here...

 

Hell... I remember one time where the filter here wouldn't let me view a site because it was considered -- get this... educational.

[Fweethawt]

Hi GH I am not the one who said concerning Logos“Which is something that cannot be said of 1st Century Jews…” that was your statement.

 

I only said “this may be true and might explain why they stumbled when the Logos came to them”

 

I never said this is true or it explained why they stumbled, I was only postulating this as a possibility given you said the 1st. Century Jews would not understand Logos.

 

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.

Excrement... based on your logic, I could expect to be able to discuss Newton's Principa Mathematica (in the latin) with bus driver and a woman who works in Starbucks. If you can't communicate the idea in Aramaic, then a fisherman and his cronies are not going to hear it from a carpenter anytime soon, unless he did it in Greek... It's like expecting a dirt farmer in 1920s Arkansas to be discussing Lenin in Russian... muppet.

Sorry, Gramps, but he still ain't gonna get it.

 

Try breaking it down into single syllable words. Then you might stand a chance at getting your point across.

[mwc]

I cannot help that my answer will be somewhat subjective as I can only answer from my life and how I live. I do believe that one of the major differences between true Christianity and other religions is the whole "personal relationship" thing and the understanding that we are the Temple of God and our God dwells in us. Most religions have temples with inner sanctum where an idol or some other artifact that represents their god is placed and reveared. (see my link in my last post on this subject). Judaism had a similar Temple in the wildernes with Moses and in Jerusalem. There was the Holy of Holies where the ark of the Covenant was placed and where God was seen to dwell.

 

However, these things in Judaism as well as in other religions were types given by God to point different peoples and cultures to God's true purpose of coming to dwell in Temples of flesh and no longer in temples of stone. You will probably reject this, but it is what I believe and base my ability to interpret the Bible and the will of God upon.

*Sigh*

 

Unfortunately, I gave very specific examples in hopes to avoid this situation. But apparently it seems this path is unavoidable.

 

If you believe in foreshadowing then anything and everything can and will be evidence of your particular pet <thing>.

 

The numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 obviously foreshadowed the number 5 simply because of how many ways you can combine them to make 5 and because they lead, like stepping stones, to the number 5. It all makes sense that 5 had to be the number that came after 4. No other number could ever do and so it would be impossible for any other number other than 5 to have been in that position. Call it fate or the will of "god." 5 simply had to be there. Of course if I tell you someone had another item there you'd simply say something akin to "a rose by any other name" so no matter what is said you will argue "foreshadowing." So all the other cultures were the "puppets" of your "god" whether they knew it or not and they "foreshadowed" his ultimate plan whether they knew it or not. But somehow your "god," unlike all other gods out there, is the real God (with a capitol "G") and isn't some false god cooked up by men in their search for the "real god" that is simply "foreshadowing" himself through yet another false religion (this time xianity).

 

Can't you see that if you call the others "tools" (all the other gods, religions and their ways) that were being used by the real God to "foreshadow" and "reveal" itself how do you know that the process ended with your religion? Perhaps yours is just another in the string? Maybe the true revelation won't be for another 100,000 years and 30,000 religions? The followers of these others surely would have thought, like you, that they weren't simply one of many along the path but the one and only religion and God(s). The "foreshadowing" explanation is rather arrogant as it has no justification and it usurps everyone and everything for your own personal use and beliefs.

 

God moved upon holy men of old to write the scriptures, but the Bible is a closed Book unless it is spiritually discerned. It would be like a person seeing an omen in the sky and going to the oracle of Delphi to get the interpretation. Except in this case, all who have received the indwelling Holy Spirit become that oracle of God for themselves and they receive the interpretation of what they read for themselves directly from God.

Ironic that you mention the Greek Oracles. You realize that the church fathers (not all) believed them to be on par with the xian oracles. The ancient oracles were then raped, just as the Jewish texts were, for things that were doctrinally similar and the same concept of "pesher" that I showed earlier was applied to show that the Greeks also followed the same god and predicted these same events. It was just a matter of "interpretation." Obviously, this is a way to usurp the Greek traditions and convince the people that the xian oracles were of the same type as the ancient, and trusted, Greek oracles. Odd how we find yet another parallel to how the ancient xian "prophets" and "teachers" operate.

 

I believe that this is real Christianity and the way that Jesus operated. When He said "You have read in the scriptures ........ But I say unto you ................" He was interpreting the Wprd through the Spirit within Him.

Jesus was the word. He would have been a walking, talking Torah. Why would "god" need to be infused with another part of "god?" That's a tad confusing and redundant isn't it? That aside a simple study of what jesus says shows him to be in-line with pretty much every single thing the Pharisees of the day are known to have believed...except the need for a human-god hybrid as a liaison for relating to YHWH. Claims for being a "messiah" were not a crime (since he failed the requirements the "Jews" would have ignored him) and it seems that relating to YHWH as "father" was not blasphemy to them (although it may have been to the sect that wrote the text which is why they made the case so strongly).

 

Most people (even atheists) do not want or trust each person with the understanding of God for themselves. Most want a set in stone set of Laws and a priesthood to tell them what they mean. The very freedom that many of you espouse to find your own way without another man telling you what is God is the way of God. Even most Christians reject what I am talking about and speak down their noses at is as "Christian mysticism". Yet, here is what the Bible says:

Most people? I'm not sure where you get this.

 

The YHWH of the OT says, basically, "Here's 613 laws be sure to follow them or die" (or some other punishment). It seems that whoever wrote it on his behalf was pretty clear on what the god wants done and the price for not doing them. You keep trying to convince me otherwise but you are doing so with only assertion and not justification. If you can justify why YHWH meant something different that what is literally written down then I'll listen but for hundreds of years he ordered and allowed killing. If he meant something else he shouldn't have waited to "explain it" via a jesus.

 

Who wrote Hebrews? It's anonymous. No matter...

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

I normally don't requote bible verses but in this case I decided to make an exception.

 

Do you recognize what's happening here? It's "pesher." Get to know that word. In the tradition of what I showed you in my previous post even. You have a little "explanation" in the first verses and then it loosely quotes (it could be a direct quote from a Greek translation like the LXX actually...I haven't checked) and then "explains" it some more. Paul does the same. You do likewise. Call it the "spirit" or just what you want it all to say...I don't care...but it's what is happening. The funny thing is that you need to understand that where you see "law" in the above you have to know that "Jews" don't get Law from prophets but only from Torah. The above pulls from Jeremiah 31 and so Jeremiah is saying that the Torah Law will be written to everyone's heart. That's fine. I believe that was fine with whoever wrote Hebrews as well. It probably wasn't so fine with Paul (he hated the Torah Law). It's probably not fine with most xians or most anyone else alive today (even many Jews would probably be bummed). But it's not saying we'll all love jesus and practice the few misquoted commandments jesus mentioned and the sermon on the mount stuff. It's a lot deeper than that.

 

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So you treat the texts that were combined under the church, which you infer is "bad," as being a single coherent unit that is "good?" Seems a bit strange. 1 John is another author writing to another agenda. Just like whoever wrote Hebrews and the gospels and Paul and Jeremiah and the Greek oracles. All separate and it's only the desire to see a common thread that unites them (see the "foreshadowing" thing from earlier).

 

So who wrote 1 John? It too is anonymous (and apparently edited/compiled since chapter one is from a "we" and chapter two is from an "I").

 

However, I do happen to love 1 John. It's a great book. Why? Well, because you can find so many fun things in it:

1 John 3

 

20 When our heart says that we have done wrong; because God is greater than our heart, and has knowledge of all things. 21 My loved ones, if our heart does not say that we have done wrong, we have no fear before him; 22 And he gives us all our requests, because we keep his laws and do the things which are pleasing in his eyes.

 

23 And this is his law, that we have faith in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love for one another, even as he said to us. 24 He who keeps his laws is in God and God is in him. And the Spirit which he gave us is our witness that he is in us.

So when people who are psychotic do something, and feel in their heart they've done nothing wrong, that means God/YHWH, did that for a reason and so they did nothing wrong. Otherwise he'd have never allowed such a chain of events to occur and for no guilt to occur. To say the psychotic person is "broken" is unfair since I happen to know that YHWH "broke" another man in the gospels so that jesus could wander by and "fix" him (and the man and his parents did no sin). These are equatable items.

 

The author also says that since this "guilt" feeling tells people whether they are keeping the "law" or not (and if you don't feel guilty you are) then you get "all [your] requests." Sweet. I never felt guilty and I didn't get my requests. I must have skimmed this passage or else I would have made more requests.

 

But then this guy goes on to define the Law. But if the spirit that is inside you gives you the law why is it that this guy is telling us the law? In Jeremiah it says that the new covenant will make this not happen...ever. But here it's happening. This guy must not truly have the Spirit or else he wouldn't be telling others with the Spirit inside them what the Law is. If I don't feel that this is the Law I'm not obligated to follow it, right? I can blow off jesus and everything to do with this book and it's god(s) if I feel the Spirit move me and still be a good xian. Right? I can go so far as to tell everyone the whole thing is false if the Spirit moves me. Right? Not according to 1 John. That makes me an anti-christ and an outsider. So it's not quite as self-defining as you make it out to be. I have to follow certain written down doctrines.

 

So, this seems like chaos to those who see Christianity as a religion that needs a clearly defined statement of faith and a clergy to tell us what God is saying. But, the Bible that we all claim to follow in Christianity says that He writes His laws in our hearts in the New Covenant and we should not tell our neighbor what He is saying, but the anointing that abides in us (His Spirit) will lead us to His will for our lives as individuals. It is scary to many who prefer a hierarchy religion, but it is very liberating to those who are willing to walk this way.

As I just pointed out above you aren't quite as "free" to listen to your own "heart" and "Spirit" as you are trying to make it sound. There's a box and if you go outside that box it's all over. You just managed to find a bigger box.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Hi GH I am not the one who said concerning Logos“Which is something that cannot be said of 1st Century Jews…†that was your statement.

 

I only said “this may be true and might explain why they stumbled when the Logos came to themâ€

 

I never said this is true or it explained why they stumbled, I was only postulating this as a possibility given you said the 1st. Century Jews would not understand Logos.

 

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.

Excrement... based on your logic, I could expect to be able to discuss Newton's Principa Mathematica (in the latin) with bus driver and a woman who works in Starbucks. If you can't communicate the idea in Aramaic, then a fisherman and his cronies are not going to hear it from a carpenter anytime soon, unless he did it in Greek... It's like expecting a dirt farmer in 1920s Arkansas to be discussing Lenin in Russian... muppet.

Sorry, Gramps, but he still ain't gonna get it.

 

Try breaking it down into single syllable words. Then you might stand a chance at getting your point across.

 

TBH, I've all but given up trying to communicate with mijnheer bord-voor-kop. It's now more a case of using it as a foil for my comments to hit the search engines...

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW,

 

"Who wrote Hebrews?"

 

Hardly anyone now thinks Hebrews had even a chance of having anything to do with Paul... but I know MWC knows that... it's for the remedial group...

[mwc]

BTW,

 

"Who wrote Hebrews?"

 

Hardly anyone now thinks Hebrews had even a chance of having anything to do with Paul... but I know MWC knows that... it's for the remedial group...

Wait a sec...WTF? This is all news to me! YHWH->Jesus->Paul->"magic"->Hebrews. I stand firm on this.

 

 

Remedial? I was thinking "rhetorical" when I wrote the question. Close enough.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

It may have been rhetorical, but I figured I'd mention that there's not a bible scholar worth a damn who thinks the autor of Hebrews was the same as either the Primo-Pauline author or the Deutero-Pauline author...

 

Have I mentioned you're hot when you go all polemic and rhetorical?

[mwc]

polemic

[Grandpa Harley]

Hi GH I am not the one who said concerning Logos“Which is something that cannot be said of 1st Century Jews…†that was your statement.

 

I only said “this may be true and might explain why they stumbled when the Logos came to themâ€

 

I never said this is true or it explained why they stumbled, I was only postulating this as a possibility given you said the 1st. Century Jews would not understand Logos.

 

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.

 

'Would not'? I said, and meant, COULD NOT certainly not in terms of their own language... venomous serpent you are, misquoting me...

[SWIM]

Nothing like a heated debate to keep the ole-thread alive.

 

 

Two men say they are jesus, one of em must be wrong... hehe

[pneuma]

Antlerman

Ok, coming back to reality now, I’m well familiar with the saying that the “Bible is the infallible word of God, in its original form.†That’s what they taught at the College I graduated from. I think most people who say the Bible is infallible believe it that way, yet they still turn to scripture as authoritative, which always seemed a bit of a contradiction. The point is they will use the tools of lexicons, and whatnot to try to get at the original truth they believe was there.

 

But to me this just is looking at this all wrong. So what if they found the original manuscripts and it still said that God ordered Joshua to commit genocide on an entire race of human beings, and their little dog Toto too? I don’t think scribal errors, language translation problems, etc account for the presence of things like this. However, the evolving and varying ideas about God written by a tribal people does quite reasonably.

 

Hi Antlerman according to scripture there is a vail over the OT so looking at it is like looking through glass darkly. I know most here think this type of statement is a cop out because they don’t believe in the OT or the NT so any scripture reference that a christian uses for support of a view is held in contempt.

 

Try looking at it from my perspective, most here read how God told Joshua to kill all those people because they look at those scriptures and take them literally, but what if they are not to be taken literally or what if Joshua misunderstood what God was saying because he to took it literally?

 

Example: If I make my enemy my friend I have in effect killed my enemy.

 

What if this was what God meant for Joshua to do and because he took it literally he went about killing all those people.

 

Now I am not saying this is the answer to what took place back then, I am just giving an example of how things if taken literally could show God in a bad light if He was talking figuratively.

 

My point being is many here read the scriptures and take them literally so they see God in a bad light but if they are suppose to be taken figuratively as in my example would God you still see God in a bad light?

 

 

 

 

Antlerman

But to restate my question with a bit more of point on it, if you were through research to discover that the books of the Bible in any form, including the all the originals from Genesis to Revelation, were not the words of God Himself through human hands, but instead were only the words of men who at times wrote inspiring things, and at other time expressed the misconceptions of their culture at the time, would you still be able to use the Bible to support your faith? What would happen to your faith.

 

I will add here like I said to Sojourner, I'm not setting you up for anything. I'm genuinely curious to hear how you would respond to this sort of knowledge.

 

That’s a good question and from reading some of your correspondences with Soj I believe you are genuinely curious and not trying to set me up.

 

would you still be able to use the Bible to support your faith?

 

Truthfully AM if the scriptures were proven to me to be nothing but mans writings I would no longer use them. But how does one go about proving something like this?

 

What would happen to your faith?

 

My faith in the scriptures would be shattered but my faith in God would remain, for as I said we do not need the scriptures to have faith in God.

 

And the only answer I can give you why this would be so is from personal experience because when I pulled a Jonah and turn my back on God, was so mad at Him for things in my life that I blamed Him for, I still believed in Him and I have no explanation why I continued to believe in Him, I just did.

 

I know many here have had similar experiences and now deny Him, and I really do understand why you do, as a matter of fact your denying Him can be explained, it is my not denying Him that I cannot explain. Something in me I cannot explain refused to take that last step.

[pneuma]

But looking at when Logos was first used your statement that the 1st century Jews would not understand Logos is incorrect, since A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C.

 

You're right here. It is apparent that the Logos originated in Greek thought. But it sure looks like the idea came to the author of GJohn via Philo Judaeus - a first century jewish philosopher who talked about the Son of God and the Logos - but shows no evidence that he ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Thanks Mythra, I had forgotten about Philo

[Grandpa Harley]

but, de facto, Philo was an educated and cosmopolitan man... I still maintain that explaining the concept to peasants, a concept their language didn't support, would be akin to trying to explain large prime number theory to Amazonian tribes that have no concept of numbers larger than three...

[Grandpa Harley]

Antlerman

Ok, coming back to reality now, I’m well familiar with the saying that the “Bible is the infallible word of God, in its original form.†That’s what they taught at the College I graduated from. I think most people who say the Bible is infallible believe it that way, yet they still turn to scripture as authoritative, which always seemed a bit of a contradiction. The point is they will use the tools of lexicons, and whatnot to try to get at the original truth they believe was there.

 

But to me this just is looking at this all wrong. So what if they found the original manuscripts and it still said that God ordered Joshua to commit genocide on an entire race of human beings, and their little dog Toto too? I don’t think scribal errors, language translation problems, etc account for the presence of things like this. However, the evolving and varying ideas about God written by a tribal people does quite reasonably.

 

Hi Antlerman according to scripture there is a vail over the OT so looking at it is like looking through glass darkly. I know most here think this type of statement is a cop out because they don’t believe in the OT or the NT so any scripture reference that a christian uses for support of a view is held in contempt.

 

Along with general contempt for people who come here to try to prove their stinking point...

 

Try looking at it from my perspective, most here read how God told Joshua to kill all those people because they look at those scriptures and take them literally, but what if they are not to be taken literally or what if Joshua misunderstood what God was saying because he to took it literally?

 

Example: If I make my enemy my friend I have in effect killed my enemy.

 

What if this was what God meant for Joshua to do and because he took it literally he went about killing all those people.

 

Now I am not saying this is the answer to what took place back then, I am just giving an example of how things if taken literally could show God in a bad light if He was talking figuratively.

 

Well, that is a smorgesbord of 'what ifs'... there is no evidence to indicate that your reading is anything more that wishful thinking... The worst sort of happy clappy crappy new age shit...

 

My point being is many here read the scriptures and take them literally so they see God in a bad light but if they are suppose to be taken figuratively as in my example would God you still see God in a bad light?

 

And there is not a single piece of evidence that the texts were meant to be anything but a history of what God told the Jews... moron

 

 

 

Antlerman

But to restate my question with a bit more of point on it, if you were through research to discover that the books of the Bible in any form, including the all the originals from Genesis to Revelation, were not the words of God Himself through human hands, but instead were only the words of men who at times wrote inspiring things, and at other time expressed the misconceptions of their culture at the time, would you still be able to use the Bible to support your faith? What would happen to your faith.

 

I will add here like I said to Sojourner, I'm not setting you up for anything. I'm genuinely curious to hear how you would respond to this sort of knowledge.

 

That’s a good question and from reading some of your correspondences with Soj I believe you are genuinely curious and not trying to set me up.

 

would you still be able to use the Bible to support your faith?

 

Truthfully AM if the scriptures were proven to me to be nothing but mans writings I would no longer use them. But how does one go about proving something like this?

 

What would happen to your faith?

 

My faith in the scriptures would be shattered but my faith in God would remain, for as I said we do not need the scriptures to have faith in God.

 

And the only answer I can give you why this would be so is from personal experience because when I pulled a Jonah and turn my back on God, was so mad at Him for things in my life that I blamed Him for, I still believed in Him and I have no explanation why I continued to believe in Him, I just did.

 

I know many here have had similar experiences and now deny Him, and I really do understand why you do, as a matter of fact your denying Him can be explained, it is my not denying Him that I cannot explain. Something in me I cannot explain refused to take that last step.

 

would that be because we're so shallow and you're so deep... you condescending non-entity...

 

AND

 

You've still not told me why a collection of text selected by an Emperor of a dying Empire and a single literate bishop with an agenda has the authority to claim to be God inspired... any more than Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or The Oxford Concise English Dictionary

[pneuma]

but, de facto, Philo was an educated and cosmopolitan man... I still maintain that explaining the concept to peasants, a concept their language didn't support, would be akin to trying to explain large prime number theory to Amazonian tribes that have no concept of numbers larger than three...

 

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

[mwc]

Try looking at it from my perspective, most here read how God told Joshua to kill all those people because they look at those scriptures and take them literally, but what if they are not to be taken literally or what if Joshua misunderstood what God was saying because he to took it literally?

 

Example: If I make my enemy my friend I have in effect killed my enemy.

 

What if this was what God meant for Joshua to do and because he took it literally he went about killing all those people.

 

Now I am not saying this is the answer to what took place back then, I am just giving an example of how things if taken literally could show God in a bad light if He was talking figuratively.

Not addressed to me but just too good to pass up...

 

YHWH "spoke" to Joshua and pals directly. Joshua didn't get any instructions from hand-me-down notes. This is why, when this argument keeps coming up, it is so darn ridiculous.

 

YHWH "said" "build me a temple" right to Moses' face. So Moses did. YHWH then said "kill these animals inside it and do all this other stuff there." So Moses did that too. How can Moses be misunderstanding if YHWH is telling him this to his face and guiding the whole thing? When people violated the rules they were brought before Moses and Moses turned to YHWH and asked for clarification and YHWH spoke to him to give the answer. Moses was the only guy to get such personal treatment.

 

But the rest of the OT friends weren't left out in the cold altogether. YHWH "spoke" to them. He also sent angels and even talking asses to provide insight. He sent the messages that when a problem came up that this was how it was to be handled. When going into Canaan you must kill everyone and do not leave them alive otherwise you will marry them. If this means make friends but don't actually marry them it is a strange way of making that statement. Burn their stuff. I will drive them out from before you. Take things. And so on. None of these are now nor were they then euphemisms for "to make friends."

 

It's hard to argue that those OT guys somehow got it wrong when YHWH was either staring them in the face when he barked his orders or placing instructions straight in their prophet-y heads. There's little room for error when this is happening.

 

It does seem more than likely that people might get things wrong when they go back over what was written in another time and place...one they have little to no understanding of...and try to interpret it to suit their own world view. To second guess the author and put words into their mouths without any justification whatsoever. That seems like it would be very open to misunderstanding.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

but, de facto, Philo was an educated and cosmopolitan man... I still maintain that explaining the concept to peasants, a concept their language didn't support, would be akin to trying to explain large prime number theory to Amazonian tribes that have no concept of numbers larger than three...

 

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

 

If you believe the Gospels have anything to do with the Disciples of the same name, I have some Oregon Sea Front country, prime for condo development at only $5 a hectare...

 

AND

 

 

You've still not told me why a collection of text selected by an Emperor of a dying Empire and a single literate bishop with an agenda has the authority to claim to be God inspired... any more than Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or The Oxford Concise English Dictionary

 

Let's see if colour works...