what "scripture" refers to

[brideofjc]

Bride,

Dueling faith conversations always die quickly. Why?

Well, we are talking about FAITH, that's why. It is a one way stream.

You compare an answer or a comeback coming to you, to a pillar of fire? Well, you compared it at first but then made it sound more like it is a token, your sign, that maybe you will see that pillar of fire consume some heathens some day. Might I add... Nothing like watching men, women, and children consumed by fire from the sky, because they don't pray to the same invisible friend that you do. Nothing really kills a conversation more than crazy talk like that. You mean talking about a recorded historical incident? Okay. It's like talking to a bunch of Japanese businessmen and telling them, "I've never seen a giant moth kill a large city of Japs, but that isn't to say I never will." Meanwhile you're wearing an "I *heart* Mothra" t-shirt. Who's Mothra? Forgive me, I don't worship that either, so I'm kinda in the dark. No pun intended.

Yes, I do. It is the same God, LH. No, I have not made it into a token that I absolutely will see fire fall from the sky. Although that would be pretty cool, IMB. The fire....lol....maybe not the target. Here is what I said:

Why doesn't it happen today, you say? I think it does, it just doesn't get the press. Perhaps not as grand as Elijah...but I know a person had challenged me verbally on something pertaining to Christianity (I can't recall the words now), but one of the promises that God has made, is that if you serve HIM with all your heart, HE will not let your words drop to the ground, but will perform them.

Your examples seem a little like apples and oranges.

Not really. What is in question that Oakspear brought up, are these showdowns as he put it. Both examples that I cited were "showdowns," not that anyone here on this board would have witnessed it, but they were. As I said, not as grand as Elijah, but the principle remains the same.

You claim the HS dropped these answers into your head. Ok. I think it was the everywhere present, all knowing, invisible, three headed Jack-a-lope, Skeeza. She's the god of quips, wit, smart answers, and good comebacks. Prove me wrong. May tar and feathers fall from heaven on me before I post this if I'm wrong.

Well, since I have never "heard" of her, I would doubt that she would grant such things unto me. However, my GOD did. Praise His Name!

I got a call from my brother the other day. You know how I knew it was him? I know his voice, because I have seen him in person and have heard that same voice in person. Its a different story when you hear things from an invisible something in your head. Who am I to say it isn't THE HS and who are you to say it isn't Skeeza? (praise be her name) Since we have never seen this HS in person, heard that voice in person, gave it a big hug, how are we to know WHO that voice is? Maybe you just know. Maybe EVERYONE says that, saint and sinner alike, sane and insane alike. There is no way to TRULY know at this point whether there are invisible things talking to us, much less that yours is right and Makmoud's is wrong, and that is why we call it faith.

While I have not "seen" the HS, He is the Spirit of the Lord, and the Lord did come to me (in vision form), so I guess at least for me, it isn't "just faith" but a deep personal "knowing." While you may not be able to say it is the HS, since it was to me that the HS spoke...I can say for sure it wasn't Skeeza, especially since I do not worship that god.

One thing is for sure though. This HS you are talking about is key to the conversation, because pretty much everything we know about this "Holy Spirit" (at least by that name) is from NT books, many of which are under question or have been. For some poeple, if Billy Bob wrote Acts, while trying to pass it off as Luke's, then perhaps the content of that book should be questioned a little more. What if Billy Bob wrote it to discount other writings or other "Acts" (there are other books of Acts) There are? Could you name some? and Billy Bob's side had more power, more men, and more money? It just so happens that this sort of thing has happened plenty of times throughout history. Yes, it has, LH, but usually with "creeds" that the RC church was forming to spell out what they believed. Those with the power, money, and forces (usually the same people) control the history written. Who needs fire from heaven when you've had plenty of rulers burning historical and religious books, even books of fiction (those three seem to overlap quite a bit) throughout the ages. It would depend on which religious book was involved.

Another point brought up... oral tradition. Ever play "telephone"? Try that for a few decades. The only way we can claim anything has been "preserved" over the centuries is by faith, because we have no clue what the original stories passed down orally, generation to generation, were.

But since the Masoretes were doing the preserving, it has been established, especially with the Qumran text of the entire book of Isaiah, which definitely proved that it predated the Lord Jesus and therefore the prophecies concerning the Messiah were not written from a post Christian perspective. Also, since the NT is mostly quotes and allusions and paraphrases of the OT, yes LH, we do know that the bulk has been preserved. While I do admit there have been some changes, and some of the "traditional" material has been left in (even though they have since obtained older extant mss), I also leave room that sometimes scholars are wrong as well. But it is always wise to "wait" awhile and see what happens. As I cited above, for many years it was believed that the messianic prophecies were written post Christian and Yahweh saw to it that the critical mss of Isaiah was preserved for thousands of years in a cave and a shepherd boy (I wonder if his name was David?) found them.

Edited May 18, 2008 by brideofjc

[brideofjc]

Bride:

Just in case it's not clear, I have nothing against Christianity, Jesus, the biblical god, faith, miracles, etc. I don't believe that Christianity is demonstrably false or that the biblical god doesn't exist. My points are not made out of disrespect, or to try to prove my view is superior to yours. They're just points to ponder. Lindy's last post sums up a lot of my thinking as well, so I won't take up bandwidth by repeating it all.

I do not believe that I said that your post was, Oak. Neither did I take it that way, I merely answered your post.

God or holy spirit communicates with you...I say "cool"...I'm glad it works for you.

Yeah, I'm blessed about it as well. Thanks.

One of the things that I have observed over the years here at GSC is that whenever a discussion wanders into a debate over where scripture came from, or whether it was really from the biblical god, most posters will serve up their experiences as validation that what the bible says is true. And that makes sense, because you really can't prove (or disprove) the veracity of the bible just by reading the text. If there was no experience of what was written there what good would it be?

Very true, because if there isn't an accompaniment of "personal experience," what good would the "faith" be? It would be empty indeed.

But when you get down to experience, my experience will be different than yours, and Lindy's will be different than mine and so on. If a subjective, internal experience, and a personal subjective interpretation of that experience is the standard, then one person's experience and take on spirituality is just as valid as anyone else's.

Just because something is "spiritual" doesn't make it truth. But that's just my take on it.

[Bramble]

A term I often hear used is 'unverified personal gnossis'. This would be where you experience your god or goddess. Non Christian people have these experiences, too. Non Christian also have 'victories' or things that happen to bless them that they attribute to their god or diety.

Many with faith in a diety can declare that their personal experience is the right one and set forth examples of proof from their own life. If you only move within the circles of your own faith, you might not see this in the lives of those who are not of your belief system.

[cman]

Very true Bramble.

so bride says he believes in one god.

and if I was to say the same would that not be 2?

cause believing in one god does not mean agreement on beliefs

what that one god is, for example

[sirguessalot]

all grace, penworks

i cant help but write and say

like ive been writing and saying

is that it seems that times like your family's

are closest to the biggest reasons why all those sacred books were originally written anyway

not so we can possess a pure perfect permanent interpretation of any one true experience

but that we might retain some hard won ink to stir our pure memory...if nothing else

medicine for those dark nights of the soul

and yeah brideofjc...very much like mother teresa

and the mother teresa in all of us

[brideofjc]

and you also replied ...

Hinduism may fall to the ground, even as Dagon fell and the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY saw to it that both the false god's head and hands were broken off. I think it says it all. Can't think or do anything.

How do you know the false god's head and hands were broken off ... except that it was a story written down. You are using the Bible to prove the Bible is right, over say Hinduism.

Yeah, Rhino, it would be very hard to prove the Bible right with the religious writings of the Hindus. But of course, if I was Hindu, using my religious book, nothing would be said, but oh, let a Christian use their religious book.....Need I go on?

You seem convinced of that as truth, based on your experiences ... I think this topic is not about that. It is about other views, and other writings.

Which came from someone's personal experiences. There's a concept for you. These other "views" as you call them didn't come out of nothingness did they?

It seems penworks has very good background to offer intriguing insight ... it makes me gag a little to think that you seem to want to "undershepherd" her back into the fold ... god told you to tell her ... blah blah ...

Penworks is a woman? She should have stayed. And no, I didn't envision myself as an "undersheperder"...perhaps a "sign post"....and again, no, God doesn't need to tell me to point people in HIS direction, I do it out of sheer joy. And if someone comes back after their twi experiences....all the better. It's just the twi experience that queered it.

It seems you want to take us from questioning whether holy men of God spake as they were moved ... to we should listen to you because god is moving in you. That doesn't seem like an improvement to me, it seems more like you are judging her views as heretical, as she mentioned.

Where is the "right" one, which is the "right" God? I have honestly asked myself this question for the past 20 years since leaving twi and I can say it's not easy to even present it here because of the "heretical" stigma it carries.

The above is what PW said and it was her own use of the word heretical. Not mine. Neither did I call her such either. But you can quote me and prove me wrong.

Your view is it is true because the HS works in you ... this topic is about writings ... or "scripture" and really about other options for those that have already spent years on the bible ... and have taken (a more honest look?) at biblical "problems" or other possibilities.

Yes, the HS has this unique way of validating the truth. Other options? Oh, you mean like Jeast posted: "prophesies are unique among other religious writings"....I believe my point was the focus of many of the biblical prophecies directed us to a Savior Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Salvation, Justification, Reconciliation through no other name.

I agree with you that there are many other prophesies but for some reason these are the ones that seems to cause such a big fuss. Kind of unique.

Yeah I agree, it's only when us "Christians" take a stand that we cause all of this "fuss." Amen, Jeast! Also, I'm familiar with textual criticism from my seminary days. I actually have books on the subject.

It just seems the Is it coming too close to home? comment is out of place and "preachy" and condescending. I do not believe that they are, Rhino. I come from a Christian perspective and I do not attempt to hide my beliefs. If PW is no longer Christian, she should have said so, but she only made it seem that she's questioning and as I stated, God isn't afraid of anyone's questions. If I was attempting to be "puh-rea-chy" I would have orated at least 5000 words or more. So, Hmmm, what are you doing? Puh-rea-ching at me or spanking me? The authority of a spirit working in brideofjc is not the topic. My HS told me to tell you that ... Again, can you quote where I said that to PW?

I'd like to stay on that topic ... but I admit, I have yet to read the books penworks mentioned ... so I have homework to do ... but that doesn't stop me from posting :) And I'm fairly certain penworks has much more to offer ... I'm willing to take the chance that she has exited the household that some bible thumpers perceive exists. The household does exist, Rhino...it's only been queered by twi perceptions. Once you get involved with other Christians that are so radically different from yourself, you find it out for yourself. If God strikes us down for venturing out .. so mote it be ... Naw, HE believes in free will, he always lets people do what they want to do. He doesn't force anyone to worship HIM.

Very true Bramble.

so bride says he believes in one god.

and if I was to say the same would that not be 2?

cause believing in one god does not mean agreement on beliefs

what that one god is, for example

Only if you're speaking of different gods.

And that a "she" to you, Cman!

Edited May 18, 2008 by brideofjc

[Oakspear]

You mean talking about a recorded historical incident? Okay.

No, not an historical incident. A story in a religious book.

Just because something is "spiritual" doesn't make it truth. But that's just my take on it.

My take as well, but I include Christianity in those things that aren't necessarily truth.

But of course, if I was Hindu, using my religious book, nothing would be said, but oh, let a Christian use their religious book.....Need I go on?

Yes you do. What Hindu or other non-Christian for that matter is, on this board, using their scriptures to prove any points?

Which came from someon'e personal experiences. There's a concept for you. These other "views" as you call them didn't come out of nothingness did they?

Yes, I agree that the bible is a result of people's personal experiences and their interpretation of them. The difference between those who have "holy books" and those who don't is that those with scriptures use their experiences to prove their scriptures and their scriptures to prove their experiences and invalidate others' experiences because they don't line up with their writings.

[Bramble]

The "I'm a Christian so everyone is intollerant of ME" just doesn't work for me, though it is quite popular in some Christian circles, it seems to me. It proves to themselves how evil the 'world' is--which really means those that don't think like you. Christianity is the dominant religion in our culture.

Most people here have not all left Christianity due to their TWI experiences. Most are still Christian! That is an oversimplification and does not take in someone's personal experiences outside of TWI. I suspect you would not listen to them, anyway, tell their non Christian stories, because it would be 'antichrist' which is to many just another way of saying 'evil.' Or the person would have to be deceived or a liar or whatever, because they do not agree with your doctrine.

Most of the very few nonChristians on GSC have been there, done that!

I think if an adamant, prostilitizing Muslim, Morman, Jew, Roman Catholic Or Pagan came on TWI they'd get plenty of flACK.

[brideofjc]

No, not an historical incident. A story in a religious book.

Which is your take...but since it is recorded in an historical book of the "Kings of Israel" and their interworkings with the prophets of Yahweh, one can safely conclude it really did happen. You're free to disagree and obviously you do. But for example, did George Washington really cut down the cherry tree?

My take as well, but I include Christianity in those things that aren't necessarily truth.

At least we're in agreement! LOL. However, I do not include Christianity, just to clarify the matter.

Yes you do. What Hindu or other non-Christian for that matter is, on this board, using their scriptures to prove any points?

I am not necessarily limiting my statement to posters on this board. I have no idea if there are any Hindus out here or not. It would be kind of impossible to prove my religion with an auto mechanics' parts book, wouldn't it? It kind of presupposes that one will use their religious book to prove their religion, does it not? Muslims quote their Koran/Quran to prove theirs, but as I said, if a Christian quotes theirs, ahhh, circular reasoning is taking place.

Yes, I agree that the bible is a result of people's personal experiences and their interpretation of them. The difference between those who have "holy books" and those who don't is that those with scriptures use their experiences to prove their scriptures and their scriptures to prove their experiences and invalidate others' experiences because they don't line up with their writings.

Not all of the Holy Bible could be classified as such. Psalms could, because those are personal songs of praise, albeit, I do believe they were still inspired by the HS. The Gospels are the "memories" of those that personally interacted with the Lord Jesus. Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

[Oakspear]

Which is your take...but since it is recorded in an historical book of the "Kings of Israel" and their interworkings with the prophets of Yahweh, one can safely conclude it really did happen.

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but "Kings" isn't an historical book and it does not pretend to be. I think the only thing that we can "safely conclude" is that the writer was a Yahweh fan!

You're free to disagree and obviously you do. But for example, did George Washington really cut down the cherry tree?

Good example. No one seriously believes that George Washington cut down a cherry tree. It's a story to illustrate his honesty.

Muslims quote their Koran/Quran to prove theirs, but as I said, if a Christian quotes theirs, ahhh, circular reasoning is taking place.

It's circular reasoning when they do it too.

The Gospels are the "memories" of those that personally interacted with the Lord Jesus.

Matthew and John, if they were the ones who wrote the gospels attributed to them, personally interacted with Jesus. Mark & Luke, if they are the Mark & Luke of Acxts, apparently did not.

Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual".

What exactly do you mean by "questions the authenticity"? I assume it means that if I experience communication with the Hindu goddess Kali, or the Celtic god Lugh I may be really experiencing something, but it's a devil spirit or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

[cman]

Only if you're speaking of different gods.

And that a "she" to you, Cman!

Different gods?

You said there was one!

And whether you are a he or she don't matter to me.

[rhino]

It seems penworks has very good background to offer intriguing insight ... it makes me gag a little to think that you seem to want to "undershepherd" her back into the fold ... god told you to tell her ... blah blah ...

And no, I didn't envision myself as an "undersheperder"...perhaps a "sign post"....and again, no,

I guess I'm just saying forums doesn't seem like a place to evangelize. Your "is it coming too close to home" comment is a personal probe into penworks life ... trying to be a sign post ... Perhaps penworks didn't mind at all ... I don't know what she considers herself ... But it isn't just the one comment ... you do a lot of "preaching" which is off topic. And no, I wouldn't want someone in this topic trying to convince me their Hindu experience proved their Hindu book was truth.

God doesn't need to tell me to point people in HIS direction, I do it out of sheer joy.

But it is off topic floods the topic with you trying to point people in your god's direction.

And if someone comes back after their twi experiences....all the better. It's just the twi experience that queered it.

Comes back where? Again ... your opinion, and more "witnessing".

You state "the household" does exist ... your personal opinion and nothing to do with the topic. and on and on ...

You seem convinced of that as truth, based on your experiences ... I think this topic is not about that. It is about other views, and other writings.

Which came from someon'e personal experiences. There's a concept for you. These other "views" as you call them didn't come out of nothingness did they?

I think we are talking of other historical views ... not a rehashing of Bible views that you believe because of your personal experience. We were questioning the basis of the bible based on other historical knowledge. You say ... "oh but the bible is true, because of my experience with HS ... and I out of sheer joy am here to bring you back to the household. No, you didn't use the word "heretic".

[brideofjc]

The "I'm a Christian so everyone is intollerant of ME" just doesn't work for me, though it is quite popular in some Christian circles, it seems to me. It proves to themselves how evil the 'world' is--which really means those that don't think like you. Christianity is the dominant religion in our culture.

Christianity might be the dominant religion on the surface, it doesn't mean that all who claim to be Christian are practicing it on a daily basis. And yes, shortly after the 1960's, it started turning into "open season" on Christians. I don't listen to secular radio very much, but when I do occasionally turn there, it's not an uncommon thing to hear remarks or jokes about the Judeo-Christian God or the religion. But from another post in a different thread, by your own admission, you said you were a practicing pagan. You probably wouldn't "hear" such remarks, or if you did, you probably wouldn't think that they were odd.

Most people here have not all left Christianity due to their TWI experiences. Most are still Christian! That is an oversimplification and does not take in someone's personal experiences outside of TWI. I suspect you would not listen to them, anyway, tell their non Christian stories, because it would be 'antichrist' which is to many just another way of saying 'evil.' Or the person would have to be deceived or a liar or whatever, because they do not agree with your doctrine.

I do not believe I ever said that I "never" would listen, I may not agree with it but sometimes I do listen to it just to keep up with things. However, some things, yes, I would relegate it to the category of evil, because IMO, it is. For example, I would not give the time of day to listen to a "Manson or a Dahmer", nor would I buy their autobiographies if they had ever written one. I won't even listen to Bill Clinton, because he is a liar and he's publicly proved it. And yes, I do believe that there is a spirit of anti-Christ and as the Apostle John said, "even now is it already in the world." And yes, I do believe that the only way to the Holy Father and Creator is through the Lord Jesus Christ and those that don't will suffer the consequences. If those that choose to not believe wish to salve their consciences by simply believing that such a God doesn't exist, etc., then that is their choice. I believe God has given to everyone free will.

Most of the very few nonChristians on GSC have been there, done that!

I think if an adamant, prostilitizing Muslim, Morman, Jew, Roman Catholic Or Pagan came on TWI they'd get plenty of flACK.

Perhaps.

Different gods?

You said there was one!

And whether you are a he or she don't matter to me.

Yes, there is! But I guess two people could worship their particular god and believe it is only one

and each would be correct, until they met the other. LOL.

[cman]

huh? wtf is that saying?

[brideofjc]

I guess I'm just saying forums doesn't seem like a place to evangelize. Did I quote Romans 10:9-10? Your "is it coming too close to home" comment is a personal probe into penworks life ... Crikey! I get a lot of personal probes then I guess into my personal life too. I take them with a grain of salt, and I answer some and other I ignore, it just depends. ...trying to be a sign post ... Perhaps penworks didn't mind at all ... I don't know what she considers herself ... But it isn't just the one comment ... you do a lot of "preaching" which is off topic. And no, I wouldn't want someone in this topic trying to convince me their Hindu experience proved their Hindu book was truth.

God doesn't need to tell me to point people in HIS direction, I do it out of sheer joy.

But it is off topic floods the topic with you trying to point people in your god's direction.

And if someone comes back after their twi experiences....all the better. It's just the twi experience that queered it.

Comes back where? Again ... your opinion, and more "witnessing". This was in response to "you", Rhino, not the topic at hand.[color=#000000]You state "the household" does exist ... your personal opinion and nothing to do with the topic. and on and on [/color]...This was in response to "you", Rhino, not the topic at hand. I didn't make these "comments" when I was discussing the "topic" but when I was answering "you."

I think we are talking of other historical views ... not a rehashing of Bible views that you believe because of your personal experience. We were questioning the basis of the bible based on other historical knowledge. You say ... "oh but the bible is true, because of my experience with HS ... and I out of sheer joy am here to bring you back to the household.

Yes, and the Bible itself bears itself out with its own historicity and authenticity, at least IMO. And I do believe I was speaking about textual criticism as well, did you miss that particular post perhaps? Plus, I would just like to add, does anyone question the authenticity or the historicity of secular books, like they do to the Scriptures? Not unless "experts" in that particular field can categorically disprove the author's statements. As far as the Bible is concerned, people throughout the centuries have been trying to debunk the Scriptures and they have yet to do it, at least in my humble opinion.

Let me see if I understand you correctly....I'm not allowed to posit my "opinions" or "beliefs" on a particular subject, namely the Scriptures, because it might be viewed as "preaching", while other posters can posit their "opinions" or "beliefs" because they "couch" them in secular terminology? And use phrases such as: "Other people say...." when most likely it is really their own personal view, but perhaps they are hesitant to put it into writing because someone might accuse them of being preachy? It's rather like the person who speaks with a counselor and says, "I have this friend who needs some advice...." Everyone knows they really are asking for themselves.

No, you didn't use the word "heretic".

[/color]

Ahh, but you see, at least I hope you do, that this them makes your post off-topic as well? But since the topic is about "Scriptures" it should be self evident that one will advance their Scriptures and it's veracity. If it includes "pointing" to "Scriptures" that the other poster has admitted a common bond to, sure, I'll admit it, I wish everyone who ever experienced the queering that twi doctrine did to those Scriptures and to those who innocently believed them and were trying to live them out, would either "come back" if they have left, or be strengthened if they are still hanging in there. If taking a stand upon the veracity of the Holy Bible, which I believe are the only Scriptures is being "preachy", well so be it. If there are any Muslims et al, then are they not free as well to propound what "Scriptures" are?

huh? wtf is that saying?

You could worship a god and believe that there is only one god.

I could also worship a different god and believe that there is only one god.

[anotherDan]

penworks,

My thoughts are with you as you attend your relative, and the other relatives.

Edited May 19, 2008 by anotherDan

[brideofjc]

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but "Kings" isn't an historical book and it does not pretend to be. I think the only thing that we can "safely conclude" is that the writer was a Yahweh fan!

Chronicles and Kings are thought of as historical books because they are detailing the lives of important people that God wanted to highlight. Deuteronomy also falls into this category.

Good example. No one seriously believes that George Washington cut down a cherry tree. It's a story to illustrate his honesty.

No, but old Georgy was into graffitti! Carved his initials into a natural monument.

It's circular reasoning when they do it too.

Matthew and John, if they were the ones who wrote the gospels attributed to them, personally interacted with Jesus. Mark & Luke, if they are the Mark & Luke of Acxts, apparently did not.

No, Luke was an historian compiling other people's memories. Mark is apparently a convert that the Apostle Peter had made and had schooled him in the Scriptures.

What exactly do you mean by "questions the authenticity"? I assume it means that if I experience communication with the Hindu goddess Kali, or the Celtic god Lugh I may be really experiencing something, but it's a devil spirit or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's just exactly as I stated it, the Holy Bible would question the authenticity of the "content" of the experience, not that you had an "experience." I experience things all the time in my daily life, and since I am Christian, it is my job to line it up with the Scriptures to see if it bears out the authenticity of the event. And yes, sometimes the experience may have come from a demonic entity, and that would have to be determined by the Holy Spirit.

I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it:

Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."

[cman]

You could worship a god and believe that there is only one god.

I could also worship a different god and believe that there is only one god.

from your posts, that doesn't seem to be a belief, but a theory

since you think another god could be worshiped

then another god exists in your thinking

[lindyhopper]

So much going on... so much to reply to... I'll try to keep it simple.

Bride-

You asked about the "other Acts." Here are some brief summaries of some of them. Some are more fanciful than others, but as the link explains "acts" was a genre of writing of the time. Some are considered to be more history than others but as I said, history, fiction, and religious writings seem to overlap quite a bit, especially in theocratic societies.

Which brings us to our history. You brought up Washington and his cherry tree. As Oak pointed out, a great example. He didn't chop it down. More explicitly though, this was not just a story illustrating his honesty, but just one of many stories in the deification of Washinton. This started during his life time and continued in varied degrees in communities and circles throughout our young country. This is a very interesting topic to me and there is plenty to read on it, but one important note. We were and are a democratic society, not theocratic, yet within our first presidents lifetime folklore began to circulate about him and it only continued after his death.

A quick example: ever seen this painting, "The Apotheosis of Washinton"? It is on the dome of the rotunda of our capital building. While it is allegorical it is not completely divorced from a very real mythology in our country's history. This was only roughly 60 some years after Washington's last term in office and his death a couple of years later. 60(ish) years.

Now imagine a great person, a king, a charismatic and/or revolutionary religious person in a theocratic society, in a time and area of the world drenched in this sort of idolization. The "Acts" I linked are an example of this. Stories of kings and queens around the ancient world are examples of this. How long after Jesus' death were the gospels written? How about the different "acts"? How about the different kings of the OT?

I had a great history professor who once equated history with a court case. A historian gathers evidence to support their case and they go at it. If there is enough evidence you may get two diametrically opposed positions. If the Kings and rulers stamped out most or all of any evidence contrary to their favored opinion then you get one view. One skewed view. The reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between the king's/ ruler's view and the other squelched guy's view, but we never get a good idea of that in those situations. You only get the one viewpoint.

Edited May 19, 2008 by lindyhopper

[Oakspear]

Yes, and the Bible itself bears itself out with its own historicity and authenticity, at least IMO.

What do you mean by "bears itself out"?

Plus, I would just like to add, does anyone question the authenticity or the historicity of secular books, like they do to the Scriptures? Not unless "experts" in that particular field can categorically disprove the author's statements.

Sure, when it's obvious that an author has an agenda or an obvious non-neutral point of view. For example, one of the Dariuses inscribed his geneology on the side of a mountain in what is now Iran. Modern historians believe that he "padded his resume" and that his list of ancestors in not genuine.

As far as the Bible is concerned, people throughout the centuries have been trying to debunk the Scriptures and they have yet to do it, at least in my humble opinion.

When one assumes an inerrant bible, and any contradictions are only "apparent contradictions", any debunking will of course have a facile explanation. Don't know if this is what you do...

Chronicles and Kings are thought of as historical books because they are detailing the lives of important people that God wanted to highlight. Deuteronomy also falls into this category.

Of course there are historical events detailed in these books. Probably on par with the records of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita.

No, Luke was an historian compiling other people's memories. Mark is apparently a convert that the Apostle Peter had made and had schooled him in the Scriptures

Right, that's what I said

I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it:

Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."

First of all, if I want to isolate a quote, that's what I'll do. The question that I had about that part of the quote was separate from what I didn't understand about the earlier part of the quote.

You're using me as proof that I question the spirituality or truth of a Christian's experiences? I don't question your experiences, their spirituality or truth. What I question is whether your experiences, spirituality or truth (as well as your scriptures) can be used as a standard of truth for everyone else. I believe that there is room for a multitude of experiences, spiritualities and truths...you apparently don't.

[brideofjc]

from your posts, that doesn't seem to be a belief, but a theory

since you think another god could be worshiped

then another god exists in your thinking

Oh, sure Cman, even the Bible states that the pagan nations surrounding Israel were worshipping gods.

I just don't believe that they are True. One could worship their car and "lovingly shine" it every Sunday

and wipe the dust off after every drive. One could also worship their job, bank account etc etc.

For me, there is only ONE GOD. Comprendre ?

[brideofjc]

So much going on... so much to reply to... I'll try to keep it simple.

Bride-

You asked about the "other Acts." Here are some brief summaries of some of them. Some are more fanciful than others, but as the link explains "acts" was a genre of writing of the time. Some are considered to be more history than others but as I said, history, fiction, and religious writings seem to overlap quite a bit, especially in theocratic societies.

Which brings us to our history. You brought up Washington and his cherry tree. As Oak pointed out, a great example. He didn't chop it down. More explicitly though, this was not just a story illustrating his honesty, but just one of many stories in the deification of Washinton. This started during his life time and continued in varied degrees in communities and circles throughout our young country. This is a very interesting topic to me and there is plenty to read on it, but one important note. We were and are a democratic society, not theocratic, yet within our first presidents lifetime folklore began to circulate about him and it only continued after his death.

A quick example: ever seen this painting, "The Apotheosis of Washinton"? It is on the dome of the rotunda of our capital building. While it is allegorical it is not completely divorced from a very real mythology in our country's history. This was only roughly 60 some years after Washington's last term in office and his death a couple of years later. 60(ish) years.

Now imagine a great person, a king, a charismatic and/or revolutionary religious person in a theocratic society, in a time and area of the world drenched in this sort of idolization. The "Acts" I linked are an example of this. Stories of kings and queens around the ancient world are examples of this. How long after Jesus' death were the gospels written? How about the different "acts"? How about the different kings of the OT?

I had a great history professor who once equated history with a court case. A historian gathers evidence to support their case and they go at it. If there is enough evidence you may get two diametrically opposed positions. If the Kings and rulers stamped out most or all of any evidence contrary to their favored opinion then you get one view. One skewed view. The reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between the king's/ ruler's view and the other squelched guy's view, but we never get a good idea of that in those situations. You only get the one viewpoint.

The "Acts" that you linked to are within the Apocryphal writings. As you stated, "Some are more fanciful than others, but as the link explains "acts" was a genre of writing of the time." At least two that I perused were dated from the fourth century, which obviously also places them in the pseudepigraphal works. As I said in another post, the pseudepigraphal works were written by other than the listed name, sometimes after the death of the purported writer. This was not an uncommon practice, especially when they knew "leaders" were looking for apostolic authority to be attached to the document before its inclusion into the canon. Regarding the OT, the prophetic books obviously wouldn't have been written in one setting, but rather all of the writings of a particular prophet would have been gathered, sorted by date, using the various kings as their time lines and finally re-writen in one long scroll and thus preserved. In fact, the historical books as well, come to think of it often covered hundreds of years and so the various individual writings would have been kept most likely in the Temple with the scribes.

It makes for good tourism to the rotunda, don't you think? LOL While it may be true that the winning kings eradicated all traces of the battles that they lost while winning the war, this didn't occur every time. I forget which pagan king that David fought and he won. However, archaeologists found a stele from the pagan nation in question and there was king David's name. This certifiably established that there really was a king David, which archaeologists for years had purported that Israel had manufactured a glorious king David for their own glorification. So sometimes the losing kings did record the truth of the situation. Ancient spin?

Personally, I also don't believe that this was done in the compilation of the old or new testament Scriptures either. There's just too much frankness written down about the faults of the leaders. So the obvious goal is not the glorification of the individuals involved, but a simple statement of the historical events.

Edited May 19, 2008 by brideofjc

[brideofjc]

QUOTE

a.Yes, and the Bible itself bears itself out with its own historicity and authenticity, at least IMO.

b.What do you mean by "bears itself out"?

Archaeologists keep "finding" things that in the past were under fire by those who wish to shoot the biblical scriptures down. I said this before: Scoffers said that Israel had fabricated the life of king David and there probably wasn't any real historical figure who ever did such things. Archaeologists unearthed a stele of the same time frame that clearly listed Israel as the winner of a particular war and the leader was none other than king David. Or charges that the messianic prophecies were also fabricated post Christian era and this is the reason, so the scoffers say, that the "prophecies" are just so darn accurate. Poof! God has a little sheperd boy cast a stone into a cave and he hears jars of clay breaking and an entire extant mss of Isaiah clearly placed there pre-Christian era. They had to retract their statements.

QUOTE

a.Plus, I would just like to add, does anyone question the authenticity or the historicity of secular books, like they do to the Scriptures? Not unless "experts" in that particular field can categorically disprove the author's statements.

a.Sure, when it's obvious that an author has an agenda or an obvious non-neutral point of view. For example, one of the Dariuses inscribed his geneology on the side of a mountain in what is now Iran. Modern historians believe that he "padded his resume" and that his list of ancestors in not genuine.

Okay, I'll take your word on that one. But what book, EVER, has been continually under perpetual fire to disprove it, other than the Christian bible?

QUOTE

a. As far as the Bible is concerned, people throughout the centuries have been trying to debunk the Scriptures and they have yet to do it, at least in my humble opinion.

b. When one assumes an inerrant bible, and any contradictions are only "apparent contradictions", any debunking will of course have a facile explanation. Don't know if this is what you do...

What I do? You mean do I assume an inerrant bible? No. I give that credit of inerrancy to the Author. And before you say it, let me say it....I do believe HE has kept HIS WORD inerrant and perhaps (I say perhaps) the parts that have been found to have "apparent contradictions" are the parts that the LORD let the human writer add?

QUOTE

a. Chronicles and Kings are thought of as historical books because they are detailing the lives of important people that God wanted to highlight. Deuteronomy also falls into this category.

b. Of course there are historical events detailed in these books. Probably on par with the records of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita.

I'll have to take your word for it since I am unfamiliar with that particular document.

QUOTE

a. I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

b. You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it:

QUOTE

a. Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."

b. First of all, if I want to isolate a quote, that's what I'll do. The question that I had about that part of the quote was separate from what I didn't understand about the earlier part of the quote.

You're using me as proof that I question the spirituality or truth of a Christian's experiences? I don't question your experiences, their spirituality or truth. What I question is whether your experiences, spirituality or truth (as well as your scriptures) can be used as a standard of truth for everyone else. I believe that there is room for a multitude of experiences, spiritualities and truths...you apparently don't.

But when you only take part of the quote it is difficult to get the full flavor. I had to go back up to the original post to get it so that I could read it in order to be able to understand your answer. That's why I suggested to not isolate or take only a part of the quote, it tends to be confusing. In response to your new response: I lean towards Christianity, I don't think I've kept anyone in the dark over that and so hence, yes, do I think it should be a standard of truth for everyone else? Wouldn't that be great! Do I believe that there are other "spiritual" experiences? yes. Can some of them be outside of the church and truly be from the True God? It's possible only in that God isn't limited in being able to reach a lost soul. Do I believe that he routinely does this? I don't believe so because he knows how to cause a lost soul to become so dissastisfied with the "spiritual" experiences that they are seeking (and I believe they are really seeking HIM, oft times they just don't know it, even if maybe they don't word it that way, etc.), that eventually He'll lead them to where they can FIND HIM. IMHO, there really is only one way to the Holy Father, the Creator, and that is through the Lord Jesus the Christ.

[Oakspear]

a.Yes, and the Bible itself bears itself out with its own historicity and authenticity, at least IMO.

b.What do you mean by "bears itself out"?

Archaeologists keep "finding" things that in the past were under fire by those who wish to shoot the biblical scriptures down. I said this before: Scoffers said that Israel had fabricated the life of king David and there probably wasn't any real historical figure who ever did such things. Archaeologists unearthed a stele of the same time frame that clearly listed Israel as the winner of a particular war and the leader was none other than king David. Or charges that the messianic prophecies were also fabricated post Christian era and this is the reason, so the scoffers say, that the "prophecies" are just so darn accurate. Poof! God has a little sheperd boy cast a stone into a cave and he hears jars of clay breaking and an entire extant mss of Isaiah clearly placed there pre-Christian era. They had to retract their statements.

I was recently reading about this stele. There's another one from Moab that mentions Ahab. I'm not saying that the bible is all wrong, or even that most, if not all the people mentioned in there were real people. And I'm sure that there are people who make it their life work to belittle Christianity.

In my opinion, the effort that some Christians put into showing that the bible is an historical book is a waste of time. If David wasn't a real person would that make the Psalms any less beautiful, any less evocative of a man's devotion to his god? If the gospel accounts are fabrication, are the principles and insights in there any less applicable? As part of my faith I am familiar with various myths and stories that illustrate my faith's principles. I'm pretty sure that none of them are literally true in all particulars, but I honor their content.

a.Plus, I would just like to add, does anyone question the authenticity or the historicity of secular books, like they do to the Scriptures? Not unless "experts" in that particular field can categorically disprove the author's statements.

a.Sure, when it's obvious that an author has an agenda or an obvious non-neutral point of view. For example, one of the Dariuses inscribed his geneology on the side of a mountain in what is now Iran. Modern historians believe that he "padded his resume" and that his list of ancestors in not genuine.

Okay, I'll take your word on that one. But what book, EVER, has been continually under perpetual fire to disprove it, other than the Christian bible?

I'd say any holy book, including the Koran. But from a Christian perspective, I can see why it would seem so to a Christian.

a. As far as the Bible is concerned, people throughout the centuries have been trying to debunk the Scriptures and they have yet to do it, at least in my humble opinion.

b. When one assumes an inerrant bible, and any contradictions are only "apparent contradictions", any debunking will of course have a facile explanation. Don't know if this is what you do...

What I do? You mean do I assume an inerrant bible? No. I give that credit of inerrancy to the Author. And before you say it, let me say it....I do believe HE has kept HIS WORD inerrant and perhaps (I say perhaps) the parts that have been found to have "apparent contradictions" are the parts that the LORD let the human writer add?

Now that's an interesting take on it. Not all that different than Bullinger or Wierwille though, who both allowed for the fact of mistranslations, additions, "forgeries" etc. But you are saying (it seems to me) that it's essentially given by God and therefore inerrant in its original. So I retain my initial position that anyone with that mindset will never see errors, debunking, etc because they don't believe it can exist. Not that there's anything wrong with that

a. Chronicles and Kings are thought of as historical books because they are detailing the lives of important people that God wanted to highlight. Deuteronomy also falls into this category.

b. Of course there are historical events detailed in these books. Probably on par with the records of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita.

I'll have to take your word for it since I am unfamiliar with that particular document.

Thanks!

a. I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

b. You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it:

a. Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."

b. First of all, if I want to isolate a quote, that's what I'll do. The question that I had about that part of the quote was separate from what I didn't understand about the earlier part of the quote.

You're using me as proof that I question the spirituality or truth of a Christian's experiences? I don't question your experiences, their spirituality or truth. What I question is whether your experiences, spirituality or truth (as well as your scriptures) can be used as a standard of truth for everyone else. I believe that there is room for a multitude of experiences, spiritualities and truths...you apparently don't.

But when you only take part of the quote it is difficult to get the full flavor. I had to go back up to the original post to get it so that I could read it in order to be able to understand your answer. That's why I suggested to not isolate or take only a part of the quote, it tends to be confusing.

Gotcha, I understand.

In response to your new response: I lean towards Christianity, I don't think I've kept anyone in the dark over that and so hence, yes, do I think it should be a standard of truth for everyone else? Wouldn't that be great! Do I believe that there are other "spiritual" experiences? yes. Can some of them be outside of the church and truly be from the True God? It's possible only in that God isn't limited in being able to reach a lost soul. Do I believe that he routinely does this? I don't believe so because he knows how to cause a lost soul to become so dissastisfied with the "spiritual" experiences that they are seeking (and I believe they are really seeking HIM, oft times they just don't know it, even if maybe they don't word it that way, etc.), that eventually He'll lead them to where they can FIND HIM. IMHO, there really is only one way to the Holy Father, the Creator, and that is through the Lord Jesus the Christ.

Thanks for the response to the response. It is by far the most conciliatory of your posts lately.

[cman]

I like a lot of different cars, shiny ones included.