One Verse At A Time...

[Ouroboros]

I don't need to admit anything to YOU. What responsibility exactly am I unable to accept?

Ditto. We don't have to admit any responsibility to your God. The one that you believe in, but we don't.

 

Who are you to judge the way I prayed about my forgiveness to Christ?

And who are you to judge? Doesn't the Bible tell you not to judge?

 

As if you knew how I feel and how I pray to begin with... But this should be an entertaining response, hehe.

And as if you know how anyone of us used to pray or believe.

 

Also, what have I done towards any of you that requires my guilt and sorrow?

You won't feel it until the day when you have realized that you have been living a fantasy, and wake up from it. You will regret all the years wasted.

 

You see, the idea of hell is something I cannot leave out when speaking upon the Bible, Christ and the gift for you if you choose to accept it.

Back to the first point. Why should we accept a deity that you believe in, but we for certain do not believe in? If we did, wouldn't we be having our beliefs based on your beliefs and not our own? You're saying we should believe what you believe, but we shouldn't believe what we believe. Because you are right, and we are wrong. But that's only according to your opinion. Our opinion is that you are wrong, and we are right. So it's mutual. If we convert, then you in all fairness, should deconvert.

 

II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Blah blah blah...

 

Believers in Christ get judged just as the un-believers do as well, let us not forget.

And Christians will be judged by Cute Bunny, just as much as the bunnyists.

[Mythra]

Exactly. 2nd century damage control.

 

Yep.

 

And I refuse to let fundies come in here and give us the "this is my bible - EAT IT" routine.

[thunderbolt]

^^^^^

Yeah - LOL which part of EX is unclear to you? We tasted the gift, and it tasted like shit. So zeroHero, stop wasting your time with us, because your holy book says:

 

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance , since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

 

If if we wanted to (which we CLEARLY don't) we cannot be SAVED again. What a lovely loophole for us.

 

 

I.E. - we are LOST to your religion.

[Ouroboros]

You know that that doesn't really mean, what we think it means. It is not God's will that one of his children be plucked from his firm and mighty hand.

Correct. We need Subby to interpret the verse, since he got the Holy Sprocket in his ass.

[thunderbolt]

That's the god damn problem with the Bible. It NEVER means what it means.

[Anakin]

^^^^^

Yeah - LOL which part of EX is unclear to you? We tasted the gift, and it tasted like shit. So zeroHero, stop wasting your time with us, because your holy book says:

 

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance , since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

 

If if we wanted to (which we CLEARLY don't) we cannot be SAVED again. What a lovely loophole for us.

 

 

I.E. - we are LOST to your religion.

But ThunderB, Vinny the Christ says this is an offer you cannot refuse.

 

That verse is a good one. If it's impossible to bring me back to repentance, then why all

the hubbub? I remember struggling with that verse when I was a christian. I read some

apologetic stuff back then saying he was addressing the jewish audience only, who had

returned to the sacrifical system. That it didn't have anything to do with non jews. Then it

concluded that at face value this verse contradicted the rest of the bible. I wish I could

remember the name of the book I read. It was some type of study guide I got at a

christian bookstore. Just a bunch of garbage really.

[thunderbolt]

^^^^^

Sure Anakin

 

I have just had enough of his gospel down my throat, so I am giving him back his own stupid bible verses. But I could care less what it means, because it means nothing.

[Open_Minded]

Update .....

 

Sub has also tried to troll www.TheologyWeb.com.

 

He has only one thread:

 

January 22nd 2006, 05:19 PM

Inside the mindset of an atheist...

Views: 101 Posted By sub_zer0

Inside the mindset of an atheist...

 

sub_zer0,

 

We don't allow problems from other boards to be re-hashed here. We also don't allow profanity.

 

Please familiarize yourself with our campus decorum before making additional posts.

 

Evidently the moderator there didn't like what he had to say about atheists.

 

All this effort ... and still no one comes to play with you at your own forum, Sub.

 

Please ... GET A CLUE.

[Antlerman]

Are you quite certain that Christ accepted your "repentance"? The reason I ask is because you certainly have not shown any contriteness towards us, and an unwillingness to confess your shortcomings to others. That raises high suspicions that you are truly unable to accept responsibility. And those who are unable to be humble enough to accept and admit responsibility for their actions - cannot possibly recognize the need for forgiveness - sub. Your faith is a facade. Did you just mouthe the words "Lord, forgive me" without any sense of genuine culpability for your actions?

 

So, honestly no, I don't believe you have settled your sins with anyone, humans or dieties.

 

I don't need to admit anything to YOU. What responsibility exactly am I unable to accept?

Let's start with you doing an experiment on "atheists". We are human beings, not your inferiors. Do you have absolutely any clue how offensive that is to another human being? Do you care?

 

Who are you to judge the way I prayed about my forgiveness to Christ?

"Ye shall know them by their fruits". You're actions expose you. I do not sense the sprit of peace and humility in you anywhere. You are not listening to the humanity you are speaking to. You lack a true heart of compassion. I hear your pride, not your heart. You quote the Bible, not speak to us as human beings. Do you think I lie???

 

As if you knew how I feel and how I pray to begin with... But this should be an entertaining response, hehe.

Repeat: Actions speak louder than words. "By their fruits, you shall know them" You're actions and your words betray the condition of your heart.

 

Also, what have I done towards any of you that require my guilt and sorrow?

We are not your lab rats because we are non-believers. That is what you are doing. Look to your humanity and see if there's anything there to trigger remorse.

 

II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

For each verse you quote, another Christian could offer a thousand different ways of looking at it. I have a degree in theology, and so do a whole lot of people here. Yet somehow, you are our superior? That's sounds mighty prideful. BTW, a lot of us were exactly like you. We didn't get dumber. Don't try to convince yourself we did.

 

Here's the key Sub: Are you willing to set down your Bible with your interpretations, and just talk with us as human beings? Do this, and I will speak with you honestly and respectfully. In fact, I would enjoy it. Are you able to do that?

 

I have this fairly strong impression you hide yourself behind the Bible. I'd honestly like to believe there is a real you back there somewhere. It's terribly difficult to speak to that person, because what I am hearing here is not real. It's someone else. It's someone protecting themselves through false armor.

 

Believers in Christ get judged just as the un-believers do as well, let us not forget.

Hopefully it would be by sincerity. In which case, none of us here have much to worry about. If it's about interpreting an obscure book with perfect understanding, well... that pretty much damns every single person who has ever lived, including you. That's one of several hundred reasons why I cannot accept the utter illogic of such a premise as hell.

 

Let me know if you want to talk as a person Sub?

[Anakin]

^^^^^

Sure Anakin

 

I have just had enough of his gospel down my throat, so I am giving him back his own stupid bible verses. But I could care less what it means, because it means nothing.

I agree the bible means doo doo. I hope that by quoting the bible I haven't given the

impression that I give it any credence. It's futile anyway. Zero will just ignore it

and continue to spew out more junk.

[SkepticOfBible]

So did when Jesus is talking about the works than he did, is he refering to the hard work and good deeds?or is he talking aboutMiracles?

 

Specifically in John 14:12 the word used here in the original Greek is Ergon.

 

2041. ergon er'-gon from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (towork); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an mact:--deed, doing, labour, work.

 

 

So you see Jesus meant works in the sense of hard work and good deeds in Christs name.

 

What exactly are your linguistic credentials?

 

Translations are not made based on one word, but rather on the context on what it says.

 

IT'S HIGH TIME YOU START READING BIBLICAL VERSES IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT.

 

John 14:8-12

 

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

 

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

 

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

 

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

 

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

 

Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

 

The disciples wish to see the father, but Jesus is telling them they don't have to see him, because they have seen his representive ie Jesus. So it is one and the same thing.

 

Then Jesus says "even if you don't believe my claims, atleast believe in the works ie "miracles" that I did, which was guided at the behest of my father".

 

So are you gonna assert that his daddy took all the trouble to make Jesus do "hard work and good deeds"?

 

What "hard work and good deeds" is Jesus talking about?

 

It is quite clear from the context of the verse that Jesus is refering to Miracles (NOT "hard work and good deeds")

 

"Miracles" were supposed to validate the claims of the believers, and help make them stand out from the rest of the "false" religions. All other religion teach about "hard word and good deeds", so you want to say that christianity is just the same as others.

 

There is tons of scriptural evidence that shows the ability to perform "Miracles" were promised to the believers and was a sign of truthfullness in their faith in JC.

 

A good example would reitirated in the following verses

 

Mark 16:15-18

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

......

And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.

 

Notice that "signs" will follow to who believe, and according to the bible these miracles had allegedly confirmed the words of the "true" believer.

 

So if you are one of the true believer that the this passage is talking about, and are here to preach the "good news", please tell us when was the last time you did the following in the name of JC

 

1)Drank a whole bottle of cynide

 

2)Cured someone of full blown aids

 

3)Handled a wild King Cobra

 

4)Casted out a demon.

 

However if you want to say that this was intented towards a specific people and in limited geographic location, then remember this logic cuts both ways.

 

You are stuck with the problem. Either the promise was bogus or you are not a "true" believer but an impostor posing as a believer.

 

It is important to note that if you examine the early chapters of Acts you will find from a numerical standpoint, he works of Peter and other Apostle's surpassed that of Jesus in a single day (the day of Pentecost).

 

Read Acts again.

 

There are once again numerous examples where the Apostles did many miracles in the name of christ. This is the "works" that Jesus was talking about.

 

In the Gospels and in Acts, there are tons of example where people saw miracles and then afterwards they believed. Miracles were supposed to remove skeptical doubt.

 

The biggest skeptic would be the Apostle Thomas himself.

 

Even though he was with JC during his "alleged" ministry on work and saw everything, yet he did believe that JC returned from the dead UNTIL he saw it.

 

All of us have taken the skeptical position of the Apostle Thomas. If he could get to see a miracle, then so should we.

 

It is clear if you keep on reading in John that Christ goes away to enable the Holy Spirit to come into the world for believers in Christ in order to be helped in doing those works.

 

 

If he enabled for the Holy Spirit to come to believers, then how come the believers did not follow the law, as laid down in the OT.

 

Ezekiel 11:19-20 RSV

 

"And I will give them one heart, and PUT A NEW SPIRIT WITHIN THEM; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES AND KEEP MY ORDINANCES AND OBEY THEM; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God."

 

Ezekiel 36:26-27 RSV

 

" A new heart I will give you, and A NEW SPIRIT I WILL PUT WITHIN YOU and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I WILL PUT _MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU_ AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES and BE CAREFUL TO OBSERVE MY ORDINANCES."

 

This obviously a false claim about the Holy Spirit when seen in light of the Hebrew Bible(which is the true canon as proved by you)

 

If you want to say this promise is for the particular people, then I suppose that every promise that Jesus made regarding "Believe me and get Eternal life" would also be limited to a small geographical area and to a specific people.

If it is directed towards a specific people, then why do you say that the bible is for everybody.Once again it is you who decides who this verse is for and who is not for?

 

I am saying Jesus only went to select places to preach and in that way He was limited. His earthly ministry reached to Judea, Samaria and Galilee mostly.

 

 

Don't try to change your stance. You were trying to say that the promise only applies to people who were limited to a small geographical area and to a specific people.

 

We weren't even talking about Jesus's limitation.

 

We, whether it be the disciples or a believer today, are to have that light and possess it to display that light to all the ends of the earth.

 

If the disciples had the "light" and could do miracles, then so should you?

 

And as far as you having the "light", the bible once again debunks your claim

 

Isa 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

According to Isaiah, Christians like you have no light in them., because you refuse to obey the law.

 

The law was to be the light for the Gentiles, not Jesus.

Isa 51:4

Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations.

 

Salvation for Gentiles meant binding to God through his laws. (Isa 56:1-7) Israel(not Jesus) is the vehicle that provides a light to the Gentiles. (Isa 41:8, 42:6)

 

You don't even want to obey your christ when he says

John 14:15

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

 

Since you claim he was also the god of the OT, the statement "my commandments" also include the OT law.

 

The day you start doing the following "good deeds", then only I'll believe you

 

1)Abstain from eating pork, just like you tell others to abstain from Sex

 

2)Not desecrate the Sabbath, by observing it on a Saturday, not on the Pagan day of worship.

 

3)Stop celebrating the pagan holidays of Christmas and Easter.

 

4)Observe the ritual of circumcision as sign of covenant.

 

5)Stop LYING through your teeth.

 

You are yet to answer the following questions

 

1)If the earth was round and not geo-centric, then why did the holy spirit failed to correct the billions of christians who were saying otherwise?

 

2)What evidence did the council of men present to validate the claim that they had "authority of Christ"? What was different in the "authority" that these council had compared to the authority that Joseph Smith had?

 

3)Why did your god fail to preserve the books in the original manuscripts?Why did he let imperfect humans add words to his "perfect" book?

 

4)What was democracy doing in the declaration of God's perfect word?Is the "The Truth" subject to democractic opinion of council of men?

 

4)Why did your God fail to inspire a "perfect" translation?

 

5)What was Jesus doing in a pagan ritual of baptism?(Please answer this in the Did Jesus Sin Thread)

 

Some more interesting fact regarding your canon

 

 

The Bible was Put Together by Vote

 

For nearly two centuries after the beginning of the Christian era, the Old Testament-- the Old Testament alone constituted the Christian canon. No other books were called scripture; no other books were considered inspired; no other books were deemed canonical.

 

,.....

 

To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding the Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of founding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to make such a collection, and he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for its books.

 

.......

 

Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted upon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This council rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's list, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded Revelation.

 

Various councils, following this, adopted canonical lists. One council would admit certain books and the next council would reject them. The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which admitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations.

 

The actions of none of these councils were unanimous or decisive. The list of books adopted was adopted simply by a majority vote. A large minority of every council refused to accept the list of the majority. Some advocated the admission of books that were rejected; others opposed the admission of books that were accepted. As late as the seventh century (629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople, many different canonical lists were presented for ratification.

 

....

 

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.

 

Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist." In his "Bondage of the Will," he severely criticises the book.

 

He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: "The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible." (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).

 

He rejected Hebrews: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle." (Standing Preface to Luther's New Testament).

 

He rejected the Epistle of James: "St. James' Epistle is truly an epistle of straw." (Preface to Edition of 1524).

 

He rejected Jude. "The Epistle of Jude," he says, "allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture." (Standing Preface).

 

He rejected Revelation. He says: "I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit." (Preface to Edition of 1622).

[mmccaskill]

NBBTB, I was going to respond to Mmccaskill's post by saying that those of us that see these teachings as metaphors/allegories for spiritual insights to enlightenment can usually come to an agreement on these meanings of these teachings. However, when taken literal... the story does get all messed up.

Thats my point. It is ambiguous when one should take passage(s) as literal or metaphorical.

 

I thought that Mmccaskill isn't probably use to our kind...

I do not understand what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

 

he is new... so I let it slide.

Thank you??

 

However Mmccaskill, we like the Atheist movement too!

Good??

 

 

I don't need to admit anything to YOU.

Indeed. Admit it to yourself. We could care less what you admit to us.

 

What responsibility exactly am I unable to accept?

Reality.

 

Who are you to judge the way I prayed about my forgiveness to Christ?

And vice-versa. It is a two way street zero.

 

As if you knew how I feel and how I pray to begin with

And vice-versa. It is a two way street zero.

 

Also, what have I done towards any of you that requires my guilt and sorrow?

Spreading the Truth™

 

You see, the idea of hell is something I cannot leave out when speaking upon the Bible, Christ and the gift for you if you choose to accept it.

Muslims don't seem to have a problem doing it.

 

Believers in Christ get judged just as the un-believers do as well, let us not forget.

Yes lets not forget the newborn babies who are un-believers, who then die of tumors or other defects caused by your sadistic god. I'm sure their premature judgment is just.

 

 

Run to Mohammed. Mohammed wants you to go to him. He wants to be the most important person in your life, the greatest love you'll ever know. He wants you to love him so much that there's no room in your heart and in your life for sin. Invite him to take up residence in your heart.

 

Dude I didn't write that... So I won't respond.

Then you obviously didn't read the whole post. 747 flying high.

[Amanda]

NBBTB, I was going to respond to Mmccaskill's post by saying that those of us that see these teachings as metaphors/allegories for spiritual insights to enlightenment can usually come to an agreement on these meanings of these teachings. However, when taken literal... the story does get all messed up.

Thats my point. It is ambiguous when one should take passage(s) as literal or metaphorical.

Hi Mmccaskill! Well, it seems that there are a few here that like ALL spiritual teachings... and can usually agree with an interpretation from scripture that is for a deeper meaning through allegory to enlighten. If not complete agreement, we're really close!

I thought that Mmccaskill isn't probably use to our kind...

I do not understand what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

I assumed that you weren't use to us conglomerated spiritual junkies where ever we can learn the messages of enlightenment, including Buddhist, Zen, Suffis, Christ, and many more. And yes, they come from Atheist too!

he is new... so I let it slide.

Thank you??

Hey, you're new... and I want you to feel welcome! :wink:

 

I'll wait till you know us a little better before I respond to such minimal conflicting responses.

However Mmccaskill, we like the Atheist movement too!

Good??

I hope it's good. I'm looking forward to some very insightful input from your perspective!

[Guest sub_zer0]

Let's start with you doing an experiment on "atheists". We are human beings, not your inferiors. Do you have absolutely any clue how offensive that is to another human being? Do you care?

 

Apparently you haven't read what they said to me and how they treated me. Do they care?

 

I was not meaning to be offensive at all, if I was I am sorry but I have done nothing wrong. The idea in the beginning was to share the word of God.

 

"Ye shall know them by their fruits". You're actions expose you. I do not sense the sprit of peace and humility in you anywhere. You are not listening to the humanity you are speaking to. You lack a true heart of compassion. I hear your pride, not your heart. You quote the Bible, not speak to us as human beings. Do you think I lie???

 

Indeed I am not listening to the rubbish and insults that are thrown at me. I am sorry my heart for Christ has come across as pride. Am I quoting the Bible now?

 

Repeat: Actions speak louder than words. "By their fruits, you shall know them" You're actions and your words betray the condition of your heart.

 

You still haven't said specifically what action or actions I have done.

 

We are not your lab rats because we are non-believers. That is what you are doing. Look to your humanity and see if there's anything there to trigger remorse.

 

I did not conduct the expirement thinking you were lab rats. That is not what I am doing. I am clearly showing how those specific atheist's react to me - a Bible believing Christian.

 

For each verse you quote, another Christian could offer a thousand different ways of looking at it. I have a degree in theology, and so do a whole lot of people here. Yet somehow, you are our superior? That's sounds mighty prideful. BTW, a lot of us were exactly like you. We didn't get dumber. Don't try to convince yourself we did.

 

So a Christian could offer a thousand different ways of looking at it, yet a lot of you guys were just like me - a Christian. Anyway, a degree in theology means nothing when trying to view the Bible in light of Christ. That is all I am doing different.

 

Here's the key Sub: Are you willing to set down your Bible with your interpretations, and just talk with us as human beings? Do this, and I will speak with you honestly and respectfully. In fact, I would enjoy it. Are you able to do that?

 

I have been willing to do so this entire time...

 

I have this fairly strong impression you hide yourself behind the Bible. I'd honestly like to believe there is a real you back there somewhere. It's terribly difficult to speak to that person, because what I am hearing here is not real. It's someone else. It's someone protecting themselves through false armor.

 

What have I said that is "not real"? No my friend it is not false armor, you know exactly what it is, as you said yourself.

 

Ephesians 6:11

Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

 

Hopefully it would be by sincerity. In which case, none of us here have much to worry about. If it's about interpreting an obscure book with perfect understanding, well... that pretty much damns every single person who has ever lived, including you. That's one of several hundred reasons why I cannot accept the utter illogic of such a premise as hell.

 

Let me know if you want to talk as a person Sub?

 

Interpreting an obscure book? It says clearly that believers and un-believers will be judged. What more are you looking for?

[thunderbolt]

Zero

 

Just read your post back to Antlerman. I one line, you say you are willing to put down your Bible and will converse like a normal human being, and three lines further you start quoting verses again. Can you see this is what AM is talking about? He wants to talk to YOU, not to the Bible – he knows the book pretty well. So, can you do that, stop babbling in bible verses and lingo, and just talk normal? And are you willing to do that?

 

I don’t think you realize how indoctrinated you are, and for us standing on the outside it seems like you have a severe case of fundamentalism. I realize it’s your approach to life and the bible, but you cannot throw that lingo around here and expect people to think you are cheese. That kind of Christianese is best suited for when you are with your kind in some bible study.

 

And I think we have repeated it ad nausea – this forum is not for “sharing the word of God” or prosetelzying. It’s an absolute NO-NO. The invitation is for you to start acting like a normal human being, instead of this:

 

[Guest sub_zer0]

What exactly are your linguistic credentials?

 

Translations are not made based on one word, but rather on the context on what it says.

 

IT'S HIGH TIME YOU START READING BIBLICAL VERSES IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT.

 

John 14:8-12

 

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

 

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

 

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

 

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

 

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

 

Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

 

The disciples wish to see the father, but Jesus is telling them they don't have to see him, because they have seen his representive ie Jesus. So it is one and the same thing.

 

Then Jesus says "even if you don't believe my claims, atleast believe in the works ie "miracles" that I did, which was guided at the behest of my father".

 

So are you gonna assert that his daddy took all the trouble to make Jesus do "hard work and good deeds"?

 

What "hard work and good deeds" is Jesus talking about?

 

It is quite clear from the context of the verse that Jesus is refering to Miracles (NOT "hard work and good deeds")

 

"Miracles" were supposed to validate the claims of the believers, and help make them stand out from the rest of the "false" religions. All other religion teach about "hard word and good deeds", so you want to say that christianity is just the same as others.

 

There is a direct corralation seen between the performance of miracles and the preaching of the Word of God (Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:2,6). The use of miracles by Jesus and the Apostles is to legitimize their words they speak.

 

Likewise, Jesus is using the same method in saying that if you "don't believe what I say, then believe my miracles" which in turn arises faith in mens hearts (assuming that "works" in John 14:12 means miracles).

 

The true knowledge of Him (Jesus) is only able to be aquired once God revealed the entirety of the information that He wished to make available to mankind (later contained in what we call the New Testament), the need for miraculous confirmation of the oral Word came to an end.

 

2 Peter 1:3 declares that miracles are not needed as spiritual maturity is in grasp for every single person "through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." Christ and the kowledge of Him makes "the man of God" "...adequate, equipped for every good work." Not miracles after complete revelation of His word, but knowledge of Him.

 

Miraculous gifts are to be done away with when the complete Word of God is finished or "perfect" as Paul puts it. In I Corinthians verse 10 it states about "when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."

 

"The word ["perfect" or telelos] refers to totality, that which is whole, brought to its end, finished, and lacking nothing necessary to completeness (Delling, 1972, 8:73; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 816; Thayer, 1901, p. 618)."

 

"Paul offered a useful illustration to clarify his point. When the church possessed only bits and pieces of God’s will, as revealed through scattered miraculous gifts and the gradual production, between approximately A.D. 57 and A.D. 95, of the written documents from the inspired writers of the New Testament, it could not achieve full spiritual maturity. It therefore was like a child (13:11). It lacked the necessary constituent elements to reach spiritual adulthood. However, when the totality of God’s will, which became the New Testament, had been revealed, the church then had the means available to become “a man” (13:11). Once the church had access to all of God’s written Word, the means by which the Word was given (i.e., miraculous gifts) would be obsolete, useless, and therefore “put away” (13:11). Notice that in this illustration, Paul likened miracles to “childish things” (13:11). In other words, miracles were the spiritual equivalents of pacifiers that were necessary while the church was in a state of infancy. Now that the church has access to “all truth” (John 16:13), the use of tongue-speaking and other miraculous enhancements in the church today would be comparable to an adult man or woman sucking on a pacifier!" MORE HERE

 

There is tons of scriptural evidence that shows the ability to perform "Miracles" were promised to the believers and was a sign of truthfullness in their faith in JC.

 

A good example would reitirated in the following verses

 

Mark 16:15-18

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

......

And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.

 

Notice that "signs" will follow to who believe, and according to the bible these miracles had allegedly confirmed the words of the "true" believer.

 

Notice how the ability to do signs, is by "preaching the good news." Indeed the signs were necessary for the infancy of the church, for the faith through not only word but by signs is needed.

 

Read Acts again.

 

There are once again numerous examples where the Apostles did many miracles in the name of christ. This is the "works" that Jesus was talking about.

 

In the Gospels and in Acts, there are tons of example where people saw miracles and then afterwards they believed. Miracles were supposed to remove skeptical doubt.

 

The biggest skeptic would be the Apostle Thomas himself.

 

Even though he was with JC during his "alleged" ministry on work and saw everything, yet he did believe that JC returned from the dead UNTIL he saw it.

 

All of us have taken the skeptical position of the Apostle Thomas. If he could get to see a miracle, then so should we.

 

Indeed for the infancy of the church miracles were needed to mature it and prepare it for the entirety of the Word of God.

 

If he enabled for the Holy Spirit to come to believers, then how come the believers did not follow the law, as laid down in the OT.

 

Ezekiel 11:19-20 RSV

 

"And I will give them one heart, and PUT A NEW SPIRIT WITHIN THEM; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES AND KEEP MY ORDINANCES AND OBEY THEM; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God."

 

Ezekiel 36:26-27 RSV

 

" A new heart I will give you, and A NEW SPIRIT I WILL PUT WITHIN YOU and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I WILL PUT _MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU_ AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES and BE CAREFUL TO OBSERVE MY ORDINANCES."

 

This obviously a false claim about the Holy Spirit when seen in light of the Hebrew Bible(which is the true canon as proved by you)

 

In regards to Eazekiel you do know that it is referring to Israel and their regathering after the exile right?

 

Don't try to change your stance. You were trying to say that the promise only applies to people who were limited to a small geographical area and to a specific people.

 

We weren't even talking about Jesus's limitation.

 

The limitation is referencing the fact that the Apostles were able to stretch a lot further than one man, being Jesus in His ministry.

 

And as far as you having the "light", the bible once again debunks your claim

 

Isa 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

According to Isaiah, Christians like you have no light in them., because you refuse to obey the law.

 

No according to Isaiah, Israel is supposed to walk in those ways. Where does it reference Christians or gentiles in Isaiah 8?

 

The law was to be the light for the Gentiles, not Jesus.

Isa 51:4

Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations.

 

Indeed, before Jesus the light was Israel and its people who walked in Gods statutes and ordinances.

 

Salvation for Gentiles meant binding to God through his laws. (Isa 56:1-7) Israel(not Jesus) is the vehicle that provides a light to the Gentiles. (Isa 41:8, 42:6)

 

In regards to Isaiah 56:1-7 did you notice how it states "For My salvation is about to come, And My righteousness to be revealed. " Why it even goes on to say that, and here is the term again, "the son of man who takes hold of it; Who keeps from profaning the sabbath," Quite a good reference to Jesus as He is yet to come, is the Son of Man in the ultimate sense and was kept from profaning the sabbath.

 

Of course Israel was the light to all nations during the times that this is referencing.

 

You don't even want to obey your christ when he says

John 14:15

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

 

Since you claim he was also the god of the OT, the statement "my commandments" also include the OT law.

 

No it doesn't include the OT law because Christ fulfilled the law of Old in order for a new covenant to be established on better promises.

 

2)What evidence did the council of men present to validate the claim that they had "authority of Christ"? What was different in the "authority" that these council had compared to the authority that Joseph Smith had?

 

3)Why did your god fail to preserve the books in the original manuscripts?Why did he let imperfect humans add words to his "perfect" book?

 

4)What was democracy doing in the declaration of God's perfect word?Is the "The Truth" subject to democractic opinion of council of men?

 

4)Why did your God fail to inspire a "perfect" translation?

 

5)What was Jesus doing in a pagan ritual of baptism?(Please answer this in the Did Jesus Sin Thread)

 

2) Read the Nicene Creed, see what they believed? That is how they validated it, not only that but by the book that came out of those beliefs.

 

3) No human has added to the book and the copies of the originals are just as good and as reliable.

 

4) No it is based on the authority of Christ.

 

Some more interesting fact regarding your canon

 

For nearly two centuries after the beginning of the Christian era, the Old Testament-- the Old Testament alone constituted the Christian canon. No other books were called scripture; no other books were considered inspired; no other books were deemed canonical.

 

Well what is your date of the beginning of the Christian era?

 

To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding the Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of founding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to make such a collection, and he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for its books.

 

Irenaeus is the first early church father to quote almost every book of the New Testament. He quoted or considered authentic twenty-three of the twenty-seven books—omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.

 

So you are kinda right in your statment of him claiming divine authority for the NT.

 

Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted upon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This council rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's list, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded Revelation.

 

Wait a minute, you say the Council of Nicea determined what books should consitute the Bible, meaning canon, then you say it didn't... Which is it?

 

If anything the Council of Hippo (A. D. 393) was first to lay down the limits of the canon as discussed here were approved by Augustine and verified what was set down by Athanasius.

 

Various councils, following this, adopted canonical lists. One council would admit certain books and the next council would reject them. The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which admitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations.

 

The actions of none of these councils were unanimous or decisive. The list of books adopted was adopted simply by a majority vote. A large minority of every council refused to accept the list of the majority. Some advocated the admission of books that were rejected; others opposed the admission of books that were accepted. As late as the seventh century (629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople, many different canonical lists were presented for ratification.

 

Non of them were decisive or unanimous yet they were adopted by a majority vote, apparently some decision making happened.

 

Really, the findings of Hippo were reiterated at the Council of Carthage. CANON IS CLOSED.

 

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.

 

Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist." In his "Bondage of the Will," he severely criticises the book.

 

He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: "The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible." (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).

 

He rejected Hebrews: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle." (Standing Preface to Luther's New Testament).

 

He rejected the Epistle of James: "St. James' Epistle is truly an epistle of straw." (Preface to Edition of 1524).

 

He rejected Jude. "The Epistle of Jude," he says, "allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture." (Standing Preface).

 

He rejected Revelation. He says: "I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit." (Preface to Edition of 1622).

 

To those, I would like to point you to two place, same site...

 

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/55-17.HTM

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/DOC-1.HTM

 

Zero

 

Just read your post back to Antlerman. I one line, you say you are willing to put down your Bible and will converse like a normal human being, and three lines further you start quoting verses again. Can you see this is what AM is talking about? He wants to talk to YOU, not to the Bible – he knows the book pretty well. So, can you do that, stop babbling in bible verses and lingo, and just talk normal? And are you willing to do that?

 

I don’t think you realize how indoctrinated you are, and for us standing on the outside it seems like you have a severe case of fundamentalism. I realize it’s your approach to life and the bible, but you cannot throw that lingo around here and expect people to think you are cheese. That kind of Christianese is best suited for when you are with your kind in some bible study.

 

Wait a minute, because my life is based on the Bible and he wants to talk to the real me, I am supposed to throw out what the Bible teaches about life? I think not.

[thunderbolt]

Wait a minute, because my life is based on the Bible and he wants to talk to the real me, I am supposed to throw out what the Bible teaches about life? I think not.

No, that's not what he said. Open your gawd damn eyes. It's a request for you stop babbling in bible verses. We don't care about that book, so quoting it to us makes absolutely ZERO difference. You are a basket case dude!

[Guest bdp]

Subby said:

 

"The true knowledge of Him (Jesus) is only able to be aquired once God revealed the entirety of the information that He wished to make available to mankind (later contained in what we call the New Testament), the need for miraculous confirmation of the oral Word came to an end."

 

I had a hunch he was Church of Christ - this is exactly how my church copped out on the fact that there are no miracles today, we have the 'perfect' now (the bible) so there is no need for attesting miracles. A cop-out, as I say.

 

bdp

[thunderbolt]

I had a hunch he was Church of Christ - this is exactly how my church copped out on the fact that there are no miracles today, we have the 'perfect' now (the bible) so there is no need for attesting miracles. A cop-out, as I say.

Yeah well, that explains a lot. They DO have a loophole for everything - such a clever thesis to justify way God is absolutely NOWHERE to be found. He committed suicide 2000 years ago.

[SkepticOfBible]

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

 

That is my truth. What is yours exactly, you haven't mentioned it yet?

 

 

You expect us to believe in a "Truth" which is not even "100% unverified".

 

You never proved to us that Jesus was the prophesised jewish messiah.

 

We showed you numerous theological assertion that are unsupported by the OT, and contradict it from time to time.

 

We also showed you the historical and scientific errors that the bible has.

 

You failed to show one objective characteristic which proved the bible was free from bias, nor could you ever prove as to why should we believe in your sect of christianity is the "true" one.

 

So tell us why should we believe this "dubious" truth

 

Run to Jesus. Jesus wants you to go to him. He wants to be the most important person in your life,the greatest love you'll ever know. He wants you to love him so much that there's no room in your heart and in your life for sin. Invite him to take up residence in your heart.

 

This is an empty appeal because it has nothing to back it up except subjective theological whims.

 

Run to Lord Booga Booga and he’ll love you forever.

 

Christian salvation is exchanged for worship and this has very little to do with love.

 

God gave us free will to choose. Would you rather us have no free will?

 

This is both deceptive and contradicted by scripture.

 

Free means without charge and the Bible God punishes incorrect choices.

 

Eph 1:4-5,11 makes a shambles of the universal “free will” claim.

 

Chains, what chains?

Romans 8:2

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

 

Here we see your true motives about not following the law. Let's see what the hebrew bible has to say about people who wish to be "set" free.

Isa 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant

 

Psa 50:16-17

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

 

 

Christians like you, who base their doctrines and beliefs on apostates like Paul and the author of Hebrews are the "wicked" corrupters who have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, and dishonored the covenant.

 

The fact you don't accept Christ is a sin, I am sorry to say.

 

Tell that to a Jew and see how far it takes you.

[Amanda]

I had a hunch he was Church of Christ - this is exactly how my church copped out on the fact that there are no miracles today, we have the 'perfect' now (the bible) so there is no need for attesting miracles. A cop-out, as I say.

Yeah well, that explains a lot. They DO have a loophole for everything - such a clever thesis to justify way God is absolutely NOWHERE to be found. He committed suicide 2000 years ago.

Hi Thunderbolt! What I find very interesting is when I came on this site... I wasn't allowed to use any Bible verses at all in my discussions here!!! Very rarely was there a time when I was allowed to present one! They let this guy open a whole thread on it! I suppose it was to show him or everyone else how out of reality this thinking is.

 

I came here out of a situation in which I had based much of my life on direct verses to convey a message too. This site caused me to come out of that mentality, discuss things in a manner that caused me to think a different way. I could still keep the real essence of these great messages, however... I was forced to think more realistically and apply MY UNDERSTANDINGS in the context of 'normal' discussions. Truth is truth and should not rely on just a book, even if it is the Bible, but should present itself in reality TODAY.

 

It is a great transition and feels a little awkward at first, however... I feel it caused me to understand the Bible even more... what makes sense in the real world and how these messages really came into being. It may have lost some magic for me, however it gained even more suhstance. What I think Antlerman wants is for Sub Zero to have a discussion like this with him, without Bible verses.... to find the real person and not just parroted responses. This way EVERYONE grows, as the MEANING of our beliefs show its appropriate reality in our present day applications. Why would God make us with logic and reason, then teach a message that goes against all that? No, IMO, they are two expressions of the same reality and have to be in harmony.

 

It seems Sub Zero is afraid of Truth. He seems to present his beliefs which are NOT congruent with reality. It would be interesting to know why he chooses fantasy over reality... however, if he chooses to discuss things in a more realistic manner... he'll be able to really enjoy and see the way, the truth, and the life. Isn't it beneficial to know that reindeers don't fly, pumpkins don't turn into carriages, and snakes don't talk?

[Ouroboros]

Amanda, your post made me realize something about how people look at the Bible.

 

Let us compare the Bible to regular poetry.

 

In poetry you read a poem and you like it because it reflects something in your life that you can recognize. Basically life and reality comes first, and the poem is a mirror of that reality. You know the poem to be correct or "true" based on your experience in life.

 

On the other hand, if you read a poem that doesn't fit with reality or your experience, it will not be the same reflection or becoming the same "truth" to you.

 

Now, the Bible (like the proverbs for instance) could be read in the light of what we believe and think etc, but it only means that the verses reflects what I, personally, would be believing.

 

The problem I see with the fundamentalist is that they put the poetry before reality. In their eyes, the verses don't reflect the visible, and tangible reality, but they want reality to be reflection of the poetry. They in a sense put the cart before the horse.

 

In our discussions, we don't disapprove using the Bible, but we don't agree to having the verses be evidence of any kind by them self. In our minds, the verses only reflects the belief, not the proof of the belief. We don't see the verses prove God, miracles or any dogma, they only mirror what the religious person wants to believe.

 

Does it make sense? This is a (kind of) new idea to me, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

(Well, not completely new, but it came into a new light.)

 

-edited for some clarifications-

[Amanda]

 

 

I think that's a great analogy HanSolo! Yet, I think that there are a lot of metaphors, allegories used to convey a thought that their language was not articulate enough to convey the real essence of the message. Also, since they were morals passed down through the generations, they had to make them interesting enough to be remembered... or only the interesting ones got remembered.

 

It reminds me of the boxer, Muhammad Ali, when it is said that he floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee... we have to see the real meaning in the context it was used and the real meaning this is trying to convey.

 

Hopefully we avoid the literal interpretation. That would require MAGIC.

[Antlerman]

In our discussions, we don't disapprove using the Bible, but we don't agree to having the verses be evidence of any kind by them self. In our minds, the verses only reflects the belief, not the proof of the belief. We don't see the verses prove God, miracles or any dogma, they only mirror what the religious person wants to believe.

 

Does it make sense? This is a new idea to me, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

(Well, not completely new, but it came into a new light.)

Yeah! Yes. I like to say that "God is us". The Bible is an expression of how we create God. The God created as an expression of the culture is a reflection of that culture. The problem with fundamentalism is that they fail to recognize this, and as you say "put the horse before the cart". What's the problem in doing this? Answer: All cultures evolve. If we try to say that yesterday's God is good for all time, then you are asking culture to remain as it was 2000 years ago! The force of evolution (in this case cultural) is unstoppable.

 

What has to happen to the created "God" in society is going to be one of two options: "God" either will evolve to continue to reflect that society’s values; or "God" will eventually fall into history like the many other gods of old. Christianity survived as long as it did because of the power of the political machine. Now it's just tradition and society needs God to be relevant. The rise of fundamentalism is a symptom of this evolution that is happening right now. Fundamentalism will never be the solution. It relevance right now is that it creates dialog about these issues of spirituality in a secular world. The majority of people will abandon it when the middle defines itself better, but of course you will always have fringe elements escaping into esotericism and religious cults.

 

Long winded, but to say, "Yes Han. You've got it".

[Open_Minded]

As the last few days have shown .... zero is a troll. It's amazing how many forums he's participated in. Rolling out one more link.....

 

For your reading pleasure.....

 

http://politicalswitchboard.invisionzone.c...ult_type=topics

 

Links to a search result showing all Subs topics on the Political Switchboard forum.

 

First topic: Bible

 

Was wondering what your guys' thoughts are on the Bible? You think it contradictis itself, you think it is the infallible word of God? If you think it is inconsistent and contradicts itself, prove it...

 

Two responses in....

Zero's had that discussion many times here and he knows how we feel...

 

6th topic... My Site

 

http://www.todayshistory.info/

 

If you wan the conservative and liberal responses to Miers, check my site along with updated News of Todays History with in-depth analysis of various subjects.

 

one of the responses...

 

"opinion based on facts with analysis of recent history."

 

Your opinion is based on the facts you choose to recognize, not on all the facts as they pertain to the situation.

 

Sub... I just did a quick search on the internet and found several forums that you've trolled. The links are stored in my Favorite folder. Are you going to stick around and let me roll them all out... one at a time???

 

We know what you are Sub. Either get into an honest discussion (without your Bible as a crutch) or leave.....