|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 23:09:30 GMT -5
Then I really don't define you as a fundamentalist. I imagine the term is misleading, but I don't know what to call those who believe everything exactly like the bible says. No symbolism, no metaphors just word for word belief. Yet they don't seem to realize that even taken like that there can be so many interpretations. I often wonder why many choose to pick the most harmful interpretations for their belief systems. The bible has literal stuff and metaphor stuff in it pray to God that you can discern between the two... It's not something I need to do. It's something those who take everything literally need to do. I don't believe in the bible at all. But those that do have different levels of interpreting things. If someone believes every word is literally true, they may need to ask themselves why they would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 23:16:33 GMT -5
Wake me up when someone figures out the chance of having a non-exclusive "fellowship". to put it simply "Jesus"
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 23:31:08 GMT -5
Wake me up when someone figures out the chance of having a non-exclusive "fellowship". to put it simply "Jesus" I got that -- but the Jesus people can't decide how to bring it off. Until then, I'm siding with the ones who don't think it will happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 23:34:33 GMT -5
I got that -- but the Jesus people can't decide how to bring it off. Until then, I'm siding with the ones who don't think it will happen. put put it simply they can't decide how to bring it off because they are trying bring off without Jesus
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 23:50:56 GMT -5
I got that -- but the Jesus people can't decide how to bring it off. Until then, I'm siding with the ones who don't think it will happen. put put it simply they can't decide how to bring it off because they are trying bring off without Jesus So most people on here are trying to do it without Jesus?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 0:41:53 GMT -5
put put it simply they can't decide how to bring it off because they are trying bring off without Jesus So most people on here are trying to do it without Jesus? i am not saying that, i am not going to classify what is not mine to do
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 6:09:17 GMT -5
The Bible was never meant to be an exact historical document. Interesting statement -- To me, a person could wonder what the bible was meant to be -- and by whom it was meant to be at all, and if it was ever meant to be, what it has become --- Why do some seem to give it such enormous divine merits? Jesus made no mention of a coming book that was to be a description of his teaching or to be used as 'divine guidance' Jesus spoke more about his spirit that would be sent to be our guide. How has this work, assembled and published first by rather non-confirmable sources -- with somewhat questionable motives --- years and years and years after Jesus life on the earth, gained such a high and non-contestable status amongst so many so called 'christian' followers? Or should this be a different thread??
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 9, 2014 6:39:03 GMT -5
For example, the writer of Psalm 2 has an immediate literal sense in mind relating to the Davidic king. But from the New Testament perspective we can see how the 'full sense' (the sensus plenior) of the Psalm includes Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the prophecy. Or could it be, with 20/20 hindsight, the original meaning of the text is discarded and it is applied to events that happened long after the text was written. It is like the Bible Code. When you specify what you are looking for there are all kinds of random letter arrangements that show the prophecy of the bible. But without a target, the "prophecy" just doesn't jump out. These are no different than the writings of Nostradamus.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 9, 2014 13:25:15 GMT -5
Actually I didn't believe it before, not the exclusive part anyway. It is the reason I quit professing. I didn't agree with the exclusivity. I recognized at 12 years old that there were going to be an awful lot of good people in hell and heaven would be mostly empty. It didn't make sense to me and I decided at that point the Christian God wasn't worth worshiping and likely didn't exist in that form anyway. There will be millions and millions of people from the Old and New Testament believers in heaven. The 12 tribes of Israel and multitudes of Gentiles from all nations through the centuries.... And thousands, and thousands of angels will be in heaven. Heaven will be filled with millions of believers and angels of God.... the 2x2 are only a small numbers in the 21st century uncountable great throng of multitudes!
Revelation 7:1-9 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands....
So it's not just those who are professing? Also, wasn't there a place in Revelations that talks about a certain number? one hundred and some thousand only? Guess it's another example of contradictions in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 9, 2014 13:26:44 GMT -5
Then I really don't define you as a fundamentalist. I imagine the term is misleading, but I don't know what to call those who believe everything exactly like the bible says. No symbolism, no metaphors just word for word belief. Yet they don't seem to realize that even taken like that there can be so many interpretations. I often wonder why many choose to pick the most harmful interpretations for their belief systems. I understand why the term fundamentalist is used though....over here it is often quoted that tens of millions of Americans believe that the earth was created in six days as we know them etc. I don't know if that's exactly true or if there is a survey which depicts it but it became particularly popular for the media to throw up during the George W era. Agree there are a lot of problems with a literalistic reading of the Bible - I mean there are some errors in the creation story. The Bible was never meant to be an exact historical document. Well good ole George W was a creationist at heart too, so it became a fad? I don't know, but I really don't understand that mentality and find it frightening when they try to get this stuff taught in a public education system.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 9, 2014 13:28:37 GMT -5
The bible has literal stuff and metaphor stuff in it pray to God that you can discern between the two... Very TRUE. With the Holy Spirit help.... He can give us revelation and understanding to discern between the two, which one is literal meaning or metaphor. The Holy Spirit KNOWS the mind, thoughts and ways of God.Did the Holy Spirit tell you Valiant Thor was an angel? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 9, 2014 17:22:21 GMT -5
The Bible was never meant to be an exact historical document. Interesting statement -- To me, a person could wonder what the bible was meant to be -- and by whom it was meant to be at all, and if it was ever meant to be, what it has become --- Why do some seem to give it such enormous divine merits? Jesus made no mention of a coming book that was to be a description of his teaching or to be used as 'divine guidance' Jesus spoke more about his spirit that would be sent to be our guide. How has this work, assembled and published first by rather non-confirmable sources -- with somewhat questionable motives --- years and years and years after Jesus life on the earth, gained such a high and non-contestable status amongst so many so called 'christian' followers? Or should this be a different thread?? I like this kind of questioning. A lot. (Yes, this would more than occupy its own thread.) There are people on this planet who like their world to be small and safe. One of the most extreme examples are the people who kow-tow to the judgements of the "workers" in the 2X2 system. A (small) step up from this (IMO) are the Bible-worshippers. Or, you can ask yourself (if such a person as the Jesus character really did exist): 1) What did Jesus really say? 2) What did Jesus really mean? I found these questions to be as freeing as the question of "What if there is nothing to be saved from?" (BTW, I do believe that such a person as "Jesus" did exist, that he was an enlightened being, and that such a construct can profoundly affect a life lived in the year of (our Lord) 2014.) But I also believe that the original character in this scenario would be horrified by what has been done in his name and preached in his name. (Ummm... on reflection... maybe not. "He" was probably a lot more people-smart than that - I'm the one just catching up here.)
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 9, 2014 17:37:39 GMT -5
The concept of illusory superiority is an interesting one! Ummm-hummm. Do we not all do this? In so many contexts? !!!! Even without being particularly aware of it? Whether it is something we "believe" or "do not believe"? Or whether we attribute "rationality" or a winnowing of google-search results to "knowledge/wisdom"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 18:27:20 GMT -5
There will be millions and millions of people from the Old and New Testament believers in heaven. The 12 tribes of Israel and multitudes of Gentiles from all nations through the centuries.... And thousands, and thousands of angels will be in heaven. Heaven will be filled with millions of believers and angels of God.... the 2x2 are only a small numbers in the 21st century uncountable great throng of multitudes!
Revelation 7:1-9 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands....
So it's not just those who are professing? Also, wasn't there a place in Revelations that talks about a certain number? one hundred and some thousand only? Guess it's another example of contradictions in the bible. your thinking the 144,000...those are jews who profess Christ at the end...the number of people that are going to be in heaven is much higher do the math in this verse and you will see ... Rev_5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 9, 2014 19:22:19 GMT -5
I hope dmmichgood doesn't mind me copying her rather thought provoking post. The idea that ''only the F&W have the Holy Spirit and are the only one's saved," has been the very cornerstone of the the "TRUTH" from it's very inception!
It was the cornerstone on which all the rules that were often odious to bear helped us believe that it was worth while.
Without that concept tell me why anyone would put themselves through so much "sacrifice?"
That is the reason that without that concept"that only the F&W have the Holy Spirit" I sincerely don't see how the "TRUTH" will survive. Could the f&w preserve the unique elements of their ministry, home meetings and doctrine, and be non-exclusive? Or would it lose all meaning and character? It would lose all meaning and character. F&W theology begins upon a premise of salvation. What would a non-exclusive fellowship be like? Like America and other liberal democracies where the mutually exclusive domains of non-exclusivity and exclusivity persist in tension.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2014 0:17:04 GMT -5
In historical terms it is generally held that the gospels were written within 20-25 years of Jesus' death which was regarded as a relatively short period of time back then. Here's what Bible Scholar Marcus Borg says:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 10, 2014 0:31:16 GMT -5
Yes, I think it's pretty safe to say all the gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. It would be interesting to get our hands on the Q scroll. Mark is said to have taken much of what he wrote from an earlier document which has been called the Q document/gospel.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2014 14:16:09 GMT -5
Here's what Bible Scholar Marcus Borg says: It begins with seven letters attributed to Paul, all from the 50s. The first Gospel is Mark (not Matthew), written around 70. Revelation is not last, but almost in the middle, written in the 90s. Twelve documents follow Revelation, with II Peter the last, written as late as near the middle of the second century. Yes, I guess the reality is there is a wide range of years in which the Gospels may have been written from AD35-40 to AD100 or in the case of some potentially later. Some say they must have been written after AD70 but others say that this was prophecy - Jesus obviously knew what would occur. I'm okay with a range of dates - I don't think it makes much difference. But Ross, what you wrote earlier seems to indicate that the relatively short period of time was significant... In historical terms it is generally held that the gospels were written within 20-25 years of Jesus' death which was regarded as a relatively short period of time back then. They were being referred to by the early Christians.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2014 16:43:26 GMT -5
To me the Bible is simply an account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation. I think it’s an amazing collection of writings over sixteen centuries with 40+ authors which contain God’s message to us. It is a collection of narratives, dialogues, proverbs, parables, songs, allegories, history and prophecy. It provides deep insight into God’s promises, who we are and also is a great source book for everyday living. I don't believe that it would have or could have ever come together without God's inspiration and direction.In historical terms it is generally held that the gospels were written within 20-25 years of Jesus' death which was regarded as a relatively short period of time back then. They were being referred to by the early Christians. Just my take on it... Ross, -then this is what you believe, the "Bible is simply an account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us."
Of all the old documents in the world, do you believe that the "Bible" is the only true one? What about some of the others, -the Vedas for example?
Do you think that the Vedas also are an "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us" as well as the Bible?
If you do believe that the Vedas are also a true "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation and contain God’s message to us," why do you believe that they are?
If you don't believe it is true, why don't you believe it is true?
Just a very brief description of the Vedas:The Vedas are a collection of hymns and other religious texts composed in India between about 1500 and 1000 BCE. It includes elements such as liturgical material as well as mythological accounts, poems, prayers, and formulas considered to be sacred by the Vedic religion.
Origin & Authorship
The origin of the Vedas can be traced back as far as 1500 BCE, when a large group of nomads (Sound familiar? called the Aryans, coming from central Asia, crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains, migrating into the Indian subcontinent. This was a large migration and used to be seen as an invasion. This invasion hypothesis, however, is not unanimously accepted by scholars today. All we know for certain, mainly through linguistic studies, is that the Aryan language gained ascendency over the local languages in the Indian sub-continent. The language of the Vedas is Sanskrit, an ancestor of most of the modern languages spoken today in South Asia.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 10, 2014 17:25:52 GMT -5
To me the Bible is simply an account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation. I think it’s an amazing collection of writings over sixteen centuries with 40+ authors which contain God’s message to us. It is a collection of narratives, dialogues, proverbs, parables, songs, allegories, history and prophecy. It provides deep insight into God’s promises, who we are and also is a great source book for everyday living. I don't believe that it would have or could have ever come together without God's inspiration and direction.In historical terms it is generally held that the gospels were written within 20-25 years of Jesus' death which was regarded as a relatively short period of time back then. They were being referred to by the early Christians. Just my take on it... Ross, -then this is what you believe, the "Bible is simply an account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us."
Of all the old documents in the world, do you believe that the "Bible" is the only true one? What about some of the others, -the Vedas for example?
Do you think that the Vedas also are an "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us" as well as the Bible?
If you do believe that the Vedas are also a true "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation and contain God’s message to us," why do you believe that they are?
If you don't believe it is true, why don't you believe it is true?
Just a very brief description of the Vedas:The Vedas are a collection of hymns and other religious texts composed in India between about 1500 and 1000 BCE. It includes elements such as liturgical material as well as mythological accounts, poems, prayers, and formulas considered to be sacred by the Vedic religion.
Origin & Authorship
The origin of the Vedas can be traced back as far as 1500 BCE, when a large group of nomads (Sound familiar? called the Aryans, coming from central Asia, crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains, migrating into the Indian subcontinent. This was a large migration and used to be seen as an invasion. This invasion hypothesis, however, is not unanimously accepted by scholars today. All we know for certain, mainly through linguistic studies, is that the Aryan language gained ascendency over the local languages in the Indian sub-continent. The language of the Vedas is Sanskrit, an ancestor of most of the modern languages spoken today in South Asia.
Lord Ganesh is today taken very seriously by a billion Hindu. No so much by Urban Outfitters. www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2014/07/03/hindus-urge-urban-outfitters-to-pull-religious-bed.html
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2014 20:37:30 GMT -5
...the resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular has considerable justification through secular and religious scholarship alike. Can you point us to such secular scholarship?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2014 21:12:42 GMT -5
But Ross, what you wrote earlier seems to indicate that the relatively short period of time was significant... As I said it doesn't matter if they were written about AD70 - it's only around 35 years after. For a person who isn't a Christian a question may be "they were written so long after the events - is the details correct?" - so the shorter the period the better. From my perspective it 25-40 years doesn't make a lot of difference. From my perspective the number years make a lot of difference when something is written as if it is a fore tell it before hand that something is supposed to happen, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, yet was actually written after it had already happened!Easy way to prophecy! Even I could do that!
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 11, 2014 10:12:54 GMT -5
Can you point us to such secular scholarship? There are numerous first and second-century extra-biblical writings that witness to the fact that Christians believed that Christ did extraordinary things, died on a cross, and rose from the grave: Josephus, Clement, Papias, Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria. For obvious reasons the secular support focusses more on this life, miracles, death, darkness period while on the cross etc than His ressurection. It's a challenging topic for those who believe Jesus was completely a myth. Secular: 1) Not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters. 2) Not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 11:16:24 GMT -5
Can you point us to such secular scholarship? There are numerous first and second-century extra-biblical writings that witness to the fact that Christians believed that Christ did extraordinary things, died on a cross, and rose from the grave: Josephus, Clement, Papias, Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria. Writings that were produced in the second century were not witness to any of the things you are claiming. Even the gospels do not tell the same story about these events. Before you can get to the paranormal happenings it is wise to pin down the normal events. Whoever, even the things that should be easy to verify are not available. There are many events in the bible that are not supported by contemporary writings. It's a challenging topic for anyone who would likes actual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 11, 2014 17:01:18 GMT -5
There are numerous first and second-century extra-biblical writings that witness to the fact that Christians believed that Christ did extraordinary things, died on a cross, and rose from the grave: Josephus, Clement, Papias, Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria. Writings that were produced in the second century were not witness to any of the things you are claiming. Even the gospels do not tell the same story about these events. Before you can get to the paranormal happenings it is wise to pin down the normal events. Whoever, even the things that should be easy to verify are not available. There are many events in the bible that are not supported by contemporary writings. It's a challenging topic for anyone who would likes actual evidence. Rational ~ I agree that writings during the second century would not exactly be considered reliable accounts. However, there were also writings during the first century that do verify that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and indeed was a miracle worker and died by crucifixion. The fact that he was a historical person of interest during the first century is also supported by Bible historians, like Bart Ehrman, who also doesn't believe in the Jesus myth theory. He actually wrote a book before his last one addressing this issue entitled, Did Jesus Exist? ~ The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Exactly how Jesus became viewed as God in the flesh is a topic discussed in Ehrman's most recent book, How Jesus Became God ~ The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. Although there were a number of people claiming to be the Messiah during the first century, Jesus of Nazareth seemingly stood out in the crowd and his fame continued after his death, as brought out in the Zealot by Reza Aslan. However, the divinity of Jesus seemed to be more the issue during the first three centuries until the matter was settled by the 4th century under Constantine, who legalized the Christian faith in 313 A.D. Later on by 381 A.D., Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and the rest is history. However, the adoption of church dogma continued over a number of centuries becoming what is known today as Christianity, the world's largest religion.
knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/did_jesus_exist.htm
www.religionfacts.com/christianity/timeline.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 11, 2014 21:50:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 2:54:11 GMT -5
Secular: 1) Not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters. 2) Not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature. Try again. No need to try again at all. Don't you believe that a Jew could write a secular history. Or do you believe that it is not possible to write a secular account unless you are an atheist? Secular implies neutrality to relgion .. not for or against. Atheism is not neutral. According to Wikopedia :Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 3:09:38 GMT -5
Secular implies neutrality to relgion .. not for or against. Atheism is not neutral. According to Wikopedia :Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.Agree - my point is that it is possible for a person, whether atheist or religious to write a secular historical account about a period of time. Yes -- and is rather fortunate as very very few folks are completely neutral deep down inside -- but each can strive to keep their biases outside their writings if the purpose is to be secualar.
|
|