geisha779

Said it better in less words=below

Hi Danny, I have to work today, and despite my unflappable position on the subject, I wanted to somehow make this point to you. I want to make it in a kind way. Yet, my first reaction is one of bewilderment. It shouldn't be, given what we all once believed. First, Danny, Bullinger is a fairly lone voice. Christians don't use his bible as gospel truth. Why do you think VP embraced him? He had "special knowledge" that other learned, thoughtful, contexual critics, don't ascribe to. There is not a huge movement out here to explore Bullingers work. Not because he is unknown, but because he is dismissed. If you go to a Christian book store, order a Companion study bible, and the clerk has half a brain, he/she is going to direct you elsewhere. Why? They know it is the favorite bible of CULTS!! WHY???It is easy to come to similar conclusions of Marcion, if you don't have a basic gospel. An example of "Secret Knowledge" It is not like Marcion or others are a SECRET to bible scholars Danny. They don't need a library card. I don't need one. He is too easy to dismiss based on his own version of the gospel. He was not once as easy for us to dimiss. We actually embraced several of his ideas. That is where VP went, from the simple truth laid out to us, the gospel--- a Savior for sin---to a doctrine of "Free for all Grace" and an "Absent Christ". Yes, Marcion loved Pauls epistles, with the EXCEPTION of the pastoral epistles. He cherry picked the documents that circulated and he rewrote them. He dismissed the other gospel writers and focused on Luke, whom he KNEW was Paul's buddy. He was raised by a Christian father in a church established by Paul. Paul--was his guy!! There is evidence that he was excommunicated for sins of a sexual nature. "Defiling a virgin". He went up to the church at Rome--gave them a big pile of cash and stayed there for a time. They booted him as well, and actually gave him his money back!! He had to find a place he belonged. He sat under an identified and dismissed heretic. He learned "Secret Truth" that is what they themselves called it. He formed his own Church based on these doctrines. And I have to admit to you---they grew quickly for a time. But, they are gone and Christianity is still here. My point to you was, they rear their ugly heads every so often in the form of cults. All based on similar beliefs. That is why they are considered cults. That is what gives us our defenition of cults from a Christian perspective. We consider it a BAD thing. For many reasons, but the most compelling is it is always peversion of a simple truth. Christ-Jesus-God in the flesh came and died for our sins, was resurrected and will come again. Danny, do you know what really gets me upset? I, without objectively looking at it, and with the word of a pervert VP, believed that the Church Fathers were bad. That they tried to supress poor Marcion and others. That early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. That the doctrine and practice of Christians today is based on a lie---the winning team getting their way. I bought that garbage hook-line-and sinker. Too lazy to look myself and decide what I really thought. Let's look at it. Marcion, --Defiling a virgin, VP-defiling a church secratary---Marcion--looking for a place to go--VP the same---Marcion--sitting under a teacher with secret knowledge. VP-Stiles, Lenoard, Bullinger(Secret knowledge) Remember, the rest of Christianity is clueless. Marcion, taking his secret knowledge and starting his own churches. VP-PFAL and the Way---MArcion, big for a time--planted churches like weeds. VP - the way at its height, there was growth. Marcion, peverting grace into a sinless doctrine. VP the same--there is no sin anymore. It is grace. Marcion-preaching grace while putting his followers under the strictest legalism. VP--well we all know that one. It is Grace, but did you turn in your schedule, sell your house, and sleep with your wife last night? or how many drinks did you Way Corps have--you are moving here, did you jog today? Why do I think gnostic doctrine is bad? I think so, not only because the bible tells me, but I can see the result of its grip on the lives of its ascribers. What transformation? Where is the community? What happens to those who participate? Where is the salvation? Where is the truth-Jesus Christ? Where is He relagated? I could go on, but in the end this word sums it up. Fruit. What is the fruit of the gnostic tree? That is why the warnings -- the stark and dire warnings. It is a permeating belief system that ends in disaster--here and beyond. I would lovingly and with the most hopeful of heart Danny, submit to you, that you threw out the bible and the beauty and heart of God for YOU--based on a cultivated and fertile presupposed mindset. You didn't uncover some long untapped historical data written up by German scholars in a persuasive and scholarly manner that you looked at objectively. Or that the rest of Christian scholars missed. You were ripe with their perspective from the start. The sarcastic soliloquy of Clement in the cave was not lost on me. If you were in the Way, you were half way there. I say this as a participant--not an observer, which I hope in some small way lets you hear me. I love your questions about Jesus. They don't offend me or send me into a full blown lock-down mode. I am not so jazzed on your assertions about Marcion as equal in merit to the church fathers or their contemporary Christian faithful. My perpective there has expanded, I look with less ex-way vision. It has no real substantive weight, and therefore easily dimissed in my mind. However, I know what it is for ex-way to let go of their secret knowledge and one doctrine in paticular. The one that leads to salvation. Which is why I get chills at the very name Marcion in connection with ex-way. He is where he belongs-in the garbage dump of church history, but the defense that his ideas have merit, or somehow his gnostic view was the same thing as the Church fathers -- by someone who doesn't believe either rings hollow. If you are going to take that view, take both sides of the issue--evaluate the doctrine --seek out the reasons they were so opposed and then throw them out if that is still your desire. Danny--I really do think you are a thoughtful man--it is for this reason I answer you. Cman-Just look at these terms as descriptive necessities, and not as labels. I consider them valid labels, but maybe that will help you not to be offended.

Let me just add this on--One of the reasons why I give little serious thought to the idea that Luke would have copied Marcion, is that Luke would have reviled him. Polycarp called him the "first born son of satan". He bought his way into the church at Rome--and soon after they booted him and gave him his money back. They were hurting after that, but it was better to be rid of him. They despised his teachings which were contrary to the beliefs and practices of the church. The only good to come out of his churches was celibacy. His churches didn't last. He reminds me of the Way--teach one thing-live another. Geisha Anything else you wanna talk about?:) By the way, historians could have saved themselves a bunch of trouble--they could have come to this thread---learned the life expectancy of the average man in the 1st century and threw out the whole thing. I wonder why they didn't consider this?

Hi Dan I want to be honest with you. This is a difficult discussion for me to have and I have thought about today for quite a bit. As you can well imagine--coming out of TWI into the Christian world at large was a process. Saturated with the secret knowledge, and a gnostic flavored version of TWI bible thumping magic, I felt far superior to my fellow man for a very long time. Arrogance is a mark of The Way that I believe stems in part from the gnostic aura surrounding their less than conventional teachings. I have been out for years, but it has not been years since the Ways stink has been washed from me. I clung tightly to my special knowledge. In fact, when I was accused here of being condescending, it quickly served to remind, sadden and to humble me. Having had the fairly unique and often horrific Way experience--which is what can often shape us, I have a less than calm and reasoned reaction to Marcion. To me, and I understand this does not apply to all ex-way, there is no debate here. That is not to say I won't engage you in a bit, but TO ME, it is an untenable position to support . I also have an emotional response to this topic. I have so far been unbothered by fly by comments and a SOMETIMES less than welcoming response on this thread--This topic, I react to viserally. It is too reminiscent. I have no respect or patience with gnostic teaching. Marcion was a gnostic and a heretic. I immediatley and with dogged tenacity identify with the Apostolic church fathers of the 2nd century. I see the debate over his cannon as a catalyst for good. With his REWRITTEN cannon he presented a strong case that HAD to be dealt with. I am thankful for this. I don't see it as a strange dispute between factions, I view it as the oppurtunity for the Church Fathers to deal with it and clarify the same faith that had been PRACTICED and believed for the previous 100 years. As you might be aware, it is only a small school of scholars who support the position that Marcion was copied by Luke. Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument. He could have had early access to some documents at Sinope. He left some verses in that did not support his position. . . . . . . Some say it wasn't even him, but someone at Sinope after he was excommunicated. . . . . . . . There are some okay arguments out there. I have read some of John Knox. Marcion also took his pen to Pauls work. He tried to errdicate anything too Jewish. I am sure you know he sat under the teachings of Cedro and obtained his own "Secret Knowledge" He pretty much dismissed the entire OT. Some of the reasons I dismiss him ARE his teachings. They don't work with the OT---they don't fit with the thread of the bible--its theme if you will. A Savior from sin, fits . For me he is just too far fetched---an affront to the beauty and reason of the gospel. It is a bizarre doctrine with an incompetent God, a barbarian God of the OT, a peaceful God saving us from the other God, not our own sin, which we are convicted of. No judgement, no ressurection of the dead. . . He loved the grace that Paul taught, but twisted the logic and simplicity of it. Funny, he so mirrors The Way. He taught one thing and lived a completely differing lifestyle. He lived an ascetic life--demanded it of others--FORBIDDING to marry. What really gets me is his claims of Jesus praising the androgenous original man/woman. Sounds like LCM and his version of original sin. That was okay for a dumb, blonde, blue eyed, 19 year old with no experience of worth with a church, I have grown up. Perhaps it is just as it says--a warning for teachings around at the time the epistles were written. Who was around? Where did he learn this stuff. Perhaps Clement didn't hide away in a cave, but it was Paul who warned us. Beware of special knowledge Dan. Sometimes things that are taught to us in history are correct. We are free to believe whatever we want, and free to try and restore the "Good name" of a heretic. But, I have sat under a heretic, I have seen the fruit in his life--destruction and pain. I no longer embrace them, but, do actively RUN the other way. I am incredulous that you let this be the straw the broke the camels back for you, but I almost think it is better to not believe for a time--than to believe a cloying gnostic doctrine. Anyway, I appreciate the time--it was a painful consideration, but in my lone perspective here--a worthy one! Geisha

Hi Lindyhopper, I agree that it is a skeletal argument. I also understand why the noncanonical books were disputed. The criterea needed to meet, so as to find them reliable. You might be interested to know, or perhaps you do, that part of the reason was historical accuracy. OH MY!!! The men who chose the cannon were men who considered the facts. Much like today, there were standards by which biblical books were picked. These men disagreed. Which is why we have books considered apocrypha or false in other bibles. Do you honestly think that those books, declared to be innacurate, have just been left unstudied for all this time? I said it was a bare bones argument. I said that it was a piece of evidence---not the entire thing. Probabilities! Do you build a case with one piece of evidence? I didn't get into the argument of the canon. Not yet--but all may not be as it appears from a cursory reading of the differing councils. Probabilities and context with a stab at objectivity can often give one a logical conclusion. If you are not willing to consider an argument, but set out to refute on your presupposed ideas--no honest evaluation is likely. Read Gant. I'll be back.:) Take Care, Geisha Bramble, I am interested in what it was about wicca that drew you. I am not preaching at you, just wondering what kind of Christianity you were exposed to other than TWI? It might surprize you to hear that I can see, after the Way, what might have pulled you toward Wicca/neopaganism. It had to seem like a more gentle and less judgemental faith. I would not tell you that you are wrong either. I also understand the shrug. I would just like people to consider the God of the bible on a more accurate portrayal of His qualities of kindness and love. Of His love for His creation. After all, we claim He made the earth and all that is within it. Worth a look, don't you think? A gentle, calm, nonjudgemental look? Perhaps hearing what He is really like, might ring somewhat true to your inner-self. You did say you missed the whole personal relationship thing. What you have been exposed to here on this very thread is enough to get you to RUN not walk to the nearest exit. There are some great things about God, that I bet we might of missed in TWI. Just a thought.

If we can agree about the reliability of what we have today as accurate to within 400 words as the NT we can sure look at the leap to it being reliable testimony. I would really like to talk about some evidence for Jesus being who He claimed He is. I got my lovely little jury duty notice in the mail the other day. I go every couple of years and sit and wait to be called. I have never had to sit for duty, but I, as do you, know a tiny bit about how a trial works. What is considered as reliable for testimony. An eyewitness to a crime is a powerful thing for a defense attorney to overcome. He /she must discredit a witness who has firsthand knowledge of a crime. Nasty tactic, but that is what it takes. Eyewitnesses give us our history that is relied on as true. We believe John Wilkes Booth killed our 16th President because of eyewitness/recorded testimony. We take the word of eyewitnesses at the scene of an accident. "That guy ran a stop sign and hit the car." If there is more than one eyewitness that agrees--the testimony is far more credible. As the witnesses mount the testimony is harder and harder to refute. The new testament is written as eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge to the events recorded OR they record firsthand accounts of the events. We have already discussed that 11 of them were lead to their deaths for the testimony they refused to recant. They did not strap on bombs and murder innocents, they themselves were innocent. That is a very powerful affirmation of their story. 2Peter 1:16 tells us they knew the difference between a myth -- a lie--and the reality of what they witnessed firsthand. Remember, these events are attached to a real historical figure. They knew Him personally. I am loathe to quote scripture at ex-way, but can we agree that over and over again, they talk of the things they witnessed firsthand? 1John1:1-3/Acts1 1-3/1Cor 15:6-8 1/Peter 5:1/Acts 1:9 / Luke 1: 1-3 I could go on. Paul said that he "uttered words of sober truth." Paul, a former persecutor of Christians. A very serious scholarly man who loved Israel. What were they testifying to? That Jesus lived here, His sermons--yes, but also the miracles that He did. Now, before we jump to discrediting the eyewitnesses, we have to remember where they lived, their culture--what scripture meant. They were mostly Jews who revered the OT. Josephus tells us what the words meant to them. ". . . how firmly we give credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as we have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews , immediatley and from their birth to esteem those books. . . " To use your words--call them superstitious. They were serious about what they wrote as truth. In fact, they knew and believed from the OT that God hates false witness. In our society today you can go to jail for perjury. JAIL!!!!!You lie about what you see and are believed --people go to prison. These men revered and feared God. Yes, feared Him. God tells us NOT to bear false witness. They knew this better than you or I. Context is really important in trying to discredit these guys. An understanding of their culture, their faith, their national identity. Their community was wrapped up in their faith. They lived it. Okay--so all of them had a mass delusion of internalized their beliefs. HUH? They all lied? Only a few problems with that idea. One, there were too many of them. They could not coordinate such a huge lie. Even if they could some way pull it off--- they relied on the firsthand knowledge of those they converted. ---They used this knowledge. You know about these things---you saw--Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to these words:Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him IN YOUR MIDST. They didn't convert THOUSANDS of people with a lie. They reminded them what they too had seen. So, Jesus lived and died and people believed He was . . . Doesn't make Him the Son of God or any different than L Ron Hubbard. The only problem with that is. . . there are not over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of L Ron Hubbard. Luke 24:48 Acts 1: 8 Acts 2:32 Acts 3:15 Acts 4:33 Acts 5:32 Acts 10:39,41 Acts 13:31 Acts 22:15 Acts 23: 11 Acts 26: 16 1Corinthians 15: 4-9 15 1John 1:2 Context is really important here. Your eyewitness testimony is credible in a court of law. 2000 years later it can put someone away for a long time. Why is their eyewitness testimony less credible than yours? If anything, theirs is more credible in testifying to the events they witnessed. These men have more than one eye on their account. History is written on much less. Lying was a serious offense in their culture unlike ours where the meaning of the word "is" can be split and debated. Okay, so maybe Jesus did live and people did believe that they saw what they said they did, and wrote it down. It is too hard to believe that all that metaphysical stuff happened.You didn't think so once. Instead of saying it can't be true because they say he was raised from the dead--investigate this historical account without any supposition. It is compelling. It was written within 100 years of the events---too long to be believable---they had time to coordiante a lie. Is that what it says they were doing. Or were they being persecuted, beaten, stoned and killed while coordinating their lie. Thrown out of their community--excommunicated, cut off. Some were starving. What a lie to be protecting. It doesn't even make sense. To what end--a quicker death? These were Jews, they could have been in their homes and communities -- living the good life. Making a living. If they thought it a lie--why wouldn't they make one up that got them something other than persecution in this life? Why didn't Jesus just write it Himself? Much of our history is written about others, not by them, Alexander the Great, Charlemange, Cleopatra, Ceaser. . . . . . . . It is how we know our history---portrayals of historic figures. Jesus was portrayed as a meek and humble carpenter---He died a humiliating death---He didn't ride in on a great white stallion, but a donkey. What kind of flattering portrayal is that? Pliny the Younger--A History--found 750 yrs after it was written--all 7 copies. Not disputed Herodotus--A History--1,300yrs --8 copies Thucydides--History--1,300yrs 8 copies Sophocles 1,400 yrs Aristotle 1,400 yrsPlato 1,400 yrs This is just a skeletal outline of this argument. There are too many variables. I barely scratched the surface. Sorry for my spelling!! Too tired to check it!!

Wow, I even went to the storage shed today and dug out all my notebooks. But you are right, if you don't want to know, then nothing I say will convince you. I am more than willing to engage in civil conversation. Why on earth would I judge you for your unbelief? Is there a direct sign leading to God. Step this way? NOPE. But then, if God is ALL he says He is--His presence might just overpower our free will. Love has to be given freely. He woos He doesn't compell. I didn't tell you anything untrue. If I sounded condescending it was my horrid mistake, I sincerely apologize. Let me say that I would not engage in doctrinal conversation for sport. I really believe what I say. I know why I believe it. I am ready to defend why I believe it. That should offend no one. George, why would I take the time to discuss these matters with those here I don't respect? Contrary to what you might think--Christians have a life. I have two jobs--two kids--a husband--a home--a church--and I work on behalf of persecuted Christians. I see something in the posts here. I see bright thinking people. Christianity is reasoned thinking. It appeals to history. The data is so accesible. Jesus is a factual historic figure. Eyewitness accounts are relied upon everyday as factual. There are cognitive, informational facts, the same of which we use in legal and historical decisions today. We make important choices everyday on less facts than you have to support the reliability of the bible and its claims. The NT is the most reliable ancient document we have. The number of copies--the translations--the documents of the early church fathers. Extra biblical writings. The history of the OT is the most comprehensive ancient history we have. It is amazing. But, if you don't want to know--it will be of little interest to you. I went to the British Museum, the Library in London, and the Ashmoleum and looked at what I could. I wanted to know. Lindyhopper, Yes, there are MUCH better Christians than I who everyday defend what they believe. It is called Apologetics and there are very bright people who are able to give comprehensive answers to the questions of why? If your interested you should look into it. You might be pleasantly surprized by the academics of it all. Christianity is not only factual it is an objective faith. It has an object--Jesus Christ. There is amazing work done in the defense of the resurrection. It has been awhile, I think one book is called "Who moved the stone" or something similar. I had the breakdown of all the translations of the NT and their comparisons to other ancient lit we have. I even got ancient history we rely on today as factual and compared it to the reliability of the OT. I was going to show you why I believe it to be factual. I have a great quote from a distinguished archaeologist about the OT history. I have quotes from The Cambridge Ancient History. I started putting together my case for you on why I believe. However, I sense little interest in a really deep discussion and I will not foist my beliefs on anyone. Defend them--YES--hit you over the head--NO. I have to tell you this as well, nobody here has upset me. I lurked before I posted. I think you are all bright and articulate people. Oakspear--glad to hear you shower--it was keeping me up at night.

Hi Oakspear, Just wanted to add--after a second cup of coffee, that you are going to find lots of info out there in cyber world. I would challenge you to not immediatley embrace the perspective that you feel most comfortable with. It is interesting that you posted an article, which on the surface, refutes my claim of historical supported evidence for tthe bible. You did say you found other POV. Look at both arguments as equal in merit for a time. Why not put aside any preconcieved ideas; formed in the wake of a destructive and painful experience, surrounding our times with Joe Blow wack-job who thumped a bible. And let yourself with, a degree of detachment, consider the arguments. Think about this. There are atheist who are going to adamantly tell you there is no God. Truth cannot be known!!! I alway picture these declarations with accompaning foot stomping. That statement is self-defeating in nature. You can hear them ring out like a loud bell. If truth can't be known--how can they say this is true? With a straight face--how can they make such a proclamation. So, I just challenge you not to gravitate to your most comfortable position. That is being intellectually honest. Not to shore up your point of view, but to weigh and seriously consider the opposing perspective. Just a thought. It is a difficult challenge. I have confidence you are more than able.

Hi Oakspear, Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in its declarations of God. That it is His declaration of self. His relationship to man. If I am unable to defend my position to, beyond a reasonable doubt, to you---than why would I myself believe it. As I said--taking it on faith? I can take on faith that the clouds are made of cotton candy. After all, they look like it! It took me a few years to search these things out. and to honestly consider all the variables. To build faith. THEN I come to find out---there is a whole bunch of people who do this all the time---defend the bible as true and the exsistence of God. To quote Adam Sandler "INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL YESTERDAY" History is one small part of the why--but for me--one of the fascinating ones. If you are interested I will happily consider your arguments. I don't shy away from a defense of the Gospel. I embrace it. Like you, time is a luxury, but I will do my best. Be patient. One post will not get you to genuinley consider the probabilities. 100 may never get you to, but they may influence some of your perspective. They may give you insight into the heart and mind of a Christian. Most information if viable-is useful for something. Lucky me. I get to work the holiday today. Day and night. Back at ya soon. Geisha

Word Wolf--That. . . was. . . an. . . AWESOME read!! Thank-you for that effort. Astute very astute!

Hi Oakspear, I read your article, and have read many like them in the past. I have 10 books in storage that have a much different perspective. I gotta tell ya, I spent 6 years of my life in the pursuit of a history degree. I have heard it all. Within the same department I have heard differing opinions on the same evidence. Historians said, well one said, that Christmas wasn't celebrated in the town of Old Deerfield, MA. Some nosey little undergrad came along--found one tiny little document that blew the whole theory out of the water. All she got was a "Mention"in the back of his revised book! But, as evidence mounts and things come to light---conclusions have to be drawn. Oakspear, I know for a fact the bible is used OFTEN as an historical reference Historians write books that cite the bible. It is by its very nature a history. It is not laughed out of Academia. I had an atheist proffesor(A tough one) who used the bible constanly in class. I corrected him on his Greek once.(Thanks to TWI) He called me into his office, where he had shelves lined with bibles, to quiz me on how I knew that. If he only knew--right? I looked at the evidence. I weighed the probability and to me it was "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." We could go back and forth with examples. I could cite you recent finds, but we are NOT going to be able to prove every account in the bible as historically accurate. I will give you that. So what? For me, there is enough evidence to lend GREAT credibility to the bible as history. But, I have to tell you it is that way with MANY historical conclusions. We look at the evidence, try to find corrobaorating sources, and try to draw an unbiased picture. I once used a diary for an independent project. I had ONE outside source. I was able to paint a very accurate picture of a long dead women, her life and loves. Her words were my source. She could have sat in her house and made the whole thing up. Not likely, it was written over years and it painted a picture of her life. The bible goes beyond that. Many men tell the same story over many years, Think about that? Without predjudice consider that phenomenon. 40 authors--3 continents-1405BC-95AD-Same underlining story!! The bible paints you a picture--it tells a story--a paticular story. Weigh the evidence. Challenge yourself to prove it wrong. Be intellectually honest(I don't think that is a problem for you) Not only for the history of the bible, but for the existence of God. What evidence points in His direction? What evidence points away? There is both. Don't dismiss the bible because of some article you found on the internet. I heard your interview---you are a smarter guy than that. Weigh the evidence for yourself. It is what I did. But, if you don't want to be accountable to some god, your pursuit may be halfhearted at best. I must say, if you think the God of TWI and the God of the bible are remotely similar--You might have good reason to hesitate. I have come to the conclusion that God is not the cosmic waiter I once imagined Him to be. But then, to create such an vast yet intricate universe with His words--well think about it. We haven't even begun to build a case of probabilities yet. I know you may find this difficult to believe given my profession of Faith, but I understand your perspective. Been there--still have the tee-shirt. I just don't wear it anymore. I worked with my hubby today--guess what I did? THE GRUNT WORK!!!! I shoveled mulch all day while the "Master Gardener" made things pretty! I am TIRED, but I really wanted to answer you. It was important to me.

Hi Oakspear, I actually respect your questions. If I were to say to you -- I just take it on faith--that would mean what?? NOTHING!! It would mean that I don't know why I believe as I do. It would mean that I was assuming a whole lot with what is potentially the most important decision of my eternity. There was a process I went through in coming to Christ. It included weighing the evidence concerning the verasity of the bible, creation, intellegent design and historical accuracy. I was rather quick this morning--this is a big discussion. Happy to have it, but it is not something I can articulate in a paragraph. So, I apologize. I turned in a paper --the bible is historically accurate--therefor true. Is not the answer your worthy questions deserve. I would like to look at the assertion that the authors of the bible had an agenda. I chuckled as Peter immediatley sprung to mind. I am sure you have heard this, but please consider it again. If you were Peter, and you had a say about what went into the bible, would you have included---get thee behind me Satan? Or the fact that you denied the Lord not once -- not twice -- but THREE times? Yeah, I would NOT want that info front and center. How about cutting off that Roman soldiers ear only to have the Lord heal it. Or having Jesus rebuking you for not having enough faith? I don't know about you, but I like to be portrayed in a better light than having God call me Satan. But here is the thing that helps convince me that any supposed agenda was true. 11 of those 12 apostles died a martyrs death. All they had to do was to recant. I like my neck attached to my body(We are funny that way). I don't know about you, but I am not dying for a lie. Not one of them recanted. None of the 11 died peacefully. There are so many things that make me believe the bible. Historical accuracy--supported by archeology. Intellegent design, and the scientific evidence of a creation. The thing that really intrigued me though, was the history. The evidence to support the accounts of the OT. You should look into it sometime. Come at from a skeptical viewpoint as I did. For me, the evidence was powerful. If it is accurate in its history. Then it is AMAZING in its prophecy. Ancient documents written about this man who would come claiming to be God. Born of a certain bloodline--in a certain town--live a certain way--die--and raise from the dead. How did they know this? There are over 500 eyewitness accounts of his resurrection. You do believe that the prophecies of His comming were written long before He was born? Like I said--it was not one thing, but for me an overwhelming amount of evidence which lead me to consider the bible as true. Truth has to have a corresponding object. For me the truth of the bible and its corresponding God are now obvious, but I have to remember--they once were not.

Hi Abigail, The first part of your question is a definite yes. I have and do discuss issues of faith with people of differing faith. And to a degree-but not in perhaps the way you might think--it does influence my faith in Jesus. Did you know that no other faith but Christianity teaches salvation by grace? This is amazing to me. Some other religions teach a need for salvation--but by works. I recently spent some time with a Buddhist. We had a great discussion, and I learned a great deal. It didn't change my heart or my faith, it only served to affirm it. I have examined most faiths at one time or another. Which is PART of the reason I am a Christian. Since I think that most of the worlds faith's have less in common than more--it would be hard for another religion to cause me to grow in my own faith. I do love to hear what people believe and why. How commited they are and how able or willing they are to defend their beliefs.

Hi Oakspear, In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning. I hope that you will bear with me. I went to school for history. That is my degree and for a time my field. I didn't go to a Christian or bible school. Just a few secular, well respected Universities. I only tell you this to illustrate a point. I wrote a paper once, and at the time it was all consuming and rather important to me. I was stuck on a question about the Apostle Paul. I called a Professor who couldn't help me--but did give me the name and phone number of one of the most respected and published authorities on the life of Paul. Being blonde, bold, and brassy I called him. Do you know what he cited as a reference for me? The Book of Acts. I in turn, used this reference after working it myself. I was never hauled into the Deans office and quizzed on my bizarre theory that the bible is an historical reference. I was able to defend that paper successfully. I tell you this to emphasize the importance of the bible as an historical document. I am sure you know that the historical Jesus is not often disputed with any real credibility. That being said--your question wasn't about historical fact: it was how I know the bible conforms to God's reality. Very simple. It declares it. Exodus 20:2. Anticipating your next question--Galatians 1: 8 and 9 Now, given that the bible is a credible historical document---Jesus is a credible historical figure whom we are still discussing some 2000 years later. Given that Jesus still causes such an emotional and often vitriolic response--pretty amazing for some old, crucified, dead, Jew, wouldn't you even consider the possibility that the bible is a book about the reality of God and His relationship with man? That is what it declares itself to be. It declares that it has all things pertaining to life and Godliness. It declares He is evident in creation--a whole big discussion. It declares His existence. There is nothing circular in that reasoning. Most historical evidence is written. Magna Carta--Declaration of Independence. . . . . . . .

The letter of Assumptions--by St. John the divine of Indiana This is what happens when people isolate themselves from the Christian community at large. No accountibility. John, get out there and meet some of the Christian youth today. If you can catch them off the missions field or in-between building houses for low income people. That is if you can catch them in-between ministering to the sick==or raising money for persecuted Brethren. Go to a reputable Bible College and speak with any freshmen. Bet he/she could give you a run for your money. We were never better, or smarter, or more "Spiritual" than anyone. We were duped. Stealing Dale Carnegie, EW Bulliger, and EG Leonard does not a biblical "research" ministry make. Hasn't this all caused enough pain and suffering? Quit trying to lead people astray---What's the matter? TWI lite run out of personal prophecy? Go find some widows and orphans to pick on.

Lindyhopper, Bingo! Now hold that same standard to yourself. To think that the god that you have faith in, which is based on your own subjective experiences and POV, is absolute and universal, you would have to know everything, the ins and outs of the ways of God. That is, of course, if there is a god and if there is only one God and if there is not another universe of gods and if there is not a race of intelligent machines that has us in a virtual existence feeding off our juices and if there is not an alien race that controls us telepathically across light years of space and time etc etc. The number of unverifiable possibilities exceeds our ability to imagine them. This is why I don't engage in apologetics. I never said my faith was based on subjective experiences or POV. In fact, I have articulated that my Faith is in the person of Jesus Christ. God to Christians minus The Way, Mormons, Moonies, JehovasWitnesses and the cast of Fraggle Rock. He is --as you have heard before--the way the truth and the life--I don't have to know everything-I know Him. I am hesitant to use that term here, because it has been bandied about like a blunt instrument. As for the rest of your argument, I will let that stand on its own merit. How can you possibly know the scope of the reality of God's existence and how the Bible conforms to it and how this God deals with human beings without knowing everything? And, if you only know it in part, couldn't the parts that you don't know be rather significant given the presumed scope of God? Couldn't those unknown aspects amount to something greater or lesser or different than the absolute and universal beliefs that you hold? LindyHopper, you know what the bible is about. It is not a cookbook? Again, I don't have to know everything to know truth. I know Christ. Yes, I am positive there are things I don't yet understand about God. However, Jesus came to show us God. To reveal Him. I would never presume to damn someone to hell, or tell them they are headed there. I am no evangelist--I do enjoy reading D.L Moody and Charles Spurgeon though. It is a doctrinal thread and I have shared my faith--not judged you for yours or lack thereof. In fact, I didn't believe for quite awhile after TWI although I went through the motions. So, I might actually be able to empathize with you--without trying to convert you and possibly relate to you on a unique level. If you can get past my faith in Christ and belief in the bible--if you are not too busy being tolerant of everyones right to choose their path.

Hi Oakspear For the sake of discussion I'll stipulate that it can. How then can you determine which of the competing "truths" is THE TRUTH The bible is true because it coforms to the reality of Gods existence and His dealings with us as human beings. Truth has to have a match up with what is actual or real. Otherwise it is not true. Let me ask you a question. Do you think reality can be shaped anyway you want? Interesting take, similar to the atheism = religion argument. I suppose if one were to say "there is no way that your "truth" can be TRUTH, I might agree with you. It goes back for me to theory vs. practice. In theory truth can be determined, in practice I haven't seen it done. I did say that. To say no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else beliefs--is wrong. I also said it is a religion unto itself. Now, because you Oakspear have not seen truth determined--means what? It has never been determined? Not at all. All that it presupposes is that no one has come up with an objective verifiable measurament of that "knowing". You just proved my point. You would have to know all to seriously make this statement--How the universe is wired--the ins and outs of God--if there is a God. . . To make this statement--you would have to know truth--the actual reality that there is no objective verifiable measure--

Hi Abigal, I really enjoyed your post-truly. My point was--I believe what I believe and that is unchangable. Because of my faith in Christ--FOR ME--He is All. There is no other way to God--that actually is part of my faith. Perceiveable to many as intolerant. As such a steadfast believer, I can find no common ground on issues of faith with those that don't accept Him as Savoir. To me, it is not just a belief--it is the fabric of who I now am. Does that make any sense? It is not just a notion or an excerise in philosophy--it is my heart and my soul. It is how I live. BUT--if I live it the way Jesus meant--I will love, not judge--I will serve, not take and I will strive to keep peace. There is no one of any other faith not welcome in my home--with the exception of Satanist--who kinda scare me. Homosexuals --- atheists--- exway :) All welcome! I would never turn my back on anyone in need. But, that is what I believe is expected of me as a follower of Christ. I long to serve others. Do you know what I mean? If it is lived right--it is an amazing thing. I strive for this because I have been given a second chance--I am redeemed. That is my belief--confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit--but not TWI's version. LOL You might actually like me if you met me. I don't always speak of matters of faith. This is a doctrinal forum and that is what we are talking about. LOL I can party with the best of em--unless it is after 10:00pm. Then I start to fade. I sure would like to know how that happened? Christians are no better than anyone else!!!!! I really mean that. In fact, think about it. To realize you need a Savoir--you have to see you are a sinner---that is what brings us to the Cross. I know my shortcomings and they are plenty. Hope this helps explain a bit. I do really like ex-way people. I mean--we picked a podunk cult--slogged through together and all landed in different places. We share a unique experience. And as much as it irks me--it did, for a time, shape us. I still carry some scars from those days--actions resulting from a vapid system of flagrant theology. Things I can never undo--you know what? I know you "get" that. George: Isn't "apathetic agnostic" redundant?:)

HA! And then maybe you can have a judge rule that your right to believe is fine---as long as you don't act on those beliefs by raping and abusing other men's wives. Just cause your the MOG don't cha know! --if it wasn't true it would be comical. What were those allegations again? What did the Way settle out of court on? Oh yeah, I remember. When was it any "Leadership" just sat and read the bible--WITHOUT expounding? From what I remember you couldn't get them to shut-up. Our turn now and that just gets under their skin-doesn't it? Ahhh Freedom of Speech--Gotta love it.

I would respectfully disagree with you. I do believe that absolute truth can be known. However, I also think that the belief system that says no one can know truth in such a way as to invalidate someone elses beliefs is wrong, and is in itself religious. It has its own affirmations--doctrines--and denials. To say that God cannot be known at all presupposes that the one saying this knows all. Which is what saying our beliefs are similar fosters. Why is it that a broken, unworthy, sinful, repentent Christian who dogmatically holds fast to Jesus and the bible is arrogant? While the "All paths lead to God-tolerant-we are more alike than different" relativist disciple is enlightened? This system uses absolutes to say there are none. As much as I can love you, I cannot agree with you. I am positive there is no other way but that of Jesus crucified, buried, and risen. With His refining work to follow. It is hardwired into me. I am unflappable. Therefore, by many standards arrogant and unenlightened. I surely do not mean to sound harsh, but I am steadfast. Not because I see myself as morally superior, in fact I know that I am not, I am broken, sinful, and unworthy to stand before a Holy God. That is why I cleave to Jesus. I don't judge those who believe other than I---not my job or inclination. I just don't find common ground and build from there. Faith in Christ is what it is. Ah, but if the martyrs were Christians and they were blowing up innocents in the name of a holy war???? If they were killing off the Jews and heretics as was done in the 1400 - 1500's? If they were killing off Native Americans and forcing their children to convert to Christianity??? Well, if someone did do that in the name of Christianity it would not be anything to do with Christ. We are called to love. Not just our friends which is easy, but our enemies. I am called to love Hindus-Muslims, Jews, Pagans and on we go. To feed the poor, comfort the sick and to give of myself to the point of selling what I have to give if need be. No matter their faith. I said before that I could cite countless things done in the name of Jesus that are chilling. I would argue that He had nothing to do with them. He healed all that He met who were in need--denied no one--and still desires all to come to Him. What man does, in His name to cause harm--is man doing it. This includes many of the things said and done by evangelicals today. I have very little respect for most modern day American evangelicals-who distort the simple beauty of the gospel with politics, protests, and televangelism. The Gospel message is a heart-wrenching beautiful love story--written by a God who desires you and paid a precious price to redeem you. That is what makes Jesus so unique You and I and this entire universe groan and travail and wait--I wonder you don't feel it? Abigal--my best to you.

Hi, To agree with you, I would have to presuppose that those who strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocents are martyrs for their faith. That is a supposition I cannot prescribe too. I do dare call it murder/suicide though. The two cannot be equated. Not without rationalization. Again, I am no good at apolegtics. It would take someone with far more knowledge and intellect to explain the difference between the Koran and the Bible--the essence of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. I can quote John14:6 to you ad nauseum, but why? You know it as well as I. I assume you have read your bible. That is one assumption about ex-way I feel safe in making. :) What I would like to say to you is that our experiences in the Way were abusive and detremental to our spiritual well-being. That is my opinion. However, if you at some point begin to thrist for more or a different relationship with God (I always want more) it is not only possible--it is a given He will welcome you. Please notice, I did not assume your spiritual life now is void. I don't know that. I don't judge that-I would just encourage you to listen to any tug or pull that you might feel on your heart. I am no brain--I am a heart kinda gal. I have that (obnoxious to some) steadfast faith that Jesus is able to save to uttermost. I would encourage you to read the same book I offered George--although I assume you are not an atheist. If he doesn't want it, I would happily send it on to you! Along with my very best. I feel a real kinship with ex-way. Who else would believe the stories we can tell!! Rather shocking to the average ear!

Hi, George, just an observation and in no way a judgement, you seem to work very hard at your unbelief. I am no apologist. I neither have the time nor talent to disabuse you of your narrow tenant and understanding, but I do empathize with it. I would however, direct you to a wonderful book by Frank Turek called I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I have met the man--he is a hoot. From JERSEY. If you like, I would gladly send it to you. My treat--if nothing else it will answer those questions you have. He addresses all the items laid out in your post. I sense you would rather dwell in the land of unbelief for awhile, but the book is yours if you would like. Along with my very best. Take Care

Hi, I know the stories to which you refer. Actually part of my undergrad work. Yes, there was an odd kind of ectasy in these people who fought to throw themselves first to ravenous beast. In the lines waiting for Christians to be brought out to lions--there were arguments over who would go first! Selfish? I don't know I do know that those who gives their lives for the Christian faith understand that God is JUST. An unfamilar characteristic of God to many Wayfers-Ex and present. Most Christians do understand that the glory and reward of heaven is far greater than the moments of earthly suffering. The man who was born blind--for God's glory--his reward is in eternity and never ends. His life here on earth was a blink. Paul talked about this-To live is Christ-to die is gain. But Paul lived and suffered and served. Because he loved. Other Christians do the same. Many in less than comfortable conditions. Knowing that we are slaves or servants of Christ. That is our calling. A blip on the Christian radar of a group of ecstatic self-made martyrs in no way exemplifies the heart of a servant of God. There are many examples of things done in His name that chill me. That is a whole other discussion--I could probably out cite you on those instances. The Way alone gives us enough material for a set of encyclopedias. That is why we are told to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. That is why we follow Jesus-hear His voice and KNOW Him. As for those who die in vain for a faith such as Islam. I don't think I really even need to point out the differences, but will just say that their deaths-steal from people, kill others and destroy the lives of many. There is a great book I would encourage you to read called Prisoners of Hope. It was written by the two American girls held by the Taliban during the beginning of the Afghanastan war. It really does exemplify the love in a Christian heart for muslims. As for this world -- this is where we make our decision about Jesus. It is a question that you are asked whether you realize it right now or not. And if Vp ever said anything true it was this. "You tell me what you think about Jesus Christ who he is and I will tell you how far you will go. . . " I for one love that you ask these questions. Jesus can stand-up under your scrutiny. I hope you are asking Him these questions as you seek Him out in the gospels. By the way, I do care for my mom who is older, well not really old, but infirm and as helpless as a kitten. So, I applaud your love and devotion to your parents and the care you gave them. It is in no way easy.