Worldviews

[schian]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

I believe in God.

I also believe that the multitude of manners humans choose to formally worship him break his heart more often than not.

Organized religions may just be the greatest plague to have ever 'graced' this Eath.

We don't need a 'middleman' to talk with God folks..........

so true...

[eastcoast]

I am an agnostic and if someone stuck a gun to my head and made me choose a religion I would pick buddhist without pause, and if they forced me to pick a christian sect it would be salvation army becuase I believe they are a force for good in the world, and do good work.

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

don't feel bad 30cal I have one in my house, it has a few pages missing, but you have to do that when you use it for a table leveler, and the added bonus of having a bible around is if I ever run out of toilet paper I have a backup

Completely inappropriate! No respect gained here, no matter what you believe in!

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Skinnydipper

Completely inappropriate! No respect gained here, no matter what you believe in!

you say inappropriate, I say it's the absolute truth.

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

you say inappropriate, I say it's the absolute truth.

Several of the posters on this thread have gained my respect for a respectful serious discussion about some very involved controversial topics, no matter the side. Unfortunately all you have done for yourself is to discredit your opinion. That's all

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

You would be correct.

Think about this scenario, and tell me why it makes sense?

We have to believe that the earth was magicked out of nowhere, a man was made of mud, he was lonely so his rib was made into a woman, a talking snake made them eat an apple, God found this unforgivable for some reason and decided to punish everyone for it for all time, He spent a while murdering various people and then decided to do the whole lot in with a flood, the world was repopulated by one old mans family through incest, then God decided they were all evil again and instead of forgiving them he impregnated a virgin, sired a child, tortured and killed him, raised him again and now he can forgive us our sins which we are born with because of the talking snake whose offer of a fruit was accepted.

That would be the Reader's Digest version. Oh yeah, the main promulgator of this scenario wanders to a non-Jewish city, has a vision, (you know, like Mohammed and Joesph Smith), and travels all over the middle east talking about what he thinks his vision is. Then a bunch of guys write some books based on that vision and the stories they heard.

Wonder what the great Manitou would have to say?

Wow, when you put it like that, how can you deny it? Kind of reminds me of a great evolutionist that I was speaking with. We were talking about giraffes. He told me this, as it pertains to the ALMIGHTY POWER OF EVOLUTION:

"Once upon a time, there was a conquering tyrant. (my friend isn't much of a story teller) As a young child, he grew up in a broken home. Eventually his parents shacked up and he acquired a step brother. As luck would have it, he was a red headed bastard child from Heck.

Consequently, our anti-hero grew up to have issues. So in every village he sacked, all the red headed boys got beheaded. Every time he saw a red headed boy... LOP! Right then and there, they were separated from their heads.

That was until one day, a red headed boy was born with a steel neck. (bound to happen sooner or later) The lopping did not work with that one. He was able to survive and breed. His redheaded offspring did not get the steel neck, but now the recessive gene is out there. And as we all know evolution keeps working forward. (it helps if you try not to think too much, just keep skipping along..)

Years later, after repeated head choppings, the whole area is absolutely lousy with steel necked, red headed bastards. All of them, naturally red heads."

You would think that nature would say: "Enough with the razzin' frazzin' redheads!!" But no! You do not understand the power of evolution. Evolution could not take such a startling simple path to success; evolution is no quitter!

Thus, the giraffes. Every time they stood up, they died. They did not need to have a long neck to survive. Other wise the juveniles and smaller females would not make it. Nature could have said: "Enough with the necks!" But no. No to longer legs. No to climbing trees. Nature is no quitter! No matter how many giraffes die, we're gonna make this work! So the evolution of the sponge is born.

This is a self evident truth! We know that this is the truth. Not because my friend is a Godless heathen, not because of the grant money he gets to discover new factoids. But because his buddies at school say so. "New science!", they scoff, "The old science works just fine. Try not to think about it so much."

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Skinnydipper

Several of the posters on this thread have gained my respect for a respectful serious discussion about some very involved controversial topics, no matter the side. Unfortunately all you have done for yourself is to discredit your opinion. That's all

I could lie to you if you want?

[Tactical Lever]

[QUOTE=avb3;1306109][QUOTE=Tactical Lever;1306016]

Your early explanation on Quirinius was an attempt on reconciling known and irrefutable history with the bible. Nice try, but it doesn't fly. Historians have no problem reconciling dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendars; the differences are a known quantity.

"By 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed rector to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is thought to be a reference to the census of Judea in 6/7 AD; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew, dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. According to Raymond E. Brown, most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken."

^^^^^^^^^ From Wiki

Your probaby not aware of this. The KJV of the bible came out in 1611. The first recorded use of BCE and CE was in 1708 (citation: first so-far-found use of common era in English (1708). Printed for H. Rhodes. 1708. Retrieved 2011-05-18. The History of the Works of the Learned. 10. London. January 1708. p. 513.). It commons from the latin equivalent "vulgaris aerae" first seen in 1615.

Just in case you missed that, it is within 4 years of the KJV of the bible being produced.

No didn't miss that either. Don't you think that the authors of the Bible would have the accurate account? If they wanted to lie about it, don't you think that they would have covered their tracks? We don't know what kind of census, but we know that Quirinius was a rector in 1 A.D.

Ambiguous does not mean made up, except in your world.

So, it is hardly a new term. And unless you believe that history was changed in the 4 years between it first being knowingly reference, albeit in Latin, and the publishing of the KJV of the bible, I did not change anything.

It is also religious neutral. I mean, you would agree that in a secular society, we value freedom of and FROM religion. Your faith is as valid as the Jewish faith, as is the Muslim, as is various branches of Christian sects, including, as many born-agains don't like to include those groups, Catholics, Mormons and JW's.

The changing of the terms is a historic piece of PC crap. Why would anyone try to change the original names of the eras as it pertains to the calender? Unless you are anti-Christian of course. In elementary school, I was still taught A.D. and B.C. so the crap didn't stick as of yet.

This stinks of the group who would strip the "Brown Bomber" of his moniker.

So, yes there is a 10 year gap between when the bible says Mary was conceived, 4BCE and when it says Jesus was born 6CE.

Again, we're going with the calender? Why? Oh yeah, because it appears to disagree with the Bible. "Disagreement with Bible = Automatic pass"

No, the original topic was how and what shapes our worldview. The word bible was not used in the OP's

post.

So how'd we get to Bible bashing?

[QUOTE]

It is very legitimate to discuss other, and more importantly, antecedent, belief systems. I do agree that the Romans were big on forcible conversions, so what does that say about the spiritual message? Given the choice of pronouncing belief in your worldview or death, I'll chose telling you I believe, I believe. So, what was the message in that? Mind you, it was not only the Romans who were big on using violence to spread Christianity (wonder how Christ would have thought of that?), but many who followed, including Spaniards, Portuguese and British.

What does it say about a religion that uses violence and threats of violence to command use?

Why don't we ask the Taliban what they think of that tactic? I mean, the way they spread religious compliance and what Christian authorities did is EXACTLY the same. Who is holier then thou?

So, your Christian neighbor tried drowning you lately?

Interestingly enough, Buddhists have not used that tactic. Nor have Hindu's. Or Taoists. But what they are doing is not the Christian way, so how could their path to spirituality be valid? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but to deny the adaptation of other religious practices within the Christian church is denying facts.

Proclaiming that Christianity promotes violence because different faiths have violent pasts is a common misaprehension among non-Christians.

Discounting by disassociation. It is akin to saying: "Mao and Kim-Jong-Il were murdering heathens. Therefore all atheists are murderers."

Actually, I said hundreds AND thousands of years.

Ah, sorry. I guess that's what happens when you skim over the words real fast looking for mistakes!

And yes, I know you deny the science that shows humans evolving, and modern man being around for a lot longer then you believe.

I think most paleontology is science, like "global warming", er, climate change is science.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

There are many examples where biblical history and actual history do not coincide (although apologists will jump through hoops trying to explain away discrepancies).

I have already given the example of Luke who says Jesus's birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means that it could not have happened before 6 CE, the year we know he came into office. Matthew tells us Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power. He died in 4 BCE.

That is a 10 year difference of what an "inerrant" book tells us. One of those stories, even if one believes the historicity of Jesus, is mistaken.

There is a litany of others I could bring up, but in general, it is those who insist on the literal interpretation, I believe, are missing out on the larger spiritual message that is inherent in the metaphorical and allegorical interpretations.

My major issue of concern is the literalists use the bible as a crutch to propagate hate and wars, as do the literalist of the koran,as do the fundamentalists who have faith in what the torah teaches.

They all miss the large spiritual message, and because their institutions for hundreds and thousands of years have ingrained the literal message, because often they have been raised by families and schools who propagate that message, it is difficult if not impossible to have those of faith look at the bigger spiritual picture.

It's like not seeing the trees for the forest.

Yes you do given examples, like the one where you attempted to sow a seed of doubt in that you stated that the disciple's could not have observed Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane because they were all sleeping. As explained previously, you did this without taking into account that they were there with Jesus in the Garden for one hour, which gave them ample opportunity to observed what Jesus did in the brief moment before falling asleep. This would give credence to their short account of Jesus's time in the garden, considering they were to watch for an hour, but likely fell asleep after a short while.

Now again you make an attempt to discredit without examining all the information.

Not all literalist do as you claim. And not all seek war, much has been done in the name of Chrisitianity but not by Christians. Why do you think Constatine wanted an army of Christians, although they were not. Because he observed their vehement characteristics, and unstoppable love for Christ? And why did he use the cross? Did he believe it had some mystical power? The power was not in the cross, it was in an understanding of what took place at the cross, and what this meant for all mankind.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:17-18).

Thus, outside the Spirit of Christ how could one understand what the cross meant?

Not everyone who say's I am a Christian, is a Christian. Yet weak men use this as an argument to try and justify their positions in claiming that Christians had caused more wars in the name of their religion...etc. When did the Christians, in the beginning of the movement, during the Roman era begin wars? How many of the apostles were murdered, along with those who believed throughout the Reformation and Protestant movement against the Catholic Church?

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 7:21). "Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many." (Mar 13:6).

However for those who truely believe, they will not be decieved (Mt. 24:24) And please do not try to use the number 144,000 as a representative of the elect. Because a great multitude will share or bathe in the glory God (Rev 7:9).


I quote avb3 - "They all miss the large spiritual message, and because their institutions for hundreds and thousands of years have ingrained the literal message, because often they have been raised by families and schools who propagate that message, it is difficult if not impossible to have those of faith look at the bigger spiritual picture." - I will have to disagree because numerous defenders of the faith once apposed it, and some have died as a result of their decision. They have given us some of our greatest resources and litterature. (Paul, Chuck Olson, Josh McDowell, Reza F. Safa, John Newton (writer of Amazing Grace)....How big a list would you like? Even I'm guilty at one time of apposing the faith.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

you say inappropriate, I say it's the absolute truth.

Funny how when there's no logical argument, cheap shots take the place.

Vulgarity is no substitute for a proper education.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Yes you do given examples, like the one where you attempted to sow a seed of doubt in that you stated that the disciple's could not have observed Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane because they were all sleeping. As explained previously, you did this without taking into account that they were there with Jesus in the Garden for one hour, which gave them ample opportunity observed what Jesus did in the brief moment before likely falling asleep. This would give credence to their short account of Jesus's time in the garden, considering they were to watch for an hour, but likely fell asleep after a short while.

Now again you make an attempt to discredit without examining all the information.

Not all literalist do as you claim. And not all seek war, much has been done in the name of Chrisitianity but not by Christians. Why do you think Constatine wanted an army of Christians, although they were not. Because he observed their vehement characteristics, and unstoppable love Christ? And why did he use the cross? Did he believe it had some mystical power? The power was not in the cross, it was in an understanding of what took place at the cross, and what this meant for all mankind.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:17-18).

Thus, outside the Spirit of Christ how could one understand what the cross meant?

Not everyone who say's I am a Christian, is a Christian, yet weak men use this as an argument to try and justify their positions in claiming that Christians had caused more wars in the name of their religion...etc. When did the Christians, in the beginning of the movement, during the Roman era begin wars? How many of the apostles were murdered, along with those who believed throughout the Reformation and Protestant movement against the Catholic Church?

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 7:21). "Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many." (Mar 13:6).

However for those who truely believe, they will not be decieved (Mt. 24:24) And please do not try to use the number 144,000 as a representative of the elect. Because a great multitude will share or vast in the glory God (Rev 7:9).

Good post. That reminds me; the number that's mentioned refers to the non-believers who accept Christ during the Trials and Tribulations. I don't think this is meant to be an exact number as it's a prophesy.

[avb3]

Let's introduce some new thoughts into this debate.

Who was Jesus's grandfather

In Matthew's gospel, Joseph's father (i.e. Jesus' grandfather) is said to be Jacob, while in Luke it is claimed that he is Heli. They cannot both be right.

Which part of the bible is correct?

Census only applied to Roman citizens at the time

Moreover, it should be noted that Luke also got his facts wrong about the census of Augustus. Such an imperial census would only apply to Roman citizens of the empire, not to Joseph, a Galilean who was not under direct Roman rule.

First born killed? No one seems to remember it, including some in the bible who should have been around at the time.

There are other differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. For example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah. This extraordinary event is not attested to by any secular source from the period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39). If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later recalls nothing about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' career, the same author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?

Some think Quirinius was governor twice of Syria.

The facts are:

Governors of Syria:

BCE 10-9 M. Titius
BCE 9-6 Gaius Sentius Saturninus
BCE 6-3 P. Quinctilius Varus
BCE 3-1 L. Calpurnius Piso (?)
BCE 1-4 CE Gaius Julius Caesar
4-6 CE L. Volusius Saturninus
6-7 CE P. Sulpicius Quirinius

Source: Schurer, History Vol. 1, 257-259

Josephus certainly doesn't think that Quirinius was around for more then one governorship.

Here is a history of Quirinius that may be illuiminating.

As is the Jewish viewpoint..

Notice how Judea did not come under direct Roman administration until 6 CE? Hmmm... so were does that put Herod?

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

I could lie to you if you want?

Not necessary, some things are better left unsaid, especially if they don't add to the conversation.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Let's introduce some new thoughts into this debate.

Who was Jesus's grandfather

In Matthew's gospel, Joseph's father (i.e. Jesus' grandfather) is said to be Jacob, while in Luke it is claimed that he is Heli. They cannot both be right.

Which part of the bible is correct?

Census only applied to Roman citizens at the time

Moreover, it should be noted that Luke also got his facts wrong about the census of Augustus. Such an imperial census would only apply to Roman citizens of the empire, not to Joseph, a Galilean who was not under direct Roman rule.

First born killed? No one seems to remember it, including some in the bible who should have been around at the time.

There are other differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. For example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah. This extraordinary event is not attested to by any secular source from the period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39). If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later recalls nothing about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' career, the same author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?

Some think Quirinius was governor twice of Syria.

The facts are:

Governors of Syria:

BCE 10-9 M. Titius
BCE 9-6 Gaius Sentius Saturninus
BCE 6-3 P. Quinctilius Varus
BCE 3-1 L. Calpurnius Piso (?)
BCE 1-4 CE Gaius Julius Caesar
4-6 CE L. Volusius Saturninus
6-7 CE P. Sulpicius Quirinius

Source: Schurer, History Vol. 1, 257-259

Josephus certainly doesn't think that Quirinius was around for more then one governorship.

Here is a history of Quirinius that may be illuiminating.

As is the Jewish viewpoint..

Notice how Judea did not come under direct Roman administration until 6 CE? Hmmm... so were does that put Herod?

Yes, they could both be right. How many grandfathers did you have? One or two? I had two, one from my Father’s side and one from my mother’s side.

http://www.theology.edu/ap10.htm

From what I understand about the Roman Census, it was to do a count of the inhabitants of the lands that they conquered (the Roman Empire) from which they could then collect taxes to continue their campaigns. It was not just a census taken of Roman citizens, because the Roman population by itself would not have been able to sustain the numerous legions or armies in place, to keep peace in the countries they conquered. In addition, I would like to believe many more scholars would show objections to whom the census applied to, as you seem to be doing? I have found few to none.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/firstcensus.htm

I would also like to believe that Paul would have corrected any of these issues you are claiming if true, because he interaction with the apostles that made these first had accounts of the events of the census, and Paul was Roman citizen.

Herod killing babies - there would have only been a few that he killed, due to the absence of media why would such a small event be covered? I’m certain there were likely daily killings, rapes (sexual assaults), crucifixions, and numerous crimes all happening within the Roman Empire during the same time. So where are those records? Conduct of those under the Roman Empire was not under the scrutiny of media like we have today.

http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...hlehem-infants - sounds plausible to me, so should I so easily dismiss it?

Some think Quirinius was governor twice of Syria.
Although we have already covered this, here is some additional info from other objections

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

We can go on, and on...but all of these have been covered by many that have come before us. I have no reason to dispell Atheism, its all around me, so I know it exist. Likewise I have no reason to disregard Chrisitianity because I not only know it's all about me, but I experience it daily through the Grace of Jesus Christ and His Spirit. Paul is not the only one that gets a conversion experienc, I can guarantee you that today numberous people have come to Christ, through some type of conversion experience, thats just the way He works.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Yes, they could both be right. How many grandfathers did you have? One or two? I had two, one from my Father’s side and one from my mother’s side.

Nice try... both Mattew and Luke clearly are referring to the paternal side. An attempt to put a maternal spin is just spin. The gospels could not be clearer, so all of this coulda, shoulda, maybes and possibles are obfuscations.

I would also like to believe that Paul would have corrected any of these issues you are claiming if true, because he interaction with the apostles that made these first had accounts of the events of the census, and Paul was Roman citizen.

So, did Paul correct things? Of course Paul was a Roman citizen by this time, as the whole area was now under their rule. Don't forget, Paul is generally though to have written his work starting around 63 CE.

Herod killing babies - there would have only been a few that he killed, due to the absence of media why would such a small event be covered? I’m certain there were likely daily killings, rapes (sexual assaults), crucifixions, and numerous crimes all happening that same. So where are those records? Conduct of those under the Roman Empire was not under the scrutiny of media like we have today.

But it would be recorded that such an order took place. If not why not, after all, according to the bible, Herod was frightened by what he was told about a new king, right? And not a big deal to kill all under 2 years? Wow.

Some think Quirinius was governor twice of Syria.
Although we have already covered this, here is some additional info from other objections

Yup, and again with the maybes and possibly's etc. Oh yeah, a few plausibles were thrown in. Clearly speculation to attempt to explain the unexplained.

Can you not see that when one gets into the maybes, and could bes and other non-definitive speculation in trying to explain contradictions within the bible, that just is not credible?

Hence my much repeated suggestion, don't take it literally. Look at the spiritual teachings from a metaphorical point of view, and the meanings all of a sudden become deeper and real.

There is a reason that parables are included in the bible, as everyone knows they are not literal, but metaphorical. As is the whole, not just the parable parts.

[30Cal]

avb3 states: "Herod was frightened by what he was told about a new king, right? And not a big deal to kill all under 2 years? Wow."

I'm under the impression that you are tryng to compare now to then, when the mentality of mankind was different. Not too many crucifixtions happening today, because we like to believe we have evolved, or have a greater moral scope on things.

Trust me back then killing babies was not a big thing, come to think about it, it's not really a big thing today. They just try to do it in what appears to be a nicer or more moral way. Do we record all these events where they take place. I'm certain more that 20 fetus's were destroyed today? Nothing said, nothing done.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

religion will always be around for 1 simple fact, people are afraid of death and want to belive there is something after this lifetime, if you look at all major religions they all include and afterlife for this very reason, and hey whatever gets you through the day I say, but when people start wars based on it, and tell me what and how to eat and all the other ways the get involved in my life then that's gone too far for me, it's time for a pushback, keep your religion to yourself is what I keep saying to the jehovas that knock on my door.

I have read what Jesus said quite a few times and I have come to the conclusion that he really did not have much to say about the after life. Sure he used the afterlife in a few of his stories and he was asked about the afterlife and a woman who was married to about seven brothers. I think that Jesus preached a lot about the Kingdom of God and the Kindom of heaven, but not as an afterlife kindom. I think in Luke, Jesus said that the kingdom is within you or among you. In Thomas, Jesus is said to have declared that the kingdom is all around and you just can not see it. I think that Jesus was declaring that there was to be a just world right here and right now. I think that so many are planning an afterlife that they are missing the here and now and the most precious gift of the Creator. I think that in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is portrayed as a servant of the kingdom. I think that in John, Jesus is not an historical person, but a metaphor for the spirit of that which is in each one of us. The light in the darkness! The life that is the light in each one of us. etc. etc. John says that those who recongnize this light, and who believe...well he gave the power to be called children of God.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I have read what Jesus said quite a few times and I have come to the conclusion that he really did not have much to say about the after life. Sure he used the afterlife in a few of his stories and he was asked about the afterlife and a woman who was married to about seven brothers. I think that Jesus preached a lot about the Kingdom of God and the Kindom of heaven, but not as an afterlife kindom. I think in Luke, Jesus said that the kingdom is within you or among you. In Thomas, Jesus is said to have declared that the kingdom is all around and you just can not see it. I think that Jesus was declaring that there was to be a just world right here and right now. I think that so many are planning an afterlife that they are missing the here and now and the most precious gift of the Creator. I think that in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is portrayed as a servant of the kingdom. I think that in John, Jesus is not an historical person, but a metaphor for the spirit of that which is in each one of us. The light in the darkness! The life that is the light in each one of us. etc. etc. John says that those who recongnize this light, and who believe...well he gave the power to be called children of God.

I completely agree with you,that the Kingdom of God is at hand or can be within you. One does not have to wait to enjoy the presence of God, or have fellowship with Him through His Spirit. All they have to wait for is to be seperated from death. That is when the fullness of His glory will be experienced. But I cannot agree with you that the Spirit of Jesus is within everyone, unless by the the term "us" you mean those that believe? Then I do agree.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by avb3

So, did Paul correct things? Of course Paul was a Roman citizen by this time, as the whole area was now under their rule. Don't forget, Paul is generally though to have written his work starting around 63 CE.

How could he? Paul wrote his letters without ever knowing much about the Jesus of the Gospels which were written much later. Paul doesn't know much about an historical Jesus. Paul's Jesus was a flash of light which blinded him and later a few names from the Jesus story prayed for him. For much of his writings Paul seemed at odds with the brothers and appostles of the historical Jesus. The baby killing stories must be a re write of the Moses story.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

avb3 states: "Herod was frightened by what he was told about a new king, right? And not a big deal to kill all under 2 years? Wow."

I'm under the impression that you are tryng to compare now to then, when the mentality of mankind was different. Not too many crucifixtions happening today, because we like to believe we have evolved, or have a greater moral scope on things.

Trust me back then killing babies was not a big thing, come to think about it, it's not really a big thing today. They just try to do it in what appears to be a nicer or more moral way. Do we record all these events where they take place. I'm certain more that 20 fetus's were destroyed today? Nothing said, nothing done.

Supposedly "20 fetus`s today" versus "all male children" under 2 years old killed in the Roman Empire ? Maybe that is stretching it a bit ?

[30Cal]

quote avb3 "Yup, and again with the maybes and possibly's etc. Oh yeah, a few plausibles were thrown in. Clearly speculation to attempt to explain the unexplained.

Can you not see that when one gets into the maybes, and could bes and other non-definitive speculation in trying to explain contradictions within the bible, that just is not credible?"

Tell me about it, I feel the same when people try and convince be about evolutionist theories, or Radioative and Carbon dating theories or hypothesis...etc.

But when someone has plausible theories or hypothesis, that explain things that might need clarification. I think I will listen, especially when it deals with issues of my soul or Spirit.

All we can conclude from our discussions, is that you do not see the Bible as a credible source. This I think we can agree on.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

Supposedly "20 fetus`s today" versus "all male children" under 2 years old killed in the Roman Empire ? Maybe that is stretching it a bit ?

It wasn't in the entire Roman Empire, it was only in Bethlehem (Mat 2:16), which would possibly have a population of 700 - 1000 people. Therefore, likely 7-20 children at max? This could go unoticed in the Roman Empire.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

I completely agree with you,that the Kingdom of God is at hand or can be within you. One does not have to wait to enjoy the presence of God, or have fellowship with Him through His Spirit. All they have to wait for is to be seperated from death. That is when the fullness of His glory will be experienced. But I cannot agree with you that the Spirit of Jesus is within everyone, unless by the the term "us" you mean those that believe? Then I do agree.

I did not say that the spirit of Jesus is within everyone. I meant it to be understood that the spirit of God is present in everyone. The light that shines in the darkness, but not everyone recognizes IT. I think Genisis says it best. and darknessas was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters. SPIRITUAL AWAKENING.

I think that the first creation story (there are two in Genisis) can be many things to many perople, but for some it can be a metaphor for a God moment or a spiritual awakening in the soul and a series of progessions to perfection or faith. It leads to God created man in his image. Afer that there is rest. The peace that is beyond all understanding.

Some Christians call this being born again! A Buddist may think of it as being one with the Universe.

You know the story where the crazy possessed dude came running out of the tombs and recognized Jesus from a distance? You know in many ways that is my story. No I did not live in a grave yard and I was not certified, but I was living with a lot of past regretts and when I pondered God, he(I don't want to say it) appeared far away and I thought what do YOU have to do with me. Check it out the crazy dude said something the same. Point is we got closser and now I beleive. You know I get the same recognition of my story throughout the Bible and other sacred scriptures like the battle story in the Bahagavid Gita.

You know I like the sacred books, but I understand one can have a God relationship fishing or hunting as well. That is why I am on this forum

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I did not say that the spirit of Jesus is within everyone. I meant it to be understood that the spirit of God is present in everyone. The light that shines in the darkness, but not everyone recognizes IT. I think Genisis says it best. and darknessas was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters. SPIRITUAL AWAKENING.

I think that the first creation story (there are two in Genisis) can be many things to many perople, but for some it can be a metaphor for a God moment or a spiritual awakening in the soul and a series of progessions to perfection or faith. It leads to God created man in his image. Afer that there is rest. The peace that is beyond all understanding.

Some Christians call this being born again! A Buddist may think of it as being one with the Universe.

You know the story where the crazy possessed dude came running out of the tombs and recognized Jesus from a distance? You know in many ways that is my story. No I did not live in a grave yard and I was not certified, but I was living with a lot of past regretts and when I pondered God, he(I don't want to say it) appeared far away and I thought what do YOU have to do with me. Check it out the crazy dude said something the same. Point is we got closser and now I beleive. You know I get the same recognition of my story throughout the Bible and other sacred scriptures like the battle story in the Bahagavid Gita.

You know I like the sacred books, but I understand one can have a God relationship fishing or hunting as well. That is why I am on this forum

God did not intend us to be seperate from what He has created, so enjoy that hunting and fishing. However, for a more personal relationship I think He would want you to communicate with Him. And that is done through his Word and in Spirit. The questiion is, how close do you want to get? (James 4:8) Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you. God is the author of Love (1 Jn. 4:8). So if you want more, you have to get closer to receive. One should remember that God is Spirit (Jn 4:24), not male or female (Gal 3:28).

The creation of man in the image of God, allows mankind to understand what they cannot see from what is seen (Rom 1:20). Our being allows us to learn about the head and body (Eph 5:23), and much more.

And born again, indicates that a man must not just be born of flesh and blood but of Spirit. God plant's the seed (his word) in the ground (man) and if it takes the man begins to grow. Sooner or later, he must come out of the womb a for a second time (Jn. 17:16) (Jn 3:4)

[Mistagin]

Lots of this stuff in this thread has been argued about for centuries! And there's still no resolution. And there are 'facts' discarded as inaccurate or wrong or mistakes on all sides of the argument.

One problem is trying to apply modern techniques, understandings, and interpretations to ancient texts. The Romans may well have been very meticulous in recording all kinds of things in their time - to suit their own purposes, but by today's standards - as we are assisted by technology, their efforts don't really amount to squat.

Just imagine trying to have this discussion in the 1st century Roman Empire.

A couple of examples: there are no records of my maternal grandfathers family (from Europe - the Netherlands), they have been looked for, but there is nothing. As best we have been able to figure out they were all destroyed in WWII. But we've got records of my paternal grandmother's side going all the way back into the 16th century (Europe - the Palatinate).
In speculating, where might Herod and family have kept records and archives - Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. just as Jesus foretold; maybe Herod's records were destroyed then - who really knows?
When Rome was eventually overrun is it not possible many records were also possibly destroyed?
My point - I don't think we've got all the records about everything ever recorded, and a lot of stuff that was of minor or local significance in parts of the Roman Empire may never have been officially noted or recorded, and even if they were, they may not have survived.
I think it's amazing that we've actually got the stuff we have got! And maybe more will show up, after all, how long were the Dead Sea Scrolls hidden away? And they were basically found by accident!

Another problem is in saying a word or concept means one thing (by today's standards) but it may very well have meant something else in Biblical times. An example that has taken place in my (our) lifetime is the word 'gay' - it means something very different now than in the 1960's!

avb3, you seem to be saying, very consistently, that the Bible can only be read metaphorically or allegorically in order to be plausible or meaningful. Perhaps you could explain to us all (well, those following this discussion) how one decides which metaphorical meaning, or which allegorical meaning, is the correct one?
In my studies I've read many examples where one theologian says "A" = "B", but another says "A" = "G" with possibly a little bit of "X" mixed in.

Often those divergent metaphorical or allegorical meanings assigned to a particular text are applied out of a particular culture in a particular time-frame in history. So again, how does one decide which is correct?

One more question I'm puzzled about: for a person who says the Bible is only meaningful spiritually if it is interpreted metaphorically or allegorically, why are you so adamant in saying the Bible has no historical value?

Note: I'm not suggesting it is a history textbook - it's not intended to be, but I do believe it is anchored in history and historical events - and many parts (not all) do need to be interpreted in it's historical realities!

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

God did not intend us to be seperate from what He has created, so enjoy that hunting and fishing. However, for a more personal relationship I think He would want you to communicate with Him. And that is done through his Word and in Spirit. (Jn. 17:16) (Jn 3:4)

I agree with the first part. Please forgive me for being blunt but I do not believe what you think has anything to do with my spiritual journey or you have any knowledge how he wants me to communicate with him.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

I think it's amazing that we've actually got the stuff we have got! And maybe more will show up, after all, how long were the Dead Sea Scrolls hidden away? And they were basically found by accident!

Another problem is in saying a word or concept means one thing (by today's standards) but it may very well have meant something else in Biblical times. An example that has taken place in my (our) lifetime is the word 'gay' - it means something very different now than in the 1960's!

avb3, you seem to be saying, very consistently, that the Bible can only be read metaphorically or allegorically in order to be plausible or meaningful. Perhaps you could explain to us all (well, those following this discussion) how one decides which metaphorical meaning, or which allegorical meaning, is the correct one?
In my studies I've read many examples where one theologian says "A" = "B", but another says "A" = "G" with possibly a little bit of "X" mixed in.

Often those divergent metaphorical or allegorical meanings assigned to a particular text are applied out of a particular culture in a particular time-frame in history. So again, how does one decide which is correct?

One more question I'm puzzled about: for a person who says the Bible is only meaningful spiritually if it is interpreted metaphorically or allegorically, why are you so adamant in saying the Bible has no historical value?

Note: I'm not suggesting it is a history textbook - it's not intended to be, but I do believe it is anchored in history and historical events - and many parts (not all) do need to be interpreted in it's historical realities!

I think I agree with most of what you said? I am no scholor, but I think that the Bible is very unique. It is written in an idiom all it`s own. Actually it has many idioms. It was written over a few thousand years. It is not meant to be an historical work, but it has some history in it. Today some parts can not be taken literaly. Some parts of the Bible were borrowed from other religioius texts. I do not think that anyone can decide definativley what is correct. Somewhere in the Bible it says that the letter killeth, but the spirit givesi life. Even in the Jesus stories the disciples again and again do not have a clue what Jesus was saying. Jesus has to take them aside and tell them what the parabels meant. I do not think that the disciples were that dull but it is a way that the story teller got his point across to the readers. This book or collection of books can and will be interpreted in many ways. The only thing I know for sure about the Bible is that it was the sacred text for a large portion of the earth population for the last two thousand years. For some it is the bed rock of their faith. For some it is a collection of the most fantastic stories ever written. For some it has caused injury by being beat over the head with it. For some it is a dust collector. For some it is irrelevant. Each of us has to decide. I have enjoyed most of the posts here, except for those who judged the book without ever reading it. Sorry for all the typos. My fingers no longer do as I command.

[eastcoast]

sure alot of people who know what god wants.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I agree with the first part. Please forgive me for being blunt but I do not believe what you think has anything to do with my spiritual journey or you have any knowledge how he wants me to communicate with him.

Agreed, my apology - please remove "you" and amend with "a person".

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

And born again, indicates that a man must not just be born of flesh and blood but of Spirit. God plant's the seed (his word) in the ground (man) and if it takes the man begins to grow. Sooner or later, he must come out of the womb a for a second time (Jn. 17:16) (Jn 3:4)

No second time out of the womb! Jesus clarified this with Nicodemus. Now forgive me for my posts. I only intended to read and then I got tempted to add my 2 bits worth of opinion. I also beleive that agruing about spiritual thing is not very spiritual. For all who took part in this thread, God Bless or if you are not inclined that way accept my best wishes. All the best!