I hope you are keeping in mind that it is your belief, and is no more provable than any other person’s. I find the fact that there are so many people hearing the Holy Spirit differently rather strange,but then it could be the Holy spirit speaks to each one in a way that helps him or her to live, Not one single doctrine;for you it may mean your interpetation of the Bible, for others some thing entirely different.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were mostly writings from the Old Testament, in my reading of them they do not include any of the New Testament but do mention a teacher which I have heard there are some people who’ believe’ that was Jesus.
If Jesus wanted a book to speak God’s word I think he would have written one, He didn’t, and as we know the New Testament is a gathering of several writers
and there were articles and letters written which the compilers of the New Testament discarded. You can believe it was done by the inspiration of the Holy Spirt, but that doesn’t mean it is fact!
My perception of Cosmos is that he is suffering from the effects of being involved in a cult who used a set of “scriptures” to validate itself and to control its members. Those writings have a spurious foundation, have no historical or archaelogical basis, and are morally questionable besides. I’ve read some of them and I describe them as “earthbound”. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit revealed the truth to Cosmos and led him out, but he has let the pendulum swing too far and fails to grasp that the Holy Spirit has truly inspired the collection of writings in the Bible - it is His book not man’s and it can be trusted. I’m certain that the Holy Spirit led him out of darkness but equally certain that He is not the one leading him to reject the Bible.
That’s an interesting example. Do you think the copyists of the NT had similar feelings. Wanting to “clarify” the text in order to fit what they thought was the correct doctrine. There were a lot of disagreement in the centuries following Jesus time in earth about the details of his teachings. The one you give is indeed minor.
Here’s two examples from Ehrman’s book that show changes made to support a preconceived doctrine.
Mark 1:11 after Jesus is baptized the voice says, NIV 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
That’s what we all remember. In some early versions it reads “You are my Son, Today have I begotten you”
Significant difference? How does it affect traditionally theology?
Take Luke 22 during the last supper, In more recent copies it says, NIV 17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.”
That’s how most Christians remember it and has become a traditional part of the Sacrament. In some earlier manuscripts it reads,
After taking a cup and giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it amongst yourselves, for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.” And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body. But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table.”
The adding of “which is given for you, and “which is poured out for you” changes what is stressed and has also affected current theology.
In other parts of the NT there’s evidence that entire sections were added.
John 8:1-11 the story of the woman taken in adultery is not in the earliest versions.
The last 11 verses of Mark verses 9-20 are similar. Not in the early versions. Is that a significant difference?
There;s evidence , though not conclusive, that these verses
1 Cor 14:34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
were added to the original. In certain copies those two verses are in different places in the chapter. They also seem to contradict 1 Cor 11:2-16 in which Paul gives specific instructions about how women are to speak and pray in church.
Why would Paul instruct them how to speak in chapter 11 and then tell them not to speak in chapter 14?
That reflects the cultural differences of the time rather than God’s instruction to us.
You are free to draw whatever conclusions you like but when it comes to terms like “actual evidence” {your words} you might want to consider the actual evidence available.
That is **your ** interpretation and I respect your right to hold that opinion. Mine is that it denies the actual evidence we have available to us and flies in the face of specific scriptures I quoted that refer to the Holy Spirit as the word.
There is no higher truth. There is only truth and he illusions that cloud our view.
Some time ago I decided that I must be true to myself , the dictates of my own conscience, intellect, and seeking of spiritual truth through study and introspection. Being one who has accepted the well intentioned traditions of others in the past I became resolute in trying to discern the differences between Christian tradition and what Christ actually taught. I have never claimed to be speaking in the spirit, although I believe you made that claim. In our striving for spiritual growth we each are unique imperfect filters for the perfection of the HS. We struggle with our own pride, fear, idiosyncrasies, and even our own subconscious. It is a lifetime process, each in their own way.
I invite you and anyone to do their own research and then look within their own heart. The rest I trust to our common spiritual connection. In that trust I’ll end my responses to you in this thread. Again!
You’ll find that there are not only different interpretations between people but the same person will see the scriptures differently almost every time they read them. It doesn’t necessarily mean the person was wrong the last time they read it, just that their understanding increases over time - it’s a matter of personal growth. The parable of the sower and the seed illustrates this; the seed remains the same but produces different results depending on the condition of the soil. Other verses which illustrate this are Luke8:18(amplified), “For to him who has (spiritual knowledge) will more be given, and from him who does not have, even what he thinks and supposes that he has will be taken away”, and John16:12 “I have still many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them nor to take them upon you nor to grasp them now.” There are many verses that indicate that a walk with God is progressive and involves personal growth such as:
1Pet2:2 Like newborn babies you should crave the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may be nurtured and grow unto completed salvation
Heb61 Therefore let us go on and get past the elementary stage in the teachings and doctrine of Christ, advancing steadily toward the completeness and perfection that belongs to spiritual maturity.
Eph4:13 That our faith might develop until we all attain oneness in the faith and in the comprehension of the full and accurate knowledge of the Son of God; that we might arrive at really mature manhood - the completeness of personality which is nothing less than the standard height of Christ’s own perfection - the measure of the stature of the fullness of Chirst, and the completeness found in Him.
( a few other related verses are , 2Tim2:21, 2Cor7:1, Heb4:6, 2Pet1:4, 2Cor6:7, Eph4:22, Rom12:2, Rom13:14, James1:21, Rev19:7, and there are many more)
There are a lot of implications about the dead sea scrolls but I brought them up because they date back many centuries before the texts we had at the time and show that there are no substantive differences. Bible critics always postulate that there have been ongoing additions, omissions, and redactions taking place in the writings so therefore the Bible can’t be trusted. The scrolls are one indicator that this has not been done - they show that the copiests and translators have striven to maintain the integrity of what they consider very holy writings and have treated them very responsibly. Further, the book of Isaiah was found complete and is verified to be 99.99% unchanged. It uses the highest form of Hebrew, has every form of literal device (epigrams, allegories, analogies, poetry, etc) and contains every major Christian doctrine (virgin birth, atonement, etc). It’s a good place to start studying the Bible and it will actually connect to every other Biblical book, including all the New Testament writings.
The only time God wrote anything was when He wrote the ten commandments in stone with His own finger (Ex31:18), however He prefers to write in the human heart ie Jeremiah31:31, “I will put my law within them, and on their hearts will I write it…” After that, He sends them to tell others as Ezek3:17 “I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel therefore hear the word at My mouth, and give them warning from Me.” and Matt28:19-20 “Go then and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you…” God wants the relationship with Him to be based on faith and the freedom to choose. Any blatant communication system (rearranging the stars, thunderous voices from heaven, etc) would take away both. What choice would you have to accept God if a comet engraved with a personal message landed in your front yard? There would be little choice involved and it would require absolutely no faith at all - God isn’t interested in slaves but desires willing servants who simply trust Him.
Concerning the books that were not included in the Canon, if you make a study of them you will discover why they were discarded - mostly because they contain themes or doctrines that are antithetical to the other Bible writers (for example, the gospel of Thomas in which Christ supposedly tells the disciples that women need to somehow become men before they can be saved). Just as you would not include the writings of Behe in a compendium dealing with the theory of evolution, so also the Bible only includes the books that maintain the integrity of the message. And although there are indeed paradoxes, they are resolved as they are examined in the light of all the scriptures taken as a whole.
If I may chime in here with a reply to the original question.
A child is born as a blank slate, and the accumulated knowledge, beliefs, values, and societal values of their parents, neighbors, and other perceived role models and mentors are passed on as, more or less, as “fact”.
These little minds greedilly absorb this info. (They are learning about, and from, their environment.)
However, as they grow older, they (usually) accumulate thier own life experiences. It is then that they start to question previous “teachings”, especially if their own direct experiences contradict what they have been previously been taught.
I suppose that if you are never forced (either through some contradictory personal experience, or through an interest or passion about the subject matter) to reevaluate a particular knowledge or belief, it may be subconciously assumed as correct for life.
This applies not just to religion (as this thread seems to have solely focused on), but many other, more easilly tested beliefs, like those of “hard” science.
For example, I have been told of the various “laws” of physics. I believe they likely exist, because folks who appear smarter than me (and who have earned my trust) said so, and their statements seemed to fit what little I have experienced, or just plain “made sense”.
If I was really interested in the particular topic (and if I had the funds to do so), I could try to duplicate (some of) the experiments that lead to the theories in question, and see if I interpret the evidence the same way.
(Admittedly, this is tougher with more abstract concepts, like religion. Hehe. Hence the drama we see here…)
If I have never had been forced to re-examine my core beliefs, and thus never explored their veracity on my own, am I considered brainwashed? No. Merely foolish or wrong (if those core beliefs were in fact wrong).
If I have been challenged by some personal experience to re-examine those core beliefs, and I refused to do so, then you can make the argument that I was “brainwashed”. (Or at least stubborn.)
First of all (and I’m sure I speak for everyone on the thread) I doubt that anyone appreciates your trying to take a balanced approach on this subject as you have attempted here - we all have agendas and don’t like to be distracted by such attempts at moderation. Besides, when we do need moderation, one of the moderators usually signs on and calls us big fat liars.
However, this was a recent post in which I myself thought I was being fairly moderate:
The reason most dialogues turn to spiritual\religious issues is because they are the ones which affect us more deeply and which are challenged in the market place more often than any others. And there’s not much to lose if you believe the wrong information about the latest quark, but if the Bible writers are correct, then a person’s eternal destiny hangs in the balance if an error in belief is made. Although some of the confrontations between belief systems can be intense, I don’t think that anyone who is really seeking the truth becomes discouraged or offended by the process.
The reason most dialogues turn to tralfaztastic/religious issues is because they are the ones which affect us more deeply and which are challenged in the marketplace more often than any others. Not because there are a whole lot of people who share those superstitions and supernatural ideas, and are often willing to kill if not legislate based on those. And, let’s face it, there’s not much to lose if you believe the wrong information about second hand smoke, or genetics, or evolution, but if Tralfaz’ cultists are right, then a person’s entire beforelife hangs in the balance if an error is made. Are you willing to risk that? That’s how much Tralfaz loves you, he’ll sentence you to an entire eternity in the beforelife in order to suffer torments. Love, pure love. And torture. Forever.
Tralfaz is the light and the way, and His is the Word which begat reality. Do you not respect him? Do you not fear the great Love that will confine you to an eternity of torment in the beforelife? Aren’t you scared what will happen if you disobey Tralfaz? Aren’t you?
You can donate money now, I am authorized to accept it.
It was more of a compliment noting the marked improvement over this previous post:
(Further, I was a psychology major, and I actually do know something about about evidence indicating the effects of medication.)
But perhaps you’re right, maybe you could just see about issuing a membership refund; Sancho and I could just saddle up and find some other windmills to skirmish with that can take it as well as dish it out. The double standard here is pretty glaring - you’re remarkably silent when insults and innuendos are hurled at those you disagree with, but come sallying forth in an instant when one of your own gets his feelings hurt - after sticking his own hand in the blades. Apparently you’re more accustomed to, and better suited for bullying the unarmed Christians that occasionally stumble onto the website.
You believe the writer who said God wrote the commandments with his finger,Moses is not found as a true historical figure so one can only “Believe” God wrote the Commandments.(According to the Bible) Moses threw the commandments down and broke them when the Jews were worshipping a golden calf. The wonderful thing about belief is there are no limits, I can believe(but Don’t) that God told me there was no commandments,one who believes could say I don’t believe that.
What one believes and what is true are two different things, we have to remember that belief is not always fact.Each person has the right to believe as he or she does.As long as one acts on their beliefs that is not harmful to another.
What, you don’t like its substance? Or is it just a microcosm of various religious people, with no proof, firm definitions, or falsifiable claims calling all other religions ‘untrue’? Should an Imam call your theology incoherent? A Neopagan? Is a Neopagan’s theology incoherent? Or just ‘wrong’?
It is interesting that when faced with similarly absurd claims as those you put forth, you dismiss them out of hand.
Let’s look at some of those claims, side by side, shall we?
Intersting, isn’t it, what superstitions you’ll dismiss out of hand, and which you’ll argue for with zero actual proof? As the old phrase goes, you are already an atheist. You do not believe in Eris, or “Bob”, or Thor, or sky pixies. Some of the rest of us take your atheism and simply apply it one God further.
And I had a concentration in folklore, and I actually do know that someone not believing your fairy tale over some other fairy tales does not, in fact, mean that they’re medicated. But, of course, anybody who points out the intellectual contradiction inherent in having absolute trust in one unfalsifiable, untestable supernatural model while dismissing others… well, they must have something wrong with them.
Maybe Satan is influencing me?
When you realize why that’s just as likely as Ahura Mazda influencing me, you’ll grok my point, and stop looking for drugs to explain skepticism.
I agree with you, and it goes back to what I have said previously about the Bible writers who claim that God spoke to them. The question must be answered, “Hath God said?”
One of the major differences that sets the writings of the Bible apart from all others is that it contains prophecy - over 300 alone concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament, and Christ fulfilled every one of them. And the already fulfilled predictions in Daniel concerning world kingdoms are so accurate that critics have to late-date the book to get around the issue. Reading the Bible’s prophecies concerning our time has now become like picking up the newspaper; consider for instance Zech12:3, “And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples; all who lift it or burden themselves with it shall be sorely wounded. And all the nations of the earth shall come and gather together against it.” And consider Christ’s response to the disciples question about the end of time in Matt24 - He began with the prediction of the destruction of the temple (70AD) and in vs 4 noted the main feature of our time would be deception -just look at the 100’s of alternate paths to God being offered today and even all the false doctrines within Christianity itself (word\faith movement, prosperity gospel, dominion theology, spiritual mapping, once saved always saved, documentary theory, etc,etc). The Bible writings aren’t just fanciful tales of supernatural events but they are ongoing historical accounts of those events that are even being fulfilled as we speak.
Further, unbelief and false doctrines are indeed like a drug ie, Job12:24-25 “He takes away understanding from the leaders of the people of the land and of the earth, and causes them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and He makes them to stagger and wander like a drunken man.” (also see Isa29:9-11)
So you’re claiming that a figure, whose very existence has absolutely no hard evidence, can be said with certainty to have fulfilled X number of “prophecies”?
If the newspaper you pick up has nothing to do with reality… then sure. “All the nations of the earth” most certainly are not gathered together against Israel. Nor has any period in the entirety of human history seen ‘all’ of the nations of earth united against the nation holding Jerusalem. Or do you believe that it was foremost in the thoughts of the Mayans?
Again… why do you have to distort things in order to make your point? What you claim is a valid prophecy is so obviously false as to be absurd… and yet you use it as one of your arguments?
Nobody could’ve seen that coming, boy howdy!
I’m reasonably certain that you’re not even aware of the massive irony of you complaining about deception, or of you pretending that those who disagree with your subjective assumptions and interpretations are ‘deceptive’.
You’re sure going to have to do better than to claim that the entire world is united against Israel.
Gee… I wonder if your claims about cognitive and neurological functioning are going to be backed up by peer reviewed literature, or bronze age superstition…
Who’d a thunk it?
Well that proves it! If it’s in a book, it must be true. Them thar unbelievers, and ‘false’ believers, or at least those who disagree with you, are “deceptive” and drugged out.
Because a book told you.
I won’t even bother pointing out the fallacy of circular logic you’re slinging.
I would suggest, again, that you try to wrap your mind around the (lack of) difference between fearing Satan, and fearing Ahura Mazda. Between being a militant in one’s demand that Islam is the only correct path, and militant in one’s demand that Christianity is the only correct path. Between claims that your subjective and untestable interpretation of a book that’s millenia old is the only valid one, and someone else’s same exact claim.
Correction: Chad is extreme, but only a believer in God could act that way. He has the characteristics of someone who experienced a deep loss that he knows God could have prevented, but didn’t. Non-believers think everything happens by chance, but Chad appears to be directing his anger towards God on other believers and on those who might consider coming to faith in Him. Hopefully, someday he can forgive God for His sovreignty and begin to trust Him again. It’s a hard condition to recover from, letting go of a grudge against God feels like death (and it is; death to self)
I’m sure not even you denies that Jesus is a historical figure, especially considering your next comment:
Your website fails to consider that the prophecies concerning Christ’s second coming have indeed yet to be fulfilled, thus stumbling over the very things that the Jews of Christ’s day stumbled over. For example, at the beginning of Christ’s ministry He quoted Isaiah61:1-2, recorded in Luke4:17-21, “And there was handed to Him the book of the prophet Isaiah, He opened the book and found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the good news to the poor; He has sent Me to announce release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to send forth delivered those who are oppressed - who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed and broken down by calamity; to proclaim the accepted and acceptable year of the Lord. Then He rolled up the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were gazing at Him. And He began to speak to them; Today this Scripture has been fulfilled while your are present and hearing.” You will notice that He did not read the last part of the sentence in Isaiah ie, “and the day of vengeance of our God”. The Jewish leaders of Christ’s day also rejected Him because He did not fulfill that portion of the Scripture by bringing judgement and deliverance against their oppressors, but this will only take place at His second coming not the first. In the meantime, He offers salvation to the Gentiles until as Christ states in Luke21:24, “the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This was also prophesied in Isaiah63:18, Dan8:13,Isa11:10-12, and is also referenced in Rom11:1-26, Rom15:9-12, Rom10:19-21, Rev12:2 and many others. As far as proof of the Bible’s prophecies, your own rejection of Him is a fulfillment of dozens of them.
I’m pretty sure that he is referring to the facts that
the historically “accurate” prophecies in Daniel tend to cluster around the turn of the third to second centuries B.C.E.;
the prophecies that address matters following 167 B.C.E. tend to be rather less accurate;
while the historical information about the events that occurred at the time that Daniel is supposed to have been written (mid sixth century B.C.E.) has several glaring errors;
there is no mention of Daniel among lists of the Prophets as late as 190 B.C.E. (and, indeed, Daniel is only included among the Kethuvim), whereas there are references to it in I Maccabees, written around 100 B.C.E;
along with linguistic evidence such as using Greek names for musical instruments (more likely after the Greek hegemony that began with Alexander the Great than in some period of Persian domination that occurred 200 years prior to Alexander)
has led most scholars to “date” Daniel to the short period between 167 and 163 B.C.E.
In other words, using the actual information in the book, scholars find a date of the second century which bothers people who need to claim it as an accurate prophecy from the sixth century.
On preview: thank you tom. I must admit, I’m still curious to see all these prophecies that he considers to be 100% accurate. The one about all nations on earth uniting against the country that controls Jerusalem is obviously false, and yet he used it as evidence… I’d rather not commit the fallacy of hasty generalization, and I’m wondering just how many “prophecies” he has that actually came true.
BM: I notice, by the way, that you have ignored the fact that you cited totally false claims as evidence of “prophecy”. It isn’t hugely important, but a retraction would be good. Just for the sake of intellectual honesty.
Are you deliberately misstating my position so that you can argue against a strawman, or are you honestly confused? Why pretend that I denied anything, when all I stated was that there is doubt?
Could’ve sworn you said they were all fulfilled… want to retract your claim?
Cite anywhere, at all, in the “prophecy” where a “second” coming is mentioned? Nope? All you’ve done is shown how Yoshua claimed that a cherrypicked quote applied to him, and then handwaved away the fact that the whole “prophecy” didn’t.
In other words, it had not and has not been fulfilled.
You can only make your claim by deliberately twisting what was actually said, and actually done. Much like you claiming that a serpent was “really” a spirit because a different book, written at a different time by a different author talking about a totally different thing, used a certain poetic image.
As literary criticism, it’s failing work.
“And thou shalt not believe my unverifiable, unfalsifiable, irrational tales.”
“Well, um… I don’t believe them because they’re unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and irrational tales that don’t satisfy the burden of proof.”
“Ah-hah! That proves I’m a prophet!”
