Biblical Contradictions

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:47 am

By Gatzilla

You claim to know what emanates from the devil's anus

i believe that is from whence came atsila and nevim..satanic caca

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:41 am

Pinky:-6

Now that was funny. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:49 am

Pinky:-6

If one didn't try to get a laugh out of it one might indeed be upset at the ineptness of some folks when it comes to dealing with others.

Shalom

Ted:-6

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:59 am

The superbia they show for their own religous beliefs and/or religion and their lack of humility towards others seems to be the opposite of how God would want his Christians to act I would think.:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:01 am

YZGI:-6

Absolutely correct.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:03 am

What it amounts to is if you don't have a good defence then the next best thing is to go on the offense. When one has nothing to say then attack the other.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:11 am

Pinky:-6

In Jesus teachings and life style we find a man who was both humble and yet great in strength. He chose to eat with the sinners and publicans, tax collectors and prostitutes. He did not condemn them.

When the crowd was about to stone the woman at the well he stepped in saying let the one who has never sinned cast the first stone. They all left. He said "Is there non left to condemn you". "No sir." He replied "Neither do I condemn you". Go and sin no more.

In Micah 6:8 we read that God requires that we "do justice,(which means distributive justice), love kindliness and walk humbly with your God." None of those sounds like what I've been seeing lately.

I even tried to hold out an "olive branch" and it was returned with guile. That is something Jesus would never have done.

Then to top it all off they blame everyone else for their problems. It is like "everyone is out of step but my Johnny". The rest of the world is wrong but the two of us. This attitude alone says mountains about them. I should be so lucky as to think I knew as much.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:17 am

Pinky:-6

How true that is and Jesus recognized that just as we do today.

Shalom

Ted:-6

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:25 am

It makes you question their motives. If they were here to convert people to their way of thinking or to educate the non believers then their approach has failed miserbly and I would have to believe they must be able to see this. Now if they were here to show everyone what happens when you have no humility and too much self pride and ego to carry on an intelligent discussion, then I must say it was a great success. I for one have learned that if I disagree and/or object someone elses beliefs that it is best to do so humbly and with out malice.

And Ted: SHALOM:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:25 am

Pinky:-6

If you so believe, I don't think God really cares if one is a Christian or a Muslim as long as one is following the Great Commandment that we love our fellow man and God. And that God, is by whatever name since God has thousands.

If we read Matt 25 carefully it even qualifies the idea of loving God. It clearly shows us that by loving our fellow man we do in fact love the Divine.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:31 am

YZGI:-6

One can only question their motives. If they were trying to teach they did indeed fail.

There is much disagreement here but most of it is done in a give a take form and nothing is usually meant as personal. I guess sometimes I fail in that but it is certainly not intentional and apologize to anyone who has taken offense. I do not, however, apologize for my faith. Sometimes we get heated up in the spirit of the moment.

I love the give and take in debate and discussion and we all learn from it. I think its called life long learning.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:21 am

YZGI wrote: It makes you question their motives. If they were here to convert people to their way of thinking or to educate the non believers then their approach has failed miserbly and I would have to believe they must be able to see this. Now if they were here to show everyone what happens when you have no humility and too much self pride and ego to carry on an intelligent discussion, then I must say it was a great success. I for one have learned that if I disagree and/or object someone elses beliefs that it is best to do so humbly and with out malice.

And Ted: SHALOM:-6
The reception was icy. Christians should present themselves with warmth and affection toward newcomers. Have you done that?

We had no way of knowing that a Christian forum would be peopled with non-Christians, eager to pounce on the thoughts of someone not in agreement.

Take your own advice about humbly and without malice, and buy a new welcome wagon.

Best yet...............question your own motives........mine are not your concern. As in clean out your own house and you'll be busy 'til you die.

Will you and the rest of the hypocrites so eagerly discussing the shortcomings of others be getting your halos soon?

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:23 am

Ted wrote: YZGI:-6

One can only question their motives. If they were trying to teach they did indeed fail.

There is much disagreement here but most of it is done in a give a take form and nothing is usually meant as personal. I guess sometimes I fail in that but it is certainly not intentional and apologize to anyone who has taken offense. I do not, however, apologize for my faith. Sometimes we get heated up in the spirit of the moment.

I love the give and take in debate and discussion and we all learn from it. I think its called life long learning.

Shalom

Ted:-6
My failure is your failure. Let it percolate. And yes, you are offensive. As for your apology? I won't be here for you to make it to me personally. Apologies are not made en masse. You take good care.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:25 am

Ted wrote: Pinky:-6

Now that was funny. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6
Water seeks its own level. Absolute, unchangeable law of physics.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:27 am

Ted wrote: What it amounts to is if you don't have a good defence then the next best thing is to go on the offense. When one has nothing to say then attack the other.

Shalom

Ted:-6
When Christ entered the temple with his cat-o-nine, you were HIS first target, eh?

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:28 am

Ted wrote: Pinky:-6

In Jesus teachings and life style we find a man who was both humble and yet great in strength. He chose to eat with the sinners and publicans, tax collectors and prostitutes. He did not condemn them.

When the crowd was about to stone the woman at the well he stepped in saying let the one who has never sinned cast the first stone. They all left. He said "Is there non left to condemn you". "No sir." He replied "Neither do I condemn you". Go and sin no more.

In Micah 6:8 we read that God requires that we "do justice,(which means distributive justice), love kindliness and walk humbly with your God." None of those sounds like what I've been seeing lately.

I even tried to hold out an "olive branch" and it was returned with guile. That is something Jesus would never have done.

Then to top it all off they blame everyone else for their problems. It is like "everyone is out of step but my Johnny". The rest of the world is wrong but the two of us. This attitude alone says mountains about them. I should be so lucky as to think I knew as much.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Yet your self-righteousness condemns two who say they belong to HIM. Take it up with HIM prayerfully.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:31 am

I will take my own advice. Thank you.:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:46 pm

Atsila:-6

:-6

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:00 pm

YZGI:-6

It is interesting that I've been called many names in my life and been referred to in many negative ways. Not one of those ever came from members of another faith, those of no faith, agnostics or atheists. Every one, 100% by folls claiming to be Christians.

Anyway it does not bother me because I know in what I and God, if you so believe, believe and that is all that matters.

It is a sad commentary on the "Christian way of life". I know better however, or I would have become something else altogether.

On the other hand some of my best friends are christians not only of my denomination but others as well. Among my personal friends are both clergy and scholars.

Shalom

Ted:-6

downag · Post by **downag** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:24 am

I just came back to this forum and found ole teddy doing his thingy.

About Joseph's father, which is from the beginning of this thread, He did have a FATHER IN-LAW didn't he? Just because it was his in-law doesn't mean there is a CONTRADICTION.

Jesus was born into a house of DAVID, tribe of JUDAH. He also was born of a woman (Mariam) of the tribe of LEVI, enabling him to be both our HIGH PRIEST AND KING!

Ted is one of those people who likes to please everybody. But he certainly has no loyalty to YHVH!

Agape

D:-5

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:46 am

downag;446649 wrote: I just came back to this forum and found ole teddy doing his thingy.

About Joseph's father, which is from the beginning of this thread, He did have a FATHER IN-LAW didn't he? Just because it was his in-law doesn't mean there is a CONTRADICTION.

Jesus was born into a house of DAVID, tribe of JUDAH. He also was born of a woman (Mariam) of the tribe of LEVI, enabling him to be both our HIGH PRIEST AND KING!

Ted is one of those people who likes to please everybody. But he certainly has no loyalty to YHVH!

Agape

D:-5

and now you can leave again:mad:

don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:40 pm

downag:-6

It does not say "father-in-law. Nice try at a creative dance to resolve and irreconcilable contradiction.

I do love the creative dancing that some folks do to try to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:40 pm

I went this way once, contradictions, and folks got bloody angry because I was listing too many. LOL There are all kinds so I've no problem listing some.

Good heavens I'm not responsible for the contradictions. Blame the writers. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

weber · Post by **weber** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:08 pm

Within the bible, there are countless writers.....in the Gospels there are four, their stories to my knowledge written at different times, different place. Same story, four authors.....it would be a miracle for sure if they all told the exact same story with exact same words and all the exact same details in the exact same way. All of the bible is the same and a person has to decide for themselves. If you read the bible looking for negative hurtful stuff, you'll find it. If you read the bible looking for positive, good examples, you'll find them. Seems to depend on what a person is looking for.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:19 pm

weber:-6

You're correct.

The gospels were written by unknown writers. The names given as the title were arbitrary.

The gospels were written over a span of about 30 years. They are not biographies. The reflect what the church had come to believe about Jesus as of the time of writing. There are some historical points in them but they also contain the parables of Jesus and the parables about Jesus. The writers had never met Jesus.

They were relying on other documents of the day as well as history remembered and historicized metaphor. Mark is thought to be the first gospel written and then Luke and Matthew who used Mark as part of their source. John is so different that his gospel is set apart from the others.

Those letters attributed to Paul and actually the ones he actually wrote were the first documents written about Christianity that we actually have. About 7 of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him and the rest, the other seven, by followers of Paul and were written after Paul's death.

85% of the words in the gospels attributed to Jesus are actually the words of the evangelist that he placed in Jesus mouth. This was not an attempt to be dishonest but the style of the writing of the day. Some of them probably reflect something of what Jesus might have said and the rest relect the theology of the writer. Nevertheless they do have profound truths to present. Things do not have to be historically accurate to present truths.

Shalom

Ted:-6

weber · Post by **weber** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:22 pm

Thank you Ted.

You say it much better than I do. You have a lot of information that I like to hear.:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:25 pm

weber:-6

Thanks.

I also think that you have one good requirement and that is good old common sense.

As far as writing it down goes, I'm well experienced. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:28 pm

Ted;447334 wrote:

The gospels were written by unknown writers. The names given as the title were arbitrary.

The gospels were written over a span of about 30 years. They are not biographies. The reflect what the church had come to believe about Jesus as of the time of writing. There are some historical points in them but they also contain the parables of Jesus and the parables about Jesus. The writers had never met Jesus.

How do you know? What's your source for this information?

What you're saying, here and in other places I've seen you post, is that basically the bible is just so much bunk, and it doesn't matter what it really says, as long as you feel good about it. You've said often that it doesn't really matter how it happened, just what the "story means." I would imagine that there are many biblical scholars (of which I am admittedly NOT one) that would argue with you, and many theologians that would also take issue with this theory. There are indeed people to whom it is important to determine what happened, who said what and when, and who knew whom, and this sort of fuzzy, interpretive "logic" wouldn't sit well with them.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the bible's inerrancy - in fact, I think that most organized religion is fundamentally flawed and that most Christians use circular logic ("it must be true because it's in the bible, and the bible says it's true") to argue these points. My point is simply that, at some point, there has to be a delineation between what's fact and what isn't...and you seem to be arguing that none of it really is. Am I wrong? (honestly curious, not muckraking)

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:11 pm

Erinna:-6

You do ask some good questions. The answers could be very lengthy but I will go ahead and try to make them as short as possible.

The Bible is a compilation of ancient writings made up of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, philosophy and theology. It does contain some small kernels of history but not many. "The Bible Reader" by Mary Chase.

The Bible was written by the ancient Hebrews in a style known as midrash. This is a style that uses a former story to interpret a more recent event. It also makes good use of metaphor. "Born of a Woman", "Liberating the Gospels", "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". John Spong: "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time", "The Heart of Christianity", Marcus Borg: (One of the recognized world leading scholars in Jesus study): Many of the works of John Dominic Crossan who is recognized as the worlds premier Jesus scholar: the works of Matthew Fox who is also a renowed theologian. These men and women such as Sallie Mcfague also recognize the Bible as metaphor or if you like midrash or parable.

Bart Ehrman is a Biblical historian as is John Crossan. Bart Ehrman gives a good accounting of the compilation of the Bible in his book "Misquoting Jesus.

Finkelstein and Silberman in both "Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" show quite clearly how the archaeology does not support a literal reading of the Bible. This is also supported by the above scholars and others such as N. Wagner, D. Gordon, B. Anderson, E. Gerstenberger, M. Goulder, J. Drane in his book "Introducing the New Testament", P. Achtemeier, J. Green, and Mariane Thompson in their book "Introducing the New Testament"; Rabbi Heschel: I could list all of the dozens of authors who put together "The Interpreters One Volume Coimmentary on the Bible" but the list would be lengthy.

D. J. Hall in hist two books "The Cross In Our Context" and "God and Human Suffering" clearly shows that a metaphorical reading is required.

Now to the historical part. First of all a literal historical reading of the Bible has been clearly shown to be the wrong approach. Finkelsteing and Silberman as above, Dom Crossan as above, and all of the others. If we ask if it really happened this way? we ask the wrong question because for most of it the answer is no. What is important in midrashic or parabolic writing is what it means.

Does this denigrate the Bible? Not at all. It enhances its position because by understanding the Bible as such we are no longer needing to question the internal and external discrepencies. They become totally unimportant.

Are there scholars on the other side? Of course there are but they must engage in some very creative dancing and writing to reconcile the irreconcilable. I will go with the church that has three main sources of authority; The Bible with all its wisdom, the developing traditions of thousands of years, and pure common sense. I am not required to park my brain at the church door when I enter.

I can list more scholars and their works if you like.

BTW several of these scholars are known to me personally since I continue to follow formal studies. Some mentioned and unmentioned are friends of mine. That is one of the advantages of where and how I live, and study at the Vancouver School of Theology.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:29 pm

Ted;448088 wrote: Erinna:-6

You do ask some good questions. The answers could be very lengthy but I will go ahead and try to make them as short as possible.

The Bible is a compilation of ancient writings made up of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, philosophy and theology. It does contain some small kernels of history but not many. "The Bible Reader" by Mary Chase.

The Bible was written by the ancient Hebrews in a style known as midrash. This is a style that uses a former story to interpret a more recent event. It also makes good use of metaphor. "Born of a Woman", "Liberating the Gospels", "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". John Spong: "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time", "The Heart of Christianity", Marcus Borg: (One of the recognized world leading scholars in Jesus study): Many of the works of John Dominic Crossan who is recognized as the worlds premier Jesus scholar: the works of Matthew Fox who is also a renowed theologian. These men and women such as Sallie Mcfague also recognize the Bible as metaphor or if you like midrash or parable.

Bart Ehrman is a Biblical historian as is John Crossan. Bart Ehrman gives a good accounting of the compilation of the Bible in his book "Misquoting Jesus.

Finkelstein and Silberman in both "Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" show quite clearly how the archaeology does not support a literal reading of the Bible. This is also supported by the above scholars and others such as N. Wagner, D. Gordon, B. Anderson, E. Gerstenberger, M. Goulder, J. Drane in his book "Introducing the New Testament", P. Achtemeier, J. Green, and Mariane Thompson in their book "Introducing the New Testament"; Rabbi Heschel: I could list all of the dozens of authors who put together "The Interpreters One Volume Coimmentary on the Bible" but the list would be lengthy.

D. J. Hall in hist two books "The Cross In Our Context" and "God and Human Suffering" clearly shows that a metaphorical reading is required.

Now to the historical part. First of all a literal historical reading of the Bible has been clearly shown to be the wrong approach. Finkelsteing and Silberman as above, Dom Crossan as above, and all of the others. If we ask if it really happened this way? we ask the wrong question because for most of it the answer is no. What is important in midrashic or parabolic writing is what it means.

Does this denigrate the Bible? Not at all. It enhances its position because by understanding the Bible as such we are no longer needing to question the internal and external discrepencies. They become totally unimportant.

Are there scholars on the other side? Of course there are but they must engage in some very creative dancing and writing to reconcile the irreconcilable. I will go with the church that has three main sources of authority; The Bible with all its wisdom, the developing traditions of thousands of years, and pure common sense. I am not required to park my brain at the church door when I enter.

I can list more scholars and their works if you like.

BTW several of these scholars are known to me personally since I continue to follow formal studies. Some mentioned and unmentioned are friends of mine. That is one of the advantages of where and how I live, and study at the Vancouver School of Theology.

Shalom

Ted:-6
And if I recollect rightly, it's FAITH that saves a mans soul. NOT Theology!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:34 pm

Raven:-6

It is not right belief that saves a person's soul but a developing transforming relationship with the Divine. Dogma and doctrine are all man made issues. Marcus Borg.

Shalom

Ted

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:53 pm

Ted;448152 wrote: Raven:-6

It is not right belief that saves a person's soul but a developing transforming relationship with the Divine. Dogma and doctrine are all man made issues. Marcus Borg.

Shalom

Ted
I choose a more apostolic version. Try re-reading Galatians 1-24. Then go on to re-read chapter 3 of the same book. "Even as Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was accounted to him for rightousness."

God says by Faith ALONE shall you be saved. Martin Luther had the same argument with the pope.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:55 pm

Raven:-6

Believing God is not the same thing as making the Bible equal to God. When we equate the Bible with God we are commiting idolatry.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:16 pm

Ted;448171 wrote: Raven:-6

Believing God is not the same thing as making the Bible equal to God. When we equate the Bible with God we are commiting idolatry.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Whats the difference in the prophets SPEAKING the word versus writing it down? Spoken or written, it's still the word of GOD. Who is equating the bible TO God? It's HIS word! Weather he speaks through a prophet, or speaks through a pen, we are told to believe it or not to our peril. I dont think God would relegate the importance of a persons everlasting soul to midrash. You are following the great tradition of gnosticism. Have you read any works by the EARLY church fathers? Justinian etc.? You freely admit that your teachers are modern scholars. But have you taken account the advice given us by the elders? The ones like polycarp? Who were taught by the apostles themselves?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:23 pm

Raven:-6

When you raise the Bible to equality with God's word you are commiting idolatry. The phrase "The Word of God" belongs to one only, the Risen Lord, the Word made flesh. One must also recognize that any of our language describing or defining the Divine is metaphor.

The word "word" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "Dahbar" which in ancient days meant "The Divine creative energy". Place that in John 1 and you will see how that changes things considerably.

The Bible is not God's word by virtue of the fact of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible. The Bible is a very human book in which the writiers present to us their experiences of the Divine.

BTW my teachers are returning to the original faith of the Christian community.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:39 pm

Raven:-6

These scholars are doing their best to get back as close as possible to the original biblical documents. They are hoping that with their present slate of documents they may be able to reproduce the Bible of about 376 CE.

What they had then are documents that are copies of copies of copies of copies etc. Among those copies are dozens of copies of Matthew and each one is different from the other. In fact within the documents that now exist there are some 400 000 variants. Not an easy task. "Misquoting Jesus", Bart Ehrman.

Most of the theology the fundamental/literalists are following was developed only in the last 300 to 400 years.

The theology of Original Sin is not Biblically based but was invented by Augustine. The Jewish folks who wrote the book have no concept of original sin. Augustine was reading into the Bible what was never put there in the first place. "Original Blessing", Matthew Fox and others.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:48 pm

God gave you eyes that you refuse to see through. Faith comes by HEARING! And by HEARING the word of GOD! Revelation contains a curse for altering the words for petes sake!

I am not saying the bible IS GOD! I am plainly saying the bible is what God has to say! I for one choose to listen. I guess you only hear Him when you are a forlorn and repentant sinner. Because thats when your heart is ready.

You reduce this lifeline of hope and joy to a bunch of fables! I am sorry Ted. I believe when God himself calls them parables, they are parables. When God calls them proverbs, they are. When God calls them songs, they are.

When God calls them prophecy, it is. And when God says I am saved by faith in the risen Lord, I am.

I also have faith in HIS ability to keep HIS WORD true!

As a matter of fact, compare the dead sea scrolls version of Isaiah with your own. Word for word. Exactly the same. The jews took copying acurately to an art form. It's too important. If you want accuracy of the originals check out the septuagint. You sound more like a mystic kabbalist than a christian! Pluralist indeed! Ancient Jews were the same! Remember Baal?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:56 pm

Raven:-6

Unfortunately we can't bury our heads in the sand and say the variants don't exist. That fact of the matter is they do.

I do not agree with your view of the Bible. I will listen to God and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit which I have done for most of my life.

You talked about going back to the older thinkers. I have and that is the direction that the Christian faith is moving in. We are going back past the invented theology of the last 300 to 400 years and trying to get back to the original.

The Bible is simply not the absolute and inerrant word of God. It is a very human product through which God can and does speak to us.

I am not required to park my brain at the church door on Sundays. God gave us intelligence and expects us to use it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:13 am

Raven;448240 wrote: God gave you eyes that you refuse to see through. Faith comes by HEARING! And by HEARING the word of GOD! Revelation contains a curse for altering the words for petes sake!

I am not saying the bible IS GOD! I am plainly saying the bible is what God has to say! I for one choose to listen. I guess you only hear Him when you are a forlorn and repentant sinner. Because thats when your heart is ready.

You reduce this lifeline of hope and joy to a bunch of fables! I am sorry Ted. I believe when God himself calls them parables, they are parables. When God calls them proverbs, they are. When God calls them songs, they are.

When God calls them prophecy, it is. And when God says I am saved by faith in the risen Lord, I am.

I also have faith in HIS ability to keep HIS WORD true!

As a matter of fact, compare the dead sea scrolls version of Isaiah with your own. Word for word. Exactly the same. The jews took copying acurately to an art form. It's too important. If you want accuracy of the originals check out the septuagint. You sound more like a mystic kabbalist than a christian! Pluralist indeed! Ancient Jews were the same! Remember Baal?
You are correct! HE is omnipotent to keep HIS word true and accessible to all. Not just a few like Ted who think they have the finger on the button of God when it is on the button that launches destruction. Ted loves his own wisdom and it takes him to those who love theirs, too. Together they produce wisdom they agree upon, the way the magisterium does on unanimous consent, and if you don't want to......giddyup gone.

Good for you to stick by that old time religion.

Ted is here to preach his own gospel. Good that you see it.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:15 am

Ted;448254 wrote: Raven:-6

Unfortunately we can't bury our heads in the sand and say the variants don't exist. That fact of the matter is they do.

I do not agree with your view of the Bible. I will listen to God and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit which I have done for most of my life.

You talked about going back to the older thinkers. I have and that is the direction that the Christian faith is moving in. We are going back past the invented theology of the last 300 to 400 years and trying to get back to the original.

The Bible is simply not the absolute and inerrant word of God. It is a very human product through which God can and does speak to us.

I am not required to park my brain at the church door on Sundays. God gave us intelligence and expects us to use it.

Shalom

Ted:-6
I should love to tell you where you parked your brain.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:27 am

Erinna1112;447384 wrote: How do you know? What's your source for this information?

What you're saying, here and in other places I've seen you post, is that basically the bible is just so much bunk, and it doesn't matter what it really says, as long as you feel good about it. You've said often that it doesn't really matter how it happened, just what the "story means." I would imagine that there are many biblical scholars (of which I am admittedly NOT one) that would argue with you, and many theologians that would also take issue with this theory. There are indeed people to whom it is important to determine what happened, who said what and when, and who knew whom, and this sort of fuzzy, interpretive "logic" wouldn't sit well with them.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the bible's inerrancy - in fact, I think that most organized religion is fundamentally flawed and that most Christians use circular logic ("it must be true because it's in the bible, and the bible says it's true") to argue these points. My point is simply that, at some point, there has to be a delineation between what's fact and what isn't...and you seem to be arguing that none of it really is. Am I wrong? (honestly curious, not muckraking)
God has no dummies in HIS children. HE gave us the Bible and HE is omnipotent, etc., which means to me that HE is in charge to make sure that what is said in scripture is reliable and THE source to find salvation. Can you rely on that? On HIM?

Ted teaches/preaches his own gospel, trying to take you away from the knowledge that the all-powerful God makes not mistakes and is quite capable of taking care of HIS needs without relying on the Ted's on this planet to give HIM a helping hand to tell us what God does, and did, and will do. God knew/knows that the human instruments HE used/uses are reliable under the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT. Ted says HE does not. I know you are under the influence of the SPIRIT that says God's Word is reliable as it is. Praise HIS name.

Good blessings to you.

The Bible does NOT say you must be a biblical scholar to understand it. That is manmade boasting designed to delude those who would be impressed.

The Bible says to study the scriptures to show yourself approved..............that means you and me and everyone else seeking the lovely Jesus.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:27 am

Atsila;450260 wrote: You are correct! HE is omnipotent to keep HIS word true and accessible to all. Not just a few like Ted who think they have the finger on the button of God when it is on the button that launches destruction. Ted loves his own wisdom and it takes him to those who love theirs, too. Together they produce wisdom they agree upon, the way the magisterium does on unanimous consent, and if you don't want to......giddyup gone.

Good for you to stick by that old time religion.

Ted is here to preach his own gospel. Good that you see it.

You're really Ted Haggard incognito right?