Ok, I already know that we can not truly understand someone else's heart and whether someone is saved or not. Having said that would YOU ( I'm speaking to Christians) own a person like this as a sister in the Lord?.

I know a woman who was involved for YEARS with the REORGAINIZED church of latter day saints.. they have different beliefs from LDS. Anyway her mother who was a Christian prayed for her for and eventually she left that denomination and proclaimed Christ as her personal savior. Her husband was NOT saved and a lot of her family still stayed with that church. She began to grow in her walk with Christ as far as I could tell and was interested in learning so she attended a bible church. Within the last few years I noticed her saying odd things that were not biblical. She now seems to have embraced Universalism. She has decided that it isn't NOT necessary to understand and believe the gospel now because all will be saved in the end. This is NOT biblical... one verse she has used over and over is the one that states Every knee will bow and every knee will confess. I have explained to her that it doesn't EVER say that every knee WILL WANT TO BOW... they will HAVE to. So, my question is... would you own her as a sister in the Lord a little confused... Or a confused woman in need of real salvation. I don't know what to think?

The latter. She is a person (woman man does not matter) who is deeply confused, and/or easily swayed. For some reason she is like the parable of the seed. Some lands on the path and does not grow. Some lands in the bushes and springs up, but is chocked out by the weeds. Other lands on fertile ground and springs up and produces an abundant crop.

The Bible tells of many who will be deceived. She is deceived. She cannot see Truth.

Before reading the answears , I thought about Saul the first king of Israel and I think it fits very much with the parable that 450donn mentions above!
He was anointed,he started walking with the Lord,but later he was deceived!

Adam,

You are right! I find this very sad indeed and yet wasn't it the Lord himself who said in that day people will stand before him saying Lord, Lord haven't I done this and that in your name but he replies... I NEVER knew you. Just because someone proclaims to KNOW him... doesn't make it so. It saddens me and frightens me.. but again doesn't the Bible teach not to lay hands suddenly on any man? I guess there is a reason for that. Thanks for your insite.

The Bible tells of many who will be deceived. She is deceived. She cannot see Truth.

Ok... I hear you but does that mean she NEVER really believed the truth? This is confusing to me. I just know I cannot give up what I believe for something that seems more "reasonable".

Classy,
Remember that even Satan, the most beautiful of all the angles, believed! Believing in one thing and knowing in your heart can be a totally different thing when it comes to the real world. I believe in my heart that I am saved, but if I do not walk that walk and talk that talk and have the word of God sealed in my soul it is all for nothing.

Walk on classyT!
You're in good hands!

Who are we to judge whether she was or was not Christian? There are much to the heart that we may never know. It does seem that she is confused about how it all "works" thinking that all will be saved in the end. She may be struggling inside and may not talk about it... She could be still trying to figure it all out... I believe that religion and spirituality is a personal thing and connects everyone individually in different ways.

The bible has been interpreted many ways and I know she isn't the only thinking this but I feel in my heart that we can't tell who or who hasn't been "saved" nor is it our business to judge... Only God knows this.

If you told her what its about, in the end its her choice. We must trust God's plan and there will be a time (I believe for some its purposely timed by God) when they feel/see the truth... And we have to have faith in that. And even people who never believe, I have full faith that God will judge appropriately and I could never say someone will be doomed to hell. Cause honestly, I wouldn't know. Only He knows.

I'm not trying to attack, but I feel as I had matured spiritually a bit later in life and had heard people say similar things but no one truly knew what I felt inside and I never felt I needed to appease anyone by telling them. So I guess, never assume anything about a person.

o
While I believe that many people in false churches are truly 'saved' she sounds too confused and thinking in human terms to justify things but far from God, It sounds like she is one of the type in the parable of the sower that hear the word but it doesn't take root.
I always hear people saying ''All roads lead to the airport'' and always wanted a good reply to that, God gave me the reply the other day "Not if you make a wrong turn going away from the airport."

She may very well one day find the way and these are the roads she has to go down but she needs to get the confusion out. Hopefully you can help her.

I agree very much with Don. Adam and others here.
The Lord will be the one to decide about her.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ok...i hear ya but does that mean she NEVER really believed the truth? This is confusing to me. I just know I cannot give up what I believe for something that seems more "reasonable".

Not the whole truth. Those who become deceived are still looking for answers that feed the flesh. If we truly give up our understanding for His, we will not be deceived because we won't look within ourselves or to the world for answers.

savedsinner7
True.
We must look to God for accurate answers
Fred

Classy,
Remember that even Satan, the most beautiful of all the angles, believed! Believing in one thing and knowing in your heart can be a totally different thing when it comes to the real world. I believe in my heart that I am saved, but if I do not walk that walk and talk that talk and have the word of God sealed in my soul it is all for nothing.

450donn,

True enough but remmber Jesus didn't die for satan. I don't know... all my life that I can remember I believed in one way and only one. But it took accepting it, receiving it as a gift. It was clear as crystal for me, but now I look around and I hear people that once proclaimed to know him change their tune so to speak. I mean if you listen to Billy Graham in a YouTube I have it will blow you away. What in the world is going on... listen closely to what he is saying:


YouTube - Robert Schuller And Billy Graham Speaking Wide Acceptance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE)

450donn,

true enough but remmber Jesus didn't die for satan. I don't know..... all my life that I can remember I believed in one way and only one. But it took accepting it, receiving it as a gift. It was clear as crystal for me, but now i look around and I hear people that once proclaimed to know him change their tune so to speak. I mean if you listen to Billy Graham in a youtube i have it will blow you away. What in the world is going on.....listen closely to what he is saying:


YouTube - Robert Schuller And Billy Graham Speaking Wide Acceptance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE)

I saw this clip in context when it was originally broadcast, and Schuller / Graham went on to explain the intent in detail, and that intent being that one need not accept Jesus to be saved, one can be a Hindu, or a Muslim or whatever and still be saved by Jesus even if they do not know Him.

This is clearly contrary to scripture:

Acts 4:11-12
11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
NKJV

Tj3,

WOW! I mean wow. It is hard to believe that Billy would say that. I have heard Joel Osteen hem hall around on Larry King and he refused to say anyone was headed to hell but that he believed that Jesus was the only way. He was being milqutoast but what Billy Grahm said is downright scary.

Let me ask you this? Should we question whether someone is a Christian? Is that fair?? From that statement would you question his salvation.. or again maybe just his age and health.

She does sound confused and unclear regarding the gospel. I believe that unless one's testimony is in alignment with the gospel, we need to be careful. There can be cases in which a very new Christian may be still learning, and may come out with some beliefs which still need, shall we say refinement. This case that you present is a after several years, so it raises additional concerns.

I don't think that I could assume that she was saved based upon what you have summarized here. I have seen cases where people have been saved while in cults or churches that were not sound, but those cases are the exception not the rule, and a person who is truly saved would be drawn to what the Bible teaches by the Holy Spirit indwelling them.

I think that the way to deal with a situation like this is to assume that she is not saved and in need of understanding the true gospel without coming out and saying it to her. If she is in fact saved, but confused, then she should be drawn to God's word through the drawing of the Holy Spirit indwelling her. If she is not saved (as I suspect is the case), then she needs to understand what the true gospel says.

Tj3,

WOW! i mean wow. It is hard to believe that Billy would say that. I have heard Joel Osteen hem hall around on Larry King and he refused to say anyone was headed to hell but that he believed that Jesus was the only way. He was being milqutoast but what Billy Grahm said is downright scary.

Let me ask you this? should we question whether someone is a Christian? Is that fair??? From that statement would you question his salvation..or again maybe just his age and health.

We cannot judge the heart, but scripture does command us to judge actions and doctrine, because these things will reflect what is in the heart. I am usually slow to say that a person is or is not saved unless the persons actions or doctrine clearly are contrary to or in opposition to the one true God and the essentials of the gospel. However, when someone comes out with something as outrageous as this, I believe that it is appropriate for Christians to sound the warning regarding his teachings at very least, and do what we can to make other Christians aware of these teachings so that they do not recommend his works to unsaved persons.

There are examples in scripture where Paul did judge a person who was going outside of orthodox Christianity and tells us what to do:

1 Tim 1:18-20
18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
NKJV

Eph 5:8-14
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
NKJV

classyT,
Believe that Billy G. could say that.
There are many people who believe that Jesus is the judge of who goes where after death of the body.
I also believe the Jesus Christ, God The Son, is the Judge and He has said so.
So I am not going to try to out guess Him.
Jesus has infinite and perfect wisdom and understanding and love, and mercy.
No human being has anything even near to perfection in any of those attributes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

At this time I would treat her as a sister who has strayed from the truth and needs to be treated as unconverted.

Jas 5:19-20

19 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
NIV

There is also a much harsher side to this and one which can cause us great distress when trying to figure out what applies to the one who has wandered:

Jude 22-25

22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear-hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

24 To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
NIV

revdrgade,
You said, "At this time I would treat her as a sister who has strayed from the truth and needs to be treated as unconverted."
I think that that is a good way to look at it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

classyT,
Believe that Billy G. could say that.
There are many people who believe that Jesus is the judge of who goes where after death of the body.
I also believe the Jesus Christ, God The Son, is the Judge and He has said so.
So I am not going to try to out guess Him.
Jesus has infinite and perfect wisdom and understanding and love, and mercy.
No human being has anything even near to perfection in any of those attributes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The Lord Jesus knows every heart and I understand that.. but to suggest that there is salvation elsewhere? No way Fred. The Lord places His word above his name. Do you get that.. . I think that is HUGE. ( word above name) He isn't going to tell us one thing and then judge another way. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. There just is no other way. To me it seemed Billy was saying... it didn't matter as long as they adhere to moral ways and practices. Do you disagree with that?

Are you saying that non Christians (even if they believe in God) will not go to heaven?

Is it really Gods way or mans?

Are you saying that non Christians (even if they believe in God) will not go to heaven?

Is it really Gods way or mans?

God's way:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV

classyT,
I do believe that God can and MAY take some people to heaven who are not Christians.
The reason I say that is because God is the final judge and He IS of infinite wisdom, understanding, love, and mercy.
I refuse to out guess Him, that is to think that I know His way better or not that everything is possible with God.
You see I do believe that everything IS possible with God and it is His choice on what He should and will do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

classyT,
I do believe that God can and MAY take some people to heaven who are not Christians.

Fred,

A couple of questions:

1) What is your interpretation of this verse:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV

2) Do you believe that something other than the blood shed on the cross can save?

Fred, One thing is impossible for God to do, and that is to allow sin into heaven. If one has not put their life in Jesus hands and been made clean by Him, then that person WILL NOT be allowed into heaven, regardless of what you may believe. It simply does not line up with what the Bible states about God's character to allow someone who does not OBEY Him into His eternal Glory.

TJ, not sure why you disagreed.

TJ, not sure why you disagreed.

Sorry, my mouse slipped as I was hitting the send, and I did not realize until after I hit send that it changed it it red. My comments were accurate though.

My apologies!

Fred, One thing is impossible for God to do, and that is to allow sin into heaven. If one has not put their life in Jesus hands and been made clean by Him, then that person WILL NOT be allowed into heaven, regardless of what you may believe. It simply does not line up with what the Bible states about God's character to allow someone who does not OBEY Him into His eternal Glory.

But does being a Christian automatically guarantee your entry into heaven?

As a Christian, you are supposed to know the bible, God's will, all of it. So, if you sin should you be exempt just because you're Christian? I would think that God would expect more of you becaue you do know his laws, his word. I haven't met anyone who doesn't sin, including Christians.

Does obeying God really mean being a Christian? What about non Christians that still obey God?

Christianity is a man made institution, not a God made one.

OK.

But does being a Christian automatically guarantee your entry into heaven?

Because it is only the blood shed on the cross that can pay the price for sin.


I haven't met anyone who doesn't sin, including Christians.

Scripture agrees - Romans 3:23


Does obeying God really mean being a Christian? What about non Christians that still obey God?

Their sin has not been paid because they have rejected their Messiah.


Christianity is a man made institution, not a God made one.

Please explain how you conclude this.

But does being a Christian automatically gaurantee your entry into heaven?

As a Christian, you are supposed to know the bible, God's will, all of it. So, if you sin should you be exempt just because you're Christian? I would think that God would expect more of you becaue you do know his laws, his word. I haven't met anyone who doesn't sin, including Christians.

Does obeying God really mean being a Christian? What about non Christians that still obey God?

Christianity is a man made institution, not a God made one.

Right, we all sin. But the difference is that those who place their lives in Jesus hands believe that he forgives sin when confessed and repented of (to turn completely from the sin). We walk in what God says through His word. Jesus said that it is not enough to hear the word but that we must obey as well (Hebrews 12). He also said that there will be many who call Him Lord, but He will cast them to hell because "I knew you not" meaning that they did not obey and do what He says to do. It's not about being able to follow His laws, it's about listening to and following the leading of His Holy Spirit and allowing God's grace to work through me. There is no way possible that I can obey Him without the grace of God working in me through His Holy Spirit to obey.

Tj2,
I believe that what that verse says is that Jesus IS the way, truth and life and that no one goes to the Father but by Him
It does not say that Jesus can not take anyone He wants to ti the Father..
Jesus blood saves yes, and I believe it can save any one Jesus wants to be saved.
He IS the judge, not you or I or any other human being.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj2,
I believe that what that verse says is that Jesus IS the way, truth and life and that no one goes to the Father but by Him
It does not say that Jesus can not take anyone He wants to ti the Father..
Jesus blood saves yes, and I believe it can save any one Jesus wants to be saved.

God does not contradict His word:

John 3:18-19
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NKJV

How do you interpret that?

Tj3,
That is for those who have heard of and about Jesus but not believed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
That is for those who have heard of and about Jesus but not believed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Where does it say that, Fred?

Tj3,
That is the point.
In context that passage id talking about people who know of Jesus but do not believe He is who He is.
That verse does not say "every single person regardless of whether they have known about Jesus or not and do not believe on or in him" will be condemned.
I have told you what I believe and I assure you that YOU will not change what I believe about that.
Fred

Tj3,
That is the point.
In context that passage id talking about people who know of Jesus but do not believe He is who He is.


Actually, it does not say that. It only says that those who do not believe in Jesus will not be saved. Further, we cannot base doctrine on what is not said, but rather on what scripture does say. As to the need to be saved by Jesus, scripture is very clear and very specific:

Acts 4:12
12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
NKJV



I have told you what I believe and I assure you that YOU will not change what I believe about that.
Fred

I am not out to change your mind. I am looking at what scripture has to say.

You are always welcome to believe as you wish.

Tom

Tj3,
You have it your way and I'll have it mine, Thank you.
Fred.

Tj3,
You have it your way and I'll have it mine, Thank you.
Fred.

I'll have it God's way.

Tj3,
So will I.
God IS the Judge. It is He who decides who goes where, Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.
That is why I do not trust your judgment.
Fred

Guys,

My problem with the idea the Lord will take anyone to heaven other than those that profess his name is simply this... That is how he INSTITUTED it. He suffered and died for us. These are HIS rules and HIS plan of salvation. If he places His word above his name... he isn't going to go back on it. His word is above his name... I mean it doesn't get more IMPORTANT than that. WOW.

Alty,

I judge no one. I only go by what the word says. I believe that if someone has heard the gospel and the way to receive Christ and rejects it and decides they have there OWN way to heaven... that they cannot be saved. I don't believe this because I think I am better ( because I KNOW I am not) I don't believe this because I am not tolerant of other beliefs... I only believe this because that is what the Bible teaches. I have no other authority.

Fred,
The Bible incidentally does not teach that the Lord will accept anyone other than those names that are written in the Lambs book of life. If you don't know the lamb, or reject the lamb how in THE WORLD is your name going to be there? The Bible does teach that the Lord does NOT go against HIS word. He can't say one thing and then do another. He can't. Am I wrong?

Tj3,
So will I.
God IS the Judge. It is He who decides who goes where, Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.
That is why I do not trust your judgment.
Fred
Fred, you have this sooo wrong.
God gave us free will to make choices. He did NOT make us a bunch of mind numbed robots in lock step with HIM. Because we have free choice if we choose to reject Him, then we make the decision and our name is not written in the book of life. What is so hard about that to understand? Heck, even Adam and Eve had a choice. They choose to accept what the serpent was telling them and rejected God's words about not eating of the fruit of the tree of life.

Don,

I will eat my hat if fred concedes to you... lol course I'd eat anything right now... I'm on Jenny craig and I'm STARVING.. ok I'm off thread. See what lack of food does to me?

LOL:D I have a couple of straw hats for you LOL

Classy T

I think from your own statements that your are facing a person (never mind her sex) that is in front of a great confusion. She unquestionably needs all the help and advise you can provide her with, although this may represent -most certainly it will- a great effort on your side.

However, our mission as Christians is also to exert as apostles before those who somehow are not yet following the right path. Furthermore, we are to do it out of our sincere desire to love our neighbor, as the 11th Commandment instruct us to do.

Gromm,

I agree. Unfortunately she gets UPSET and freaks if someone disagrees with her. She actually told my son that he had been indoctrinated when he disagreed and discussed the matter with her. I would imagine at this point, prayer is what is needed. Thanks for your thoughts.

classyT,
If she gets unset when someone disagrees with here then it becomes necessary, if disagreement is needed, to do it gently, not quickly or sharply.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Gromm,

i agree. Unfortunately she gets UPSET and freaks if someone disagrees with her. She actually told my son that he had been indoctrinated when he disagreed and discussed the matter with her. I would imagine at this point, prayer is what is needed. Thanks for your thoughts.


I would agree with Arcura's advice. A lot of patience, tolerance and generosity are needed in such difficult cases.

It is even more difficult to convert and atheist and there are some examples that this can be done too.:):)

classyT,
If she gets unset when someone disagrees with here then it becomes necessary, if disagreement is needed, to do it gently, not quickly or sharply.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

Me? Quick and sharp? LOL LOL... naah not me. I'm as gentle as a dove. Hee hee

Actually I avoid the subject. I am passionate about this and it shows. But... When it comes up I actually have to pray for help. I don't feel this way with other people but she KNOWS and professed the truth at one time.. so she irks my FLESH more. But alas.. I know it is wrong. :(

Adam,

you are right! I find this very sad indeed and yet wasn't it the Lord himself who said in that day people will stand before him saying Lord, Lord haven't i done this and that in your name but he replies...I NEVER knew you. Just because someone proclaims to KNOW him...doesn't make it so. It saddens me and frightens me..but again doesn't the Bible teach not to lay hands suddenly on any man? I guess there is a reason for that. Thanks for your insite.

I would add to this that we are not saved by our good deeds, but by HIS grace. Who would had thought that a thief would be saved at cross just before death? Who would had thought that Saul would become Paul? I would say that we all should pray for her to come back to light and be near Lord Jesus. Prayer is one thing we can do and leave the rest in HIS hands. Recently, I watched Jim Cymbala's sermon "My House Shall Be Called A House Of Prayer" online. This sermon reinforced my faith in the power of prayer.

Triund,
Yes prayer can be powerful and should be used.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ok, I already know that we can not truly understand someone elses heart and whether someone is saved or not. Having said that would YOU ( i'm speaking to Christians) own a person like this as a sister in the Lord?.....

I know a woman who was involved for YEARS with the REORGAINIZED church of latter day saints..they have different beliefs from LDS. Anyway her mother who was a Christian prayed for her for and eventually she left that denomination and proclaimed Christ as her personal savior. Her husband was NOT saved and a lot of her family still stayed with that church. She began to grow in her walk with Christ as far as I could tell and was interested in learning so she attended a bible church. Within the last few years I noticed her saying odd things that were not biblical. She now seems to have embraced Universalism. She has decided that it isn't NOT necessary to understand and believe the gospel now because all will be saved in the end. This is NOT biblical....one verse she has used over and over is the one that states Every knee will bow and every knee will confess. I have explained to her that it doesn't EVER say that every knee WILL WANT TO BOW...they will HAVE to. So, my question is...would you own her as a sister in the Lord a little confused.... Or a confused woman in need of real salvation. i don't know what to think?

Good question. I agree with those who have said we should not judge her harshly. It is God who is our judge.

Also, I think this parable is pertinent to the question:

Matthew 21
28 But what think you? A certain man had two sons; and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work today in my vineyard. 29 And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. 30 And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering, said: I go, Sir; and he went not.

31 Which of the two did the father's will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.

As I apply it to this question then, all people are children of God.

Those of us who are Christian have said yes to God. Some of us have followed our yes with our works and have therefore done the will of God and can hope for an eternal reward.

Some of us Christians have said yes to God but have not followed that yes with our works and have therefore nullified that verbal contract with our actions. God will judge.

Some people, and I think this woman falls in this category, have, in good faith said yes to God but have not understood what is required to keep that covenant. If in their actions they ratify their yes to God, then they will be like the son who said no to the Father yet did the Father's will.

If with their actions they nullify that contract, then may God have mercy on them.

Does this apply to the question?

Sincerely,

De Maria

grant09,
Everyone is going to be saved??
I think not according to what Jesus and the bible says.
Fred

I would add to this that we are not saved by our good deeds, but by HIS grace. Who would had thought that a thief would be saved at cross just before death? Who would had thought that Saul would become Paul? I would say that we all should pray for her to come back to light and be near Lord Jesus. Prayer is one thing we can do and leave the rest in HIS hands. Recently, I watched Jim Cymbala's sermon "My House Shall Be Called A House Of Prayer" online. This sermon reinforced my faith in the power of prayer.

I can but totally agree with your remarks. The power of prayer is enormous, as it is the power of Faith. The problem is, in my opinion, that more often than not our prayers are not prayed with enough fath;);)

Really?

Rev 20:15
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
NKJV

Perfect come back verse. I would LOVE to know what the Universalist do with that verse? AND... what verses they use to defend their position. I can't think of ONE!

classyT
Neither can I.
Fred

Perfect come back verse. I would LOVE to know what the Universalist do with that verse? AND...what verses they use to defend their position. I can't think of ONE!

That and a number of other passages. I had a series of debates with a very knowledgeable universalist a few years back, and these debates continued over a period of weeks. At the end of the debates, he conceded that there is nothing in scripture that supports universalism. But he did not change his theology.

Tj3,
"He did not change his theology"
So it goes with a lot of people.
But some do change after a time.
Fred

Tj3,
"He did not change his theology"
So it goes with a lot of people.
But some do change after a time.
Fred

Yes, typically those who have a love of truth are the ones who will eventually change.

Tj3,
True, and those who love truth and have it adhere to it strongly.
Fred

I'm not a Christian but I decided to give you my opinion OK? Nothing is for sure after now. Now is all we've got to work with. All that worrying about being saved or not or if someone else is saved or not is a waste of time and a distraction from the here and now. It takes away quality of life. Spiritual journeys are very personal and though it would be appropriate for you to share your experience with her, it would not be appropriate for you to impose your religious beliefs on her. She is here now anyway, yours to accept as a sister or reject. The choice is yours.

Sunflowers,
I agree with SOME of what you said but I believe that there is much more to be sure of than just there here and now.
In fact to me God is here and now as well as in the past and the future.
I also believe in the past and the tomorrows still to come.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That and a number of other passages. I had a series of debates with a very knowledgable universalist a few years back, and these debates continued over a period of weeks. At the end of the debates, he conceded that there is nothing in scripture that supports universalism. But he did not change his theology.

Many Christians believe that just because they take every word in the bible as absolute truth, that everyone else does. Scripture is not the end all and be all of everyone's faith. You can pound scripture in their ear all day, but you are doing it in vain. Try to remember this when you use it as your sole argument.

Many Christians believe that just because they take every word in the bible as absolute truth, that everyone else does. Scripture is not the end all and be all of everyone's faith. You can pound scripture in their ear all day, but you are doing it in vain. Try to remember this when you use it as your sole argument.

Scripture is the standard of truth for Christians, just as we see in scripture that Jesus Himself used scriopture to validate doctrine when debates over it occurred.

Many Christians believe that just because they take every word in the bible as absolute truth, that everyone else does. Scripture is not the end all and be all of everyone's faith. You can pound scripture in their ear all day, but you are doing it in vain. Try to remember this when you use it as your sole argument.


You either need to believe that the Bible is the Inspired and true word of God or not. If not, then you are not following Christs teachings. If you do believe the Bible there is no half way. What is so hard for people to understand about that.
Oh and thanks for the undeserved reddie.
Right back at you!

You either need to believe that the Bible is the Inspired and true word of God or not. If not, then you are not following Christs teachings. If you do believe the Bible there is no half way. What is so hard for people to understand about that.
Oh and thanks for the undeserved reddie.
Right back at ya!

Sorry, I have to disagree again. I believe in God , I honor Him, and I try to live my life in a way that would make him proud. However, I do not take the bible as an all or nothing handbook. There is WAY TOO MUCH room for error in a book written by mere mortals, passed down through thousands of years, through many languages, and through many translations. That is just ridiculous to a mind that operates on common sense.

Okay, we hear that the bible was written by man, "inspired by God". Did God quit "inspiring" after a certain time? Did he say, " I believe we have about covered everything so let's wrap this up". Why has there been no more inspiring and writing going on in the last couple of thousand years?

Following this innate powerful compass in me called God, points me in the right direction and instructs me to do the right thing. I believe that Jesus's life is an example of how it is supposed to be done. I don't believe God would ever turn his back on his child that lives their life in a God like way. You can do this without even having ever picked up a bible. In fact without even ever having heard of a bible. It's a heart connection. Not a "learned connection" from having read it in a book or having been scared into it.

Why was my reddie undeserved? I disagreed with what you had to say. What am I missing? The "back at cha" sarcasm was not exactly something Jesus would say is it?
Christians that know and believe the bible up one side and down the other , yet still resort to snide remarks just prove my point. Knowing and believing the bible don't mean a thing if you don't live it.

S
Why was my reddie undeserved? I disagreed with what you had to say.

Basically because you do/did not follow the reputation guidelines as outlined here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum-help/using-comments-feature-official-guidelines-24951.html

Anytime a preacher shouts about hell & the wrath of God he portrays a God who is like a bully military drill sergeant. I went to church expecting to find comfort.

If you saw a friend driving towards a brick wall unaware, would you scream and holler about what was about to happen, or comfort them on their way to their death?

Which approach would be truly loving and that of a true friend?

450donn,
I believe that the bible IS the word of God, but it is not all of it.
Much of what Jesus taught is not in the bible, but some of it is in other documents written by Apostles which we a lucky enough to still have.
Read the documents of the early Church father for that information
Fred

450donn,
I believe that the bible IS the word of God, but it is not all of it.
Much of what Jesus taught is not in the bible, but some of it is in other documents written by Apostles which we a lucky enough to still have.

Be specific - what documents did the Apostles write that are scriptural but outside of the Bible?

450donn,
I believe that the bible IS the word of God, but it is not all of it.
Much of what Jesus taught is not in the bible, but some of it is in other documents written by Apostles which we a lucky enough to still have.
Read the documents of the early Church father for that information
Fred
Proverbs 30:6 says
"Do not add to His words, or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

So, please for once in your life answer the question, How can you or your brand of religion justify adding to or taking away from the Bible given proverbs 30:6?

450donn,
I believe that the bible IS the word of God, but it is not all of it.
Much of what Jesus taught is not in the bible, but some of it is in other documents written by Apostles which we a lucky enough to still have.
Read the documents of the early Church father for that information
Fred

Everything that the Lord wanted to be revealed to us IS in the word of God. Ain't no if's or buts about it. But I still like you Fred.

Proverbs 30:6 says
"Do not add to His words, or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

So, please for once in your life answer the question, How can you or your brand of religion justify adding to or taking away from the Bible given proverbs 30:6?

Do you mean by, say, removing books from the canon of the Septuagint, which was the canon used by Jesus and the Apostles and quoted in the NT? Fred's "brand of religion" hasn't done that. Yours has.

Or do you mean by, say, adding the books of the NT to the Bible in addition to the canon of the OT which, again, is the Scripture referred to in the writings of the NT?

Where in the canon of Scripture that "your brand of religion" uses does it tell you which texts are to be included in Bible? Your "brand of religion" uses a canon of Scripture that differs from that used by Fred's "brand of religion": How do you know yours is the right one and his is not? Does Scripture tell you that or did you hear it someplace else?

If you wish to be "Biblical" then, by all means, be "Biblical". But then, in that case, you really ought to be able to give Biblical justification for the canon of Scripture you use, as well as for your assumption that the Bible is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. I encourage you to join the discussion of this very topic in the religious discussion forum. It would be nice to hear from another voice on this subject since it is, I think we can all agree, a very important one for anyone who takes the word of God seriously.

Be specific - what documents did the Apostles write that are scriptural but outside of the Bible?

How about the Didache?

Many people believe that it was written by the Twelve before leaving Jerusalem for their various ministries. Of course, there is some debate about its authorship, but certainly no more than, say, whether Paul was really the author of Colossians and Hebrews (something almost no Biblical scholars believe) or Ephesians (which few scholars believe was penned by Paul, and which, it is widely believed, was not in fact written to a congregation in Ephesus but more likely in Laodicea). In fact, there is far more scholarly agreement regarding the attribution of the Didache to the Twelve than there is regarding the attribution of the Gospels of Matthew to Matthew or of Mark to Mark or of Luke to Luke or of John to John (the original attrubutions of the Gospels to these figures were made in the second century and so are a matter of Tradition).

Also, the Didache has been more faithfully transmitted than has, say, the Gospel of Mark. The manuscript tradition of Mark bears evidence of considerable corruption, so much, in fact, that we aren't even sure whether its sixteenth chapter ends at verse 8 or verse 20. Biblical scholars agree that the shorter version of Mark was the original and that eveything after the middle of v.8 is a later addition. But that's the point: The manuscripts don't agree, and so we have no way of knowing with certainty where Mark was originally supposed to end, with terror and amazement (v.8) or with the proclamation of the gospel confirmed by Christ through signs (v.20). The addition of vv.9-20 certainly makes for a more edifying conclusion. But Biblical scholars of all stripes agree that it was a later addition--and, as I say, we have early manuscripts some of which give testimony of the shorter ending and some of which give testimony of the longer ending.

Bear in mind, as well, that the Didache was included in many of the early canons of Scripture in use among Christians prior to the Council of Nicaea.

You don't like my OT quite, How about the one in Revelation 22:18-21? Since this is the last statement in the Bible, do you then contend that it is meant only for the book of Revelation or to the entire bible? My guess you will attempt to argue it pertains only to Revelation. Personally I take it to mean the entire Bible. Your brand or religion might not take it that way and that is why you argue so fervently for other writings that are not in the bible as being inspired by some deity or other.

Do you mean by, say, removing books from the canon of the Septuagint, which was the canon used by Jesus and the Apostles and quoted in the NT? Fred's "brand of religion" hasn't done that. Yours has.

Books were removed from the canon of the Septuagint? Please, do tell!

How about the Didache?

You consider the Didache to be canonical? Have you started your own personal definition of the canon?

Books were removed from the canon of the Septuagint? Please, do tell!

Well, there are books included in the canon of the Septuagint which you do not regard as canonical. These include: Tobit; 1, 2 Maccabees; Sirach, Judith; Wisdom; Baruch. It is widely known--and you are more than welcome to look it up--that there are references in the NT to each of these. You have therefore removed from the Scriptures books which are contained in the Septuagint and which are referred to in the NT. 450donn asked by what right Fred's "brand of religion" removes from or adds to the Scriptures. I have now shown that you have removed from the Scriptures (i.e. from what was regarded as Scripture by the NT); and all Christians have added to the OT by regarding the NT as Scripture. Therefore, 450donn's point lacks merit.

Well, there are books included in the canon of the Septuagint which you do not regard as canonical. These include: Tobit; 1, 2 Maccabees; Sirach, Judith; Wisdom; Baruch.

Two points. First, the oldest manuscripts available of the Septuagint provide no evidence that these books were included in the 1st century Septuagint.

Second, many books have been provided as reference material (though not canonical in Bible translations. Inclusion does not mean that they are part of the canon.

You consider the Didache to be canonical? Have you started your own personal definition of the canon?

You asked Fred what text exists that was written by the Apostles but is not part of Scripture. Answer: the Didache. And it was part of the canon of Scripture for quite some time.

I have no problem with Tradition, as you know. How do you justify your canon of Scripture? Since the Scriptures themselves do not provide a list of canonical books, you have no choice but to appeal to some extra-Biblical source. What is that source? Why, in particular, do you include the Gospel of Mark but exclude the Didache? It can't be that Mark was included and the Didache excluded at the Council of Nicaea, since the Council of Nicaea is extra-Biblical and to rely upon its decision would be to rely upon Tradition. It would, in fact, be to place Tradition above Scripture on account of the fact that the Council decided what is Scripture.

So, you cannot reject the Didache on the grounds that it was rejected by Nicaea. And you cannot accept Mark on the grounds that it was accepted by Nicaea. Either way, doing so would be a recognition of the authority of something extra-Biblical, i.e. Tradition. But neither can it be that the provenance of the Gospel of Mark is somehow loftier than that of the Didache: The Didache itself says that it was written by the Twelve Apostles; the Gospel of Mark does not claim to have been written by Mark--its attribution to Mark dates from the second century and is itself extra-Biblical. So by rights, you ought to be more comfortable with the Didache than with Mark.

And you can't claim to know that Mark was inspired but the Didache was not, since the Didache says that it was written by the Twelve while Mark doesn't say that it was written by Mark. Moreover, the mss. Of the Didache give us a much more certain picture of its intended content than do the mss. Of Mark which, as I explained, don't even agree about where the Gospel is supposed to end (is it ch.16, v.8 or is it ch.16, v.20?).

Since there isn't one universally recognized canon of Scripture, you must have some principled reason for using the canon that you do and rejecting all other books as non-canonical. What could that reason be, I wonder.

You asked Fred what text exists that was written by the Apostles but is not part of Scripture. Answer: the Didache. And it was part of the canon of Scripture for quite some time.

First, it is not know who the author or authors of this document are, and second, no it is not part of the canon, and never was. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but your source is faulty.

Two points. First, the oldest manuscripts available of the Septuagint provide no evidence that these books were included in the 1st century Septuagint.

Actually, you've got it exactly backwards: the earliest complete mss. Of the Septuagint are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus includes all the books I listed with the exception of 1 & 2 Maccabees. Codex Sinaiticus includes Maccabees, along with Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach. As you may know, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest extant mss. Of the Bible, including the NT. Included in the NT canon of Codex Sinaiticus are the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.


Second, many books have been provided as reference material (though not canonical in Bible translations. Inclusion does not mean that they are part of the canon.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. If you mean that some translations of the Bible list these books as apocryphal or deuterocanonical, that's true. Those translations of the Bible which do not recognize the canonicity of these books nevertheless sometimes include them a reference material. But that just takes it for granted that those canons are correct. So, if this is what you are saying, it really isn't to the point. If I've misunderstood what you meant to say then perhaps you could reformulate your point.

Actually, you've got it exactly backwards: the earliest complete mss. of the Septuagint are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus includes all the books I listed with the exception of 1 & 2 Maccabees. Codex Sinaiticus includes Maccabees, along with Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach. As you may know, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest extant mss. of the Bible, including the NT. Included in the NT canon of Codex Sinaiticus are the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Check the dates of these manuscripts.

BTW, as I said, simple inclusion with another book does not make something canonical. I have a study Bible beside me which has many reference documents included - are you saying simple inclusion makes all those document canonical? I know of no scholar who would agree.

First, it is not know who the author or authors of this document are, and second, no it is not part of the canon, and never was. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but your source is faulty.

It isn't known who the author or authors of the Gospel of Mark were, either. The text of the Gospel itself doesn't tell us and, as with the other Gospels, it wasn't until the second century that it came to be associated with Mark. So the fact that we cannot verify authorship shouldn't pose any problem for you.

No, the Didache is not part of the canon. But it was regarded as canonical by many early Christians, a fact attested to by John Damascene and the Apostolic Constitutions. We have historical evidence that it was regarded at canonical by many early Christians (prior to Nicaea), a fact which you can easily verify if you like. Some of it is available online. You can also read Metzger's books on the early canon. (BTW, Bruce Metzger was not Catholic. He was the leading scholar on the canon of the NT and taught at Princeton Theological Seminary for decades. If you haven't read his work you really should.) Or you can go to a good library and have a look at early canons of Scripture and see for yourself what was and what was not included by different people at different times. So while the Council of Nicaea regarded it as spurious, that shouldn' give you any grounds for rejecting it since you don't recognize the authority of the Council.

There is also this interesting fact: The Didache bears many striking similarities to the Gospel of Matthew (remember, we don't know who really wrote Matthew since the Gospel itself doesn't tell us and it wasn't known by this title until the second century). There is growing scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache were composed in proximity to each other (both in time and place). If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle, then this supports the idea that the Didache was written by the Apostles. Besides, the Didache tells us that it was written by the Apostles, while the Gospel of Mark does not tell us that it was written by Mark. Why are you suspicious of the claim of the Didache to apostolic authorship but credulous about the attribution of the Gospel of Mark to Mark when the Gospel itself doesn't tell us that he was its author? This attribution is itself a matter of Tradition, dating as it does to the second century.

It isn't known who the author or authors of the Gospel of Mark were, either.

There I disagree, but that is not the point - you claimed that this was written by the Apostles.


No, the Didache is not part of the canon.

Then the second part of the point being made by Fred and yourself dies.

So far nobody has been able to prove the existence of hell or any form of afterlife out there. I challenge you to prove there is a hell without using the bible. I'm not stupid enough to believe something just because it's written in a book.

Interesting. So, you don't believe that there are atoms that make up matter? You don't believe in electrons? You don't believe that George Wahington or Winston Churchill existed?

Check the dates of these manuscripts.

They both date to the fourth century. As I've pointed out to you before, they are the oldest extant mss. Do you have some earlier mss. Squirreled away that no one knows about? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest mss. We have, with the exception of a few short fragments.


BTW, as I said, simple inclusion with another book does not make something canonical. I have a study Bible beside me which has many reference documents included - are you saying simple inclusion makes all those document canonical? I know of no scholar who would agree.

Which scholars have you been talking to? I don't know of anyone who takes the view that these texts weren't part of the canon of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Or do you suppose that ancient copyists included them for kicks, intermingling them with other recognizably canonical books. Let's see: They both include the Gospel of Matthew. Do you suppose that the Gospel of Matthew was not part of the canon? After all, it's just sitting there, included right alongside other books such as Mark and Tobit with nothing to indicate that the different books had varying status. Does your study Bible indicate that some books are apocryphal or deuterocanonical? Mine all do. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they weren't considered canonical. They aren't set apart (you can verify this by checking the list in which the books appear in the mss.) as a group but are intermingled with books that we now recognize as canonical.

There I disagree, but that is not the point - you claimed that this was written by the Apostles.

I said that it's authorship is no more in doubt than the authorship of any of the Gospels. You asked for a book written by the Apostles that isn't part of Scripture. I offered the Didache as a candidate.


Then the second part of the point being made by Fred and yourself dies.

How do you figure?

They both date to the fourth century.

Agreed. Which verifies what I said.


Which scholars have you been talking to? I don't know of anyone who takes the view that these texts weren't part of the canon of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

I fear that you may in fact be telling the truth when you say that you don't know anyone who takes the view that these text weren't part of the canon.

But once again, and perhaps you missed the point - simple inclusion does not make it part of the canon, and I know of no credible scholar who would disagree.

I question all things. No I do not take it on faith that George Washington existed or that he was first president. I do take into account the possibility that our history books have been falsified.

Do you believe everything the doctors tell you when you go for a visit or do you do your own investigations?

Where do you go to investigate?

Agreed. Which verifies what I said.

What does it verify, Tom?


I fear that you may in fact be telling the truth when you say that you don't know anyone who takes the view that these text weren't part of the canon.

I'm saying that they were part of the canon of those two mss. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. There is no scholarly debate about this: It is universally regarded to be the case. Have you anything to offer that is dispositive? Can you cite any reputable Biblical scholars who take the view that they were not part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus?


But once again, and perhaps you missed the point - simple inclusion does not make it part of the canon, and I know of no credible scholar who would disagree.

Inclusion in the canon of Scripture does make them part of the canon. As I say, and you can easily verify this for yourself, they are included intermingled with other books (and not set aside from other, recognizably canonical books), with nothing to indicate that they have any different status than the other books. You didn't answer my question: Does your study Bible produce these books together in a section titled something like "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books"? You see, by your reasoning we could just as easily claim that the Gospel of Matthew of the Book of Genesis weren't part of the canon either. They appear in both codices, without any explicit mention of their canonical status. Since the codices indicate no difference in canonical status among the books they include, and since we have considerable historical and documentary evidence that many Christians included these books among their canons, there are no rational grounds for supposing that their inclusion indicates anything other than their canonicity. What grounds have you for supposing that they were not regarded as canonical?

What does it verify, Tom?

Did you forget what we were discussing?



I'm saying that they were part of the canon of those two mss. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

And I am sure that you believe that top be true, but believing it and having evidence of it are two different things. So far you are assuming that inclusion with it means that they are canonical. An assumption that is a stretch as I already showed.



There is no scholarly debate about this: It is universally regarded to be the case.

I was not aware that you were making decisions for the world on this.

Did you forget what we were discussing?

Did you? You asserted that the oldest mss. Of the Septuagint do not contain that books I mentioned (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom). I corrected you: The oldest mss. Are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and they do contain these books.

What point of yours did you take the date of these codices to verify?


And I am sure that you believe that top be true, but believing it and having evidence of it are two different things. So far you are assuming that inclusion with it means that they are canonical. An assumption that is a stretch as I already showed.

The evidence is as I have described it: The inclusion of these books intermingled with other canonical books and the absence of any indication that they were regarded as anything other than canonical. Have you any evidence that they were not regarded as canonical?

Oh, yeah, that's right, you have a study Bible. Well, to reiterate: All the study Bibles I have seen indicate that a book is not canonical, typically by grouping it together with other non-canonical books under a heading that reads something like "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books". I've asked you, and you have refused to answer, whether your study Bible indicates that some book or books are not canonical. Does it? Or is the reader left to guess which books are canonical and which are not?

Again, there is no reason to believe that these books were not part of the official canon of these codices. If we are to follow your rather quixotic line of reasoning, then there would be no reason to regard any of the books contained in the codices as canonical, since they are all intermingled without any indication that some are and some are not canonical. You might just as well ask why we think that these codices are Bibles at all. It would be no more reasonable to suppose that these texts were not regarded as canonical than it would be to suppose that the Gospels were not regarded as canonical.

So, absent any evidence that one or more of the books contained in these codices of the Bible were regarded as uncanonical, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that all of the books contained in them were regarded as canonical. After all, this situation with these codices is not at all like the situation with the Nag Hammadi texts.


I was not aware that you were making decisions for the world on this.

More of the same, huh? By all means, provide references to reputable Biblical scholars who deny that these books were part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I have kept up with the scholarly literature in several languages on these and other early codices for decades. I have worked on them myself. I have seen them and studied them. I am unaware of any reputable scholar who denies that they belonged to the canon of these codices. Please, if you know of any reputable scholars who hold the contrary view, provide the references.

Really, Tom, given your evident interest in this stuff, you really should read some serious scholarly studies of the early Christian canon and mss. Traditions.

Did you? You asserted that the oldest mss. Of the Septuagint do not contain that books I mentioned (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom).

Not true. I asked you for evidence that they did. I also pointed out to you that just inclusion is not adequate to claim canonicity. And you failed to provide that evidence of your claims.


The evidence is as I have described it: The inclusion of these books intermingled with other canonical books and the absence of any indication that they were regarded as anything other than canonical. Have you any evidence that they were not regarded as canonical?

The onus is on the person claiming canonicity, not for me to prove that they were not.


Really, Tom, given your evident interest in this stuff, you really should read some serious scholarly studies of the early Christian canon and mss. Traditions.

I have read far more than you could imagine. That is why I know that you are off base on your claims. Perhaps you should spend more time doing your own research than trying to put down others.

Not true. I asked you for evidence that they did. I also pointed out to you that just inclusion is not adequate to claim canonicity. And you failed to provide that evidence of your claims.

Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that.


The onus is on the person claiming canonicity, not for me to prove that they were not.

If you choose not to accept what I have provided as sufficient evidence of canonicity that is your choice. So long as you acknowledge that there is, then, no evidence that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus regard the four Gospels as canonical either. If you wish to do so, I have no quarrel with that.


I have read far more than you could imagine. That is why I know that you are off base on your claims.

Why, then it should be as easy as pie to provide the names of those reputable Biblical scholars who take the view that these books were not part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. If you could provide the book and article titles in which they make this claim that would be good too, as I would like to read them.

Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that.

Interesting - I was not aware that you were also denying the gospels as canonical.


If you choose not to accept what I have provided as sufficient evidence of canonicity that is your choice.

I don't - I don't see you as having the authority to define canonicity.

Interesting - I was not aware that you were also denying the gospels as canonical.



I don't - I don't see you as having the authority to define canonicity.

Did you go and forget that we were talking about the canon as it is found in two codices, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus? Had I been made aware of your confusion earlier I would have attempted to help you remedy it.

I accept the authority of Tradition to determine matters of canonicity. What do you use? To be clear, I am asking how you decided upon the particular canon that you use, in preference to the many others that have been and are today in use? Since none of the books of the Bible contains a list stating which are the genuinely inspired canonical books, and since you do not recognize any authority outside the Bible as determinative in such matters, how did you decide which canon to use? Did you select among those that were already in use, or did you decide one book at a time? And by what means did you certify that your choice or choices were correct, i.e. in accordance with God's will?

Did you go and forget that we were talking about the canon as it is found in two codices, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus? Had I been made aware of your confusion earlier I would have attempted to help you remedy it.

Akoue, are you having a senior's moment? You questioned whether the gospel were part of the canon - did YOU forget? Let me remind you by quoting you:

" Originally Posted by Akoue View Post
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that."


I accept the authority of Tradition to determine matters of canonicity.

You place your faith in your denomination therefore. I don't. That is a key difference. When the canon was determine, your denomination did not exist. I accept that the Bible, as God's word, was defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone.

Akoue, are you having a senior's moment? You questioned whether the gospel were part of the canon - did YOU forget? Let me remind you by quoting you:

" Originally Posted by Akoue View Post
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that."

Yes, "they" refers to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Wow, you really did lose it there for awhile, huh. You claimed that the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others in the codices does not prove that they were regarded as canonical. I pointed out that there is nothing in the mss. To indicate that any of the books had a different canonical status from any of the others. Therefore, if the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss. Then, it follows, that the mere inclusion of the four Gospels in those mss. Isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss.


You place your faith in your denomination therefore. I don't. That is a key difference. When the canon was determine, your denomination did not exist. I accept that the Bible, as God's word, was defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone.

When did I ever say anything about a denomination? You're jumping to conclusions again.

You still haven't answered the question: How did you arrive at the canon you use? How did you decide which canon of Scripture is the one that is uniquely "defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone"?

Yes, "they" refers to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Wow, you really did lose it there for awhile, huh.

You are getting confused. Maybe you should sort out first whether you are talking about this specific translation, or the canonicity of the gospel.



You claimed that the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others in the codices does not prove that they were regarded as canonical.

Finally you have read what I posted!


I pointed out that there is nothing in the mss. To indicate that any of the books had a different canonical status from any of the others. Therefore, if the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss. Then, it follows, that the mere inclusion of the four Gospels in those mss. Isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss.

Ah, so if I find other, perhaps heretical books bound together with canonical books, the canonicity somehow migrates by osmosis into the other books bound with them? Are you next going to tell me that all the books found with the Dead Sea scrolls are canonical because many were, and there was no differentiation made between the scrolls?


When did I ever say anything about a denomination? You're jumping to conclusions again.

The tradition to which you refer to denomination specific.


You still haven't answered the question: How did you arrive at the canon you use? How did you decide which canon of Scripture is the one that is uniquely "defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone"?

I answered many times. You just don't like the answer.

You are getting confused. Maybe you should sort out first whether you are talking about this specific translation, or the canonicity of the gospel.

Yeah, Tom, unless you go back and re-read the last couple of pages you are going to remain as lost as you manifestly are right now. You can tell me it's me if you like, but the posts are there for anyone to read. You've pretty dramatically missed the point. Sorry to have lost you.


Ah, so if I find other, perhaps heretical books bound together with canonical books, the canonicity somehow migrates by osmosis into the other books bound with them? Are you next going to tell me that all the books found with the Dead Sea scrolls are canonical because many were, and there was no differentiation made between the scrolls?

See, now this is why I mentioned Nag Hammadi. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are codices, bound books, with their contents arranged serially just as you would find in a modern book. The Dead Sea Scrolls (and this goes for Nag Hammadi as well) is a library of scrolls contained in lots of jars. The Dead Sea scrolls have been collected, edited, and translated, but the actual scrolls did not compose a single book but were part of a library. Just as the books in a public library cannot all together be regarded as a single book, so neither can the scrolls be regarded as a single book.

A codex is a single bound book. Here we find the books of the Bible arranged in the way you find them in printed Bibles today, in just the same way that the chapters of a book are arranged. In the codices we are talking about, the books of Tobit, Sirach, and the rest are included within a single bound book, and that book is the Bible that was used by Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries. If the books included in these codices were individually stuffed into different jars and placed in a cave, then you'd be right to say that we cannot infer from their proximity that they were all regarded as canonical. But since that isn't the case, since they are found intermingled with books that are now regarded as canonical, scholars take them to have been members of the canons of these two codices. Now, if there were something within the codices to indicate that some of the books were considered canonical and others were not, then that would be one thing. But there isn't. There isn't any grouping or addenda which indicate that Tobit and Sirach and the others were held to be non-canonical.

And now let me see if I can help you to understand the point I made about when I mentioned the Gospels. There is nothing in these codices to indicate that they were regarded as any less canonical than the four Gospels. In a modern study Bible, the editors use various sorts of apparatus to indicate that some books are non-canonical, typically by segregating them and appending a heading that indicates that the books are apocryphal or deuterocanonical. There is nothing like this in the codices. So, if your argument is that the mere inclusion of these books in the codices of the Bible is insufficient that they are members of the canon of Scripture of the codices, then, by the very same reasoning, it could just as easily be said that the four Gospels are not members of the canon of these codices--this for the reason that, as I've explained, there is nothing to indicate that the Gospels and the books of Tobit and Sirach, etc. had any different canonical status. That being so, there needs to be some special reason for holding that these books (Tobit, Sirach, etc.) were not part of the canon of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

Understand now? If not, then you're going to have to remain confused for awhile, because I'm heading to bed soon.


The tradition to which you refer to denomination specific.

Perhaps you could explain how. I've spoken of Tradition in a very generic way.


I answered many times. You just don't like the answer.

The only thing I can think of that might have been you answering my question is the one time, recently, when you suggested that I must deny prophetic revelation. Is your answer that you received a prophetic revelation and that is how you arrived at the canon you use?

If that's your answer then please confirm it, since I'm not at all sure that that's what you meant (you framed it as a question). If that isn't your answer, then no, you haven't answered the question.

Yeah, Tom, unless you go back and re-read the last couple of pages you are going to remain as lost as you manifestly are right now. You can tell me it's me if you like, but the posts are there for anyone to read. You've pretty dramatically missed the point. Sorry to have lost you.

Akoue, I don't know if your memory is the problem or it is your difficulty in avoiding abuse of others, or if you just are trying to distract from your difficulty with what scripture has to say.



Understand now? If not, then you're going to have to remain confused for awhile, because I'm heading to bed soon.

It appears that I understand more than you do. You seem to feel that the more that you post, the truer it is, but it is no more convincing the 15th time as it was the first time, or when I first read the same material and arguments many years ago.



Perhaps you could explain how. I've spoken of Tradition in a very generic way.

Not as generic as you may think.

Akoue, I don't know if your memory is the problem or it is your difficulty in avoiding abuse of others, or if you just are trying to distract from your difficulty with what scripture has to say.



It appears that I understand more than you do. You seem to feel that the more that you post, the truer it is, but it is no more convincing the 15th time as it was the first time, or when I first read the same material and arguments many years ago.



Not as generic as you may think.

Apparently my efforts to help oout of your confusion weren't appreciated. That's fine.

You have once again managed to post without making a single substantive claim about the subject-matter under discussion. That's fine, too. I'm satisfied to leave it here. Oh, and you've totally outed yourself once again: There is just no way, given what you've posted, that you have even a passing familiarty with scholarship on the early NT canon and the manuscript tradition. And I'm not the only one reading this thread who has picked up on that fact.

Nighty-night.

Apparently my efforts to help oout of your confusion weren't appreciated. That's fine.

I don't follow those who are so mixed up that they don't even remember what they said, but are absolutely certain that they alone are right.

Maybe a good nights sleep will help you clear your thoughts.

There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version. My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.

There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version. My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.

Though I will agree that a couple of folk on here are arguing about one translation as being "The Bible" (the Septuagint), I am not. I have used the Septuagint, but it is a translation, and a translation is not the source.

There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version.
I know, ain't it great? It's like bare-knuckle cage fighting. What a thrill.

Actually, what they're really arguing about is whether the Catholic Church is God's Instrument on Earth, whose traditions define both which texts deserve to be regarded as Scripture, and how those texts should be interpreted. That's the source of the seething anger, bitter sarcasm and vicious put-downs in their "scholarly discussions" about manuscripts, codices, and canons. Family fights can get really ugly, can't they?


My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.I like how you think, cozy

I don't care if she was ever a Christian or if she just thought she was a christian but wasn't because she wasn't following the correct Christian doctrine. Geez O Petes! This whole thing is so silly. How can any Christian believe they are exclusively better when that very belief causes them to behave immorally towards others? I don't think I'll ever understand why Christians think they are not out of line when they go putting their noses so far up someone else's a**.

I don't care if she was ever a Christian or if she just thought she was a christian but wasn't because she wasn't following the correct Christian doctrine. Geez O Petes! This whole thing is so silly. How can any Christian believe they are exclusively better when that very belief causes them to behave immorally towards others? I don't think I'll ever understand why Christians think they are not out of line when they go putting their noses so far up someone else's a**.


Unfortunately, you are right! I also wonder why so many Christians consider they are above and beyond the Law (God’s Law, that is) and believe they are better than those who walk the line though they may not be Christians. That reminds me always of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14).

Although, as a Christian (RCC) I am convinced there are more Publicans than Pharisees, I admit that no matter how few of the latter we may have they do not set a good example to those who enjoy finding as many defects as possible to our religion.:):)

I do believe that...
Christians are human beings and therefore imperfect beings like all other humans.
Some do err more than others but I believe that most, if not all, try to live their lives better than if they were not Christians and that transends all the different denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I do believe that.......
Christians are human beings and therefore imperfect beings like all other humans.
Some do err more than others but I believe that most, if not all, try to live their lives better than if they were not Christians and that transends all the different denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That sounds like you believe that christians corner the market on good behavior.

That sounds like you believe that christians corner the market on good behavior.

Christians have no corner on good behaviour, but there are two important difference for Christians:

1) Christians have a standard of moral conduct provided to us in scripture, and with the help to obey it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2) Christians are not perfect and do fail. Scripture says all are sinners and that includes Christians. Christians differ in that they have accepted Jesus' offer to pay the price for sin that we rightly deserve. That offer is open for all.

Christians have no corner on good behaviour, but there are two important difference for Christians:

[QUOTE]1) Christians have a standard of moral conduct provided to us in scripture, and with the help to obey it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I and many other people I know live by a high moral code that has nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture.

I and many other people I know live by a high moral code that has nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture.

The difference is that for Christians the moral code is unchanging. For others, that moral code is personal, and is defined by experience and is good for this person in this timeframe. It has no anchor to prevent it from changing.

CozyK
Yes you are right there are many people with a high moral code that they have chosen to follow.
BUT often that moral code is not the same as the one that is established by Christianity in Holy Scripture which is, as Tj3 said unchanging.
If a person who is not a Christian follows a moral code like that of Christianity, I wonder from where they got that...
Have you ever considered the fact that in the laws in many nations are based on the Jewish/Christian moral code?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The difference is that for Christians the moral code is unchanging. For others, that moral code is personal, and is defined by experience and is good for this person in this timeframe. It has no anchor to prevent it from changing.

I believe that you are underestimating your own GOD GIVEN intelligence when you rely on something someone wrote down to be your moral guide. Are you telling me that you would not be able to keep it straight what is right or wrong if you couldn't refer to it in a book?
And what about the gray areas? "Thou shalt not kill" Ever?? There are times we are called to make a decision that may not be covered in the bible. The God within us guides us in our decisions if we just listen to Him. Life is fluid and circumstances we face may not be something that was covered in a book written so long ago. Maybe there should have been a bible sequel? Possibly a running sequel. The bible IS a little out dated don't you think? Where is the guide for the 21st century? Twenty one centuries is a long time for nothing new to be added.

cozyK
This is what I think...

[QUOTE]Yes you are right there are many people with a high moral code that they have chosen to follow.
With you there.


BUT often that moral code is not the same as the one that is established by Christianity in Holy Scripture which is, as Tj3 said unchanging.
Still with you. It's a good place to start. The unchanging part is actually the down side.
Refer to my post about the gray area where you are left to your own God Given intelligence to make a choice. Not everything is just black or white.


If a person who is not a Christian follows a moral code like that of Christianity, I wonder from where they got that...
I don't know where I got my initial ideas. Probably a combination of my Christian up bringing, parental teachings, laws, and the bad feeling I get when I know I am behaving in a way that is not pleasing to my God. That was the infancy of my choices. Since then, my choices are guided by a much higher power. Call it my conscience or call it the God within. It does not lie to me. Even if my ego tries to fool it, make bargains with it, or even if laws were changed and it was "legal" to do certain things that used to be frowned upon. My ultimate guide would still be my conscience.

I believe that you are underestimating your own GOD GIVEN intelligence when you rely on something someone wrote down to be your moral guide. Are you telling me that you would not be able to keep it straight what is right or wrong if you couldn't refer to it in a book?

You miossed what I said. I don't rely solely upon the written as a moral guide to how I behave - Ialso have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide me on a day by day basis.


And what about the gray areas? "Thou shalt not kill" Ever??

Go back to the original Hebrew. The word translated kill actually is "murder". Should you not murder ever? No, you shouldn't.


There are times we are called to make a decision that may not be covered in the bible.

That is where the Holy Spirit comes in.


The God within us guides us in our decisions if we just listen to Him.

The Holy Spirit only indwells believers.

John 7:39
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive;
NKJV


The bible IS a little out dated don't you think? Where is the guide for the 21st century? Twenty one centuries is a long time for nothing new to be added.

The Bible is not outdated at all. When did you last read it?

The unchanging part is actually the down side.
I'm with you on this, cozy.

The Holy Spirit only indwells believers.
By "believers" do you mean people who accept the same canon of Scripture, and the same interpretation of it that you do? Are you quite sure that the Spirit's indwelling is so strictly limited? I don't think so.

By "believers" do you mean people who accept the same canon of Scripture, and the same interpretation of it that you do?

I am referring to the definition of believers given in scripture.


Are you quite sure that the Spirit's indwelling is so strictly limited? I don't think so.

I trust God's word. You can believe as you wish.

God does not contradict His word:

John 3:18-19
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NKJV

How do you interpret that?

Tj3,

You are 100 percent right on. He places His word above His name. He doesn't lie... he WILL NEVER contradict His word. I wanted to give you a great big greenie but I need to spread the love first. It appears I agree withja too much.. ha! :)

I must agree with Tj3 on this.
I do believe that...
Holy Scripture contains the Word of God.
Thus what is says there is truth.
Therefor that is what I follow.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I am referring to the definition of believers given in scripture.



I trust God's word. You can believe as you wish.


What made you pick THIS to be a believer in when there are so many choices. What makes the scripture more valid than anything else?

What made you pick THIS to be a believer in when there are so many choices. What makes the scripture more valid than anything else?

2Timothy 3:16 tells us.
So IF YOU are to believe the word of God at all you must also believe this passage of scripture. Otherwise you are free to choose the book of? As your gospel and follow it.

2Timothy 3:16 tells us.
So IF YOU are to believe the word of God at all you must also believe this passage of scripture. Otherwise you are free to choose the book of? as your gospel and follow it.

What made you decide THIS was the sentence of all sentences in all the books of faith to take as your law?

Do I need to type it out for you?
OK, Here it is;
2Ti3:16
"ALL scripture is inspired by GOD and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Do I need to type it out for you?
OK, Here it is;
2Ti3:16
"ALL scripture is inspired by GOD and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Okaaaaaaaaaaayyy. If you believe so. But I don't get you. A little testy and a little lacking in original thought. But you can sure read and recite well.:rolleyes:

I am referring to the definition of believers given in scripture.
That would be the scriptural canon that YOU have chosen as legitimate, and the interpretation of it that YOU have accepted as valid, wouldn't it? Why is it so hard for you to own these as YOUR choices, while still allowing others to make their own?

That would be the scriptural canon that YOU have chosen as legitimate, and the interpretation of it that YOU have accepted as valid, wouldn't it? Why is it so hard for you to own these as YOUR choices, while still allowing others to make their own?

My thoughts exactly Ordinaryguy. We still can't get him to say why this is the one he chose.:eek: How hard is that to answer?

That would be the scriptural canon that YOU have chosen as legitimate, and the interpretation of it that YOU have accepted as valid, wouldn't it?

I did not choose it, and I do not interpret it. It was God ordained.


Why is it so hard for you to own these as YOUR choices, while still allowing others to make their own?

Anyone can choose what they want.

Tj3,

You are 100 percent right on. He places His word above His name. He doesn't lie....he WILL NEVER contradict His word. I wanted to give you a great big greenie but I need to spread the love first. It appears I agree withja too much..ha! :)

Thanks. Agreeing too much is not a problem - after all there is a harmony between those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit!

there is a harmony between those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit!!
Maybe that explains why cozy and I get along so well.

Tj3 disagrees: The canon was chosen by God.And how was it, exactly, that He communicated His choice to you?

I did not choose it, and I do not interpret it. It was God ordained.I guess this is why you think it's OK to browbeat other people with it. If you admitted that these were YOUR choices, not God's, it would be a lot harder to pull that off with a somber face.




Anyone can choose what they want.
And that "anyone" includes you. You're blaming God for your choices. If that's not a sin, it should be.

And how was it, exactly, that He communicated His choice to you?

You mean to the body of believers?

I guess this is why you think it's OK to browbeat other people with it.

Other people share their opinions, but when Christians do it, you call it browbeating. Heheh.


If you admitted that these were YOUR choices, not God's, it would be a lot harder to pull that off with a somber face.

You'd have me lie and claim to have chosen the canon when God alone was the one who could do it?

I also wonder why those who hate Christianity all too often see the need to point fingers at Christians rather than discuss the topic.

Other people share their opinions,
The difference is that you claim that these opinions are God's, not yours. I don't have a problem with you sharing your opinion. It's your claim that it's also God's opinion I object to. If God wants me to know His opinion, He has ways to contact me directly.

but when Christians do it, you call it browbeating. Heheh.I was referring to your individual behavior, not to "Christians" generally. In fact, very few of the Christians that I know personally act that way.

The difference is that you claim that these opinions are God's, not yours.

I don't what you are referring to here. I think that what started this line of thought is getting distorted.

What started it was a question regarding why I chose my canon of the Bible. I said that I didn't - God decided what the canon of the Bible would be.

Now before you go on criticizing, you may want to step back and get your facts straight.

ordinaryguy,
You have an interesting point of view regarding Tj3, but I also believe that the biblical canon was inspired by God.
Praise God that we still have His Word yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

ordinaryguy,
You have an interesting point of view regarding Tj3, but I also believe that the biblical canon was inspired by God.Well, that's interesting, because I find your point of view regarding Tj3 interesting as well. What's interesting to me is that you think God made His choices and decisions about the canon known through the ecclesiastical workings and councils of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas Tj seems to think He conveyed them to "the body of believers", but won't say exactly when or how. Isn't that interesting?

Personally, I don't think God gives two hoots about the Bible. I think it's a human creation from beginning to end, just like all the other holy books in the world, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. I think all such books are valuable for the insight they give into the tremendous variety of ways humans and their cultures have conceived of and related themselves to the world of Spirit. But reading them won't convince a skeptic that such a world exists, and it doesn't necessarily connect us to that world.

Well, that's interesting, because I find your point of view regarding Tj3 interesting as well. What's interesting to me is that you think God made His choices and decisions about the canon known through the ecclesiastical workings and councils of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas Tj seems to think He conveyed them to "the body of believers", but won't say exactly when or how. Isn't that interesting?

Personally, I don't think God gives two hoots about the Bible. I think it's a human creation from beginning to end, just like all the other holy books in the world, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. I think all such books are valuable for the insight they give into the tremendous variety of ways humans and their cultures have conceived of and related themselves to the world of Spirit. But reading them won't convince a skeptic that such a world exists, and it doesn't necessarily connect us to that world.

Ordinaryguy,

You are certainly entiled to your opinion. Just out of curiousity, do you really think Fred and Tj3's different point of view is "interesting"? Because I find your so called interest "interesting'. My Point is....what is it to you? really if you don't believe the Bible and think God doesn't give "two hoots" one way or another? I guess i don't trust your motives and I don't get your point?

Personally, and i'm just gonna throw this in since we are giving our OPINIONS so freely here... i'd say you are WRONG ...many a skeptic has changed their minds if they have a open heart. And incidently, when man uses these two words "I think" when they are referring to God without being able to back it up with something other than their infinite wisdom... it means NOTHING... just another ordinary guy... thinkin. :rolleyes:

Just out of curiousity, do you really think Fred and Tj3's different point of view is "interesting"?
Oh, you bet I do! It's so interesting to me how two devoutly religious people can agree so fervently about one thing (God decided which books belong in the Bible) and still disagree so vehemently about another closely related thing (God communicated His decision to the world via the Catholic Church). See how interesting that is?


I guess I don't trust your motives and I don't get your point?
It's OK, I wouldn't really expect you to. My comments are really for the benefit of readers who may have been pummeled, as I was, with "The Bible says" and "God says", and may be starting to wonder, "Who says?". I want to encourage them to keep asking that question.

And incidentally, when man uses these two words "i think" when they are referring to God without being able to back it up with something other than their infinite wisdom... it means NOTHING... just another ordinary guy... thinkin.
I don't claim to be anything other than an ordinary thinking guy. If what I think means nothing to you, you can pass it by. I'm OK with that.

ordinaryguy,
Thanks for your opinion.
Of course I do not agree.
In reality, though Tj3 and I do disagree about some things, we do agree very much on almost all Christian issues.
Christians have far more in common that not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ordinaryguy,

I have no problem with you questioning things and even challenging others to do so ( on the appropriate thread)... but be honest about it. You aren't here to give insight and answer questions seriously... you are here to be a critic.. What you are really "interested" in demeaning people of faith because we may disagree on issues from time to time, perhaps you find it interesting but I tend to think you find it amusing... am I wrong?
Ordinaryguy, I want to know GOD's thoughts and I believe he has revealed them to us in His word. That doesn't mean I can't think for myself or that I am Less than because I have faith.
I've been "pummeled" from time to time with "thus saith the Lord" and then found out he didn't say it at all. SO! I guess I'm not a giver upper. Men will fail but The real truth of God is out there, if you want to know what it is, pick up the Bible and ask God to help you. If you Don't... I will ask again? What is your motive? What is your point? To enlighten us with your thoughts? Now see , I'm finding that NOT interesting... go figure?

classyT,
I agree with you on this.
You asked some good questions.
Fred

Cozyk,

You are entitled you your opinions as well. But Check out where we are posting... it is in a Christianity board. If you come here you should expect us to point you to the Bible. Your reddie was inappropriate as usual. I don't go to the other boards and preach the Bible... it is in CHRISTIANITY we have no other authority as a follower of God's word. Where should I send someone? OK lets think this out slowly... I'm a christian, answering a comment on a Christian board... hmmmm? If ordinaryguy didn't want an answer from a Christian perhaps he should exit this board and find someone that can give him the answer he needs. As for me and my house... we read the Word and I direct others to do so because my post was on a CHRISTIAN board. Not even a "religious" board... get my point?And incidentally, you are basing your opinion on WHAT?

classyT
You hit the nail on the head.
This is a Christian Board.
Over the years I have often wondered why a Christian board attracts unbelievers who really are not interested in trying to understand Christianity.
Some of those folks have even been proclaimed atheists or agnostics who firmly state they will stay that way.
So why come here at all I often wonder?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

To belittle, make fun, get their kicks, enlighten us with ordinary thoughts, some are bitter and some are curious but too ashamed to admit it the list goes on and on. I just wish one of them would ask a question and with a open heart and receive a Godly answer from the Bible. We are all more than happy to respond in love.

To belittle, make fun, get their kicks, enlighten us with ordinary thoughts, some are bitter and some are curious but too ashamed to admit it the list goes on and on. I just wish one of them would ask a question and with a open heart and receive a Godly answer from the Bible. we are all more than happy to respond in love.

I agree wholeheartedly. Christians respect their right to believe as they wish - why will they not reciprocate? If they have some real and serious questions, then it would be great to have a opportunity to address them in a atmosphere of mutual personal respect.

classyT,
Yes we are happy to respond with love, but sometimes it's tough love.
I've been thinking that some of them are here for reasons that they themselves don't know; that is that they are here because the Holy Spirit it moving them into the Christian information area.
Others, however, I think are here just because they need someone to tell their beliefs to.
And then there may be those who are purposely looking for a fight.
Them folks are few but during my 76 years pon thei earth I have seen 6 or 7 of them.
So it goes.
I may be wrong about the above but maybe not.
Fred

Tj3,
I agree with this that you said, "If they have some real and serious questions, then it would be great to have a opportunity to address them in a atmosphere of mutual personal respect."
Fred

The real truth of God is out there, if you want to know what it is, pick up the Bible and ask God to help you.
This is a pretty fundamental difference between us. I don't think the real truth of God is "out there", I think it's "in here", and that's where I've been able to find what I know of it.


If you Don't... I will ask again? What is your motive? What is your point? To enlighten us with your thoughts? Now see , I'm finding that NOT interesting... go figure?
And I will answer as I did before,

My comments are really for the benefit of readers who may have been pummeled, as I was, with "The Bible says" and "God says", and may be starting to wonder, "Who says?". I want to encourage them to keep asking that question.
And,

If what I think means nothing to you, you can pass it by. I'm OK with that.

AND.. I will ask once again... why are in answering Christianity questions when you don't believe in it? Do you hit the other religious boards too with your wisdom? Or are we just LUCKY... lol

This is a pretty fundamental difference between us. I don't think the real truth of God is "out there", I think it's "in here", and that's where I've been able to find what I know of it.

With this you appear to be touching on something with which I have a long-standing interest (in a non-pejorative sense of "interest"), and I wonder if you'd be willing to say more about what you have in mind with the contrast between "out there" and "in here". Given the reception you seem to be getting I will, of course, quite understand it you'd rather not expand on what you've said. But if you are willing, I'd like very much to hear more about how you think about this: what "in here" refers to and what is to be found there; whether there are things to be found "in here" that aren't available "out there".

This isn't intended as a challenge, nor to set-up a challenge. I don't see that you've said anything hostile to Christianity. In fact, it looks like you may be giving voice to something that a good many Christians feel (or, at least, something I've often heard said). I'd be grateful if you would be willing to say more about how you think about these matters.

The real truth of God is in his Word and certainly we can see his work through his creation and life in general.

No one is suggesting he is HOSTILE, I don't think he respects it though. That is MY OPINION and I get it from his comments. I think Your discussion with oridinaryguy is fine and dandy. AND if you want HIM to enlighten YOU with his wisdom again, that is great. BUT I think it needs to be on a religious discussion board... not a Christianity board where people come for Christian answers.

Class, Tom, and Arcura,
I can speak for myself and possibly even more Godly people as to why we come onto the christian board. I am one of a large group that believe in God. Even believe that Jesus could be "the son" of God. Aren't we all the son or daughter of God? Anyway, I love God, honor Him, worship Him, pray to Him, and live for Him. I consider him my father, my friend, and it is His presence in my heart that gives me comfort. Knowing that I am never alone and neither is anyone else on this planet. We all have 100% of His attention as if we are his only child, but he gives that 100% to every soul.

I believe that under the umbrella of christianity is a huge population of worshipers that feel as I do. We have been turned off by the fundamentalist that wave the bible at you as they tell you how unworthy they are. There was a preacher in my childhood that actually held his worn bible, waved it at us as if he were wagging his finger, yelling, crying, getting all red in the face and making us all feel like unworthy pieces of you know what.

My belief in God takes a different path. I believe he loves us and wants us all to feel cherished, special, empowered, confident, and worthy. To bring others to Him by way of kindness and compassion. Not to ever use the bible as an instrument of fear or punishment, or to substitute it for your conscience. With an open heart, your conscience is the voice of God telling you the difference between right and wrong. It is a direct line to God's guidance. It is the ultimate guide book. I and many others adhere to that guide book as we have found the bible become less and less relavant in our personal relationship with our God.

What I am always trying to convey is that you can have this relationship with God even if you have never opened a bible. God is not in there. He is in our soul, our spirit and our essence. Living for God and living a godly life is easy because it is what you want to do, not what you have to do to gain your ticket to heaven. It transends any verse in the bible that may or may not have been God's original intention. Remember man wrote it. Not God.

Classy, I hit the disagree button on your post because... I disagreed. The bible is not the only path to God. I did not find Him in there but I found Him.

The real truth of God is in his Word and certainly we can see his work thru his creation and life in general.

No one is suggesting he is HOSTILE, i don't think he respects it though. That is MY OPINION and i get it from his comments. I think Your discussion with oridinaryguy is fine and dandy. AND if you want HIM to enlighten YOU with his wisdom again, that is great. BUT i think it needs to be on a religious discussion board...not a Christianity board where people come for Christian answers.

I'm not looking for enlightenment. I'm asking a fellow human being who, whether he and I agree or not, appears to be thoughtful and to have given the matter considerable attention, to share his thoughts. Whether he is hostile to Christianity is something I cannot discern from his posts. Maybe he is. Maybe he is hostile, but not toward Christianity but to some of the things people say about Christianity. Maybe he's even hostile to some of the things I have said. I don't know and I don't much care. I don't think he should have to jump through hoops or otherwise prove himself to you or me or anyone else in order to register his views about the matters under discussion here. Whether he respects "it" or not isn't really my business. And he's said some things that I find interesting and about which I'd like to hear more if he's willing to expand on what he's already said.

At any rate, I am not in a position to speak for ordinaryguy. And I'm pretty confident he doesn't need me to speak for him.

What I am always trying to convey is that you can have this relationship with God even if you have never opened a bible.

And this is something with which no Christian ought to disagree, even though many do (or at least seem to). The earliest Christians didn't have the Bible. For most of our history, a single Bible cost about the same as a dozen castles (yes, books were that expensive, even after the advent of the printing press) and so most people couldn't afford it. Likewise, for most of our history--and even today in lots of places--literacy was hard to come by and so most people, indeed the vast majority of people, couldn't read the Bible.

To say that the Bible is the only way to God is to back into the unfathomably addled view that all these people were (and are) somehow barred from God, shut out. I am not saying this to be dismissive of the Bible, but only to point out that no one, no Christian, should ever make the mistake of supposing that the only way to get to God is through its pages.

That is just plane silly to think that a "Christian" living in the western hemisphere should not own/read a bible all the time. All it takes is enough will power to turn off the idiot box for 30 minutes a day and instead turn to the word of God for that time. I still like the analogy about buying a car and never opening the owners manual to learn about that new cars features and how to use them.
Can you have a relationship with your family if you never call/write/ or go see them? NO you cannot. So how much more difficult is it to have a relationship with God if you never read and learn how he wants you to live?

The ONLY way to the Father is through Christ. NOT reading the Bible. But the beauty of the church today is THAT we do have the complete Word of God. Now WHY wouldn't we as followers of Christ WANT to. I'm not saying you can't be a Christian and not read the Bible. I'm saying you can't be an EFFECTIVE one. How can you even defend your faith if you are going by what you FEEL and THINk is the truth. Everyone has an opinion. Big deal.

This is just ONE of the things the Apostle Paul says about it...

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching,
for reproof,
for correction,
for training in righteousness;
that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Notice it says ALL. SCRIPTUURE.. the early church was using the OT. But hey, that verse was just inspired of God and written by Paul... why listen to little ol me.

That is just plane silly to think that a "Christian" living in the western hemisphere should not own/read a bible all the time. All it takes is enough will power to turn off the idiot box for 30 minutes a day and instead turn to the word of God for that time. I still like the analogy about buying a car and never opening the owners manual to learn about that new cars features and how to use them.
Can you have a relationship with your family if you never call/write/ or go see them? NO you cannot. So how much more difficult is it to have a relationship with God if you never read and learn how he wants you to live?

I will tell you whan it is difficult to read the word as a Christian... when it goes against my fleshy desires... uhhhh I don't enjoy it so much then but that's OK... it is the Lord's way of saying "tess, you aren't living right" or "this is the way...walk in it".

I'm not looking for enlightenment. I'm asking a fellow human being who, whether he and I agree or not, appears to be thoughtful and to have given the matter considerable attention, to share his thoughts. Whether he is hostile to Christianity is something I cannot discern from his posts. Maybe he is. Maybe he is hostile, but not toward Christianity but to some of the things people say about Christianity. Maybe he's even hostile to some of the things I have said. I don't know and I don't much care. I don't think he should have to jump through hoops or otherwise prove himself to you or me or anyone else in order to register his views about the matters under discussion here. Whether he respects "it" or not isn't really my business. And he's said some things that I find interesting and about which I'd like to hear more if he's willing to expand on what he's already said.

At any rate, I am not in a position to speak for ordinaryguy. And I'm pretty confident he doesn't need me to speak for him.

Akoue,

I understand. I was simply saying... take it to a religious discussion room. He doesn't have an answer for christianity. Look I don't want him to PROVE himself to me and I'm pretty sure he ain't trying to. I don't dislike ordinary guy, on the contrary, I enjoy discussing things with him. THIS board isn't the place... lets start a new thread in religious discusssions... then we can get everyone viewpoint. I like that.

And this is something with which no Christian ought to disagree, even though many do (or at least seem to). The earliest Christians didn't have the Bible. For most of our history, a single Bible cost about the same as a dozen castles (yes, books were that expensive, even after the advent of the printing press) and so most people couldn't afford it. Likewise, for most of our history--and even today in lots of places--literacy was hard to come by and so most people, indeed the vast majority of people, couldn't read the Bible.

To say that the Bible is the only way to God is to back into the unfathomably addled view that all these people were (and are) somehow barred from God, shut out. I am not saying this to be dismissive of the Bible, but only to point out that no one, no Christian, should ever make the mistake of supposing that the only way to get to God is through its pages.

Akoue - I agree with your premise here because simply having a bible and reading it does not necessarily translate to faith in God. The Pharisees were the strongest opponents of Jesus and yet they clung tightly to the Scriptures. They claimed to have a rightful understanding of God and yet Jesus criticized their interpretation of it, which fundamentally served their purposes of self-deceit and evil intentions.

The way I see it is this. The story of the bible itself is a sword that cuts to the heart of a person. I may not be able to read and I may not have a bible but the question is this: when I am confronted with the gospel and it's message, how do I respond to it? John the Apostle says that "he who says he has no sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him." He also says that "he who denies the Son has not the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." To me, there is a connection between how I see myself and how I see Christ. People who do not see themselves as sinners in need of mercy do not see Christ as their Saviour. And if one denies that Christ is the Saviour, then that one also denies God (finds him unacceptable).

So, the point I am making is this. Having a bible and reading it does not make one a believer and not having a bible and not reading a bible does not make one an unbeliever. The bible makes a big deal about the "inwardness" of a person. That place in one's heart where the truth of God either resides or does not reside. I could have never heard the gospel before in my life, but God could have given me a heart that is fond of the truth and desirous of knowing God. I would argue that if someone were to teach the gospel to someone with that kind of heart, they would respond positively to the message of the gospel because it is God's truth. This, I think, is the meaning of what the writer of Hebrews is saying: "the word of God is living and active and is sharper than any two-edged sword; piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." God's word is that thing that cuts us to the core of who we are and it reveals the desires of our heart... whether they be good or evil.

Sincerely.

Jakester,

I love your posts... I'm 47 and get a little ticked sometimes and it shows.. you are a young pup and I'm learning from you everyday. I know I'm always giving you kudos... but you deserve them.

I'd like to add this... FAITH cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How can we spread the gospel or wisdom without the world of God. :)

Class, Tom, and Arcura,
I can speak for my self and possibly even more Godly people as to why we come onto the christian board. I am one of a large group that believe in God. Even believe that Jesus could be "the son" of God. Aren't we all the son or daughter of God? Anyway, I love God, honor Him, worship Him, pray to Him, and live for Him. I consider him my father, my friend, and it is His presence in my heart that gives me comfort. Knowing that I am never alone and neither is anyone else on this planet. We all have 100% of His attention as if we are his only child, but he gives that 100% to each and every soul.

I believe that under the umbrella of christianity is a huge population of worshipers that feel as I do. We have been turned off by the fundamentalist that wave the bible at you as they tell you how unworthy they are. There was a preacher in my childhood that actually held his worn bible, waved it at us as if he were wagging his finger, yelling, crying, getting all red in the face and making us all feel like unworthy pieces of you know what.

My belief in God takes a different path. I believe he loves us and wants us all to feel cherished, special, empowered, confident, and worthy. To bring others to Him by way of kindness and compassion. Not to ever use the bible as an instrument of fear or punishment, or to substitute it for your conscience. With an open heart, your conscience is the voice of God telling you the difference between right and wrong. It is a direct line to God's guidance. It is the ultimate guide book. I and many others adhere to that guide book as we have found the bible become less and less relavant in our personal relationship with our God.

What I am always trying to convey is that you can have this relationship with God even if you have never opened a bible. God is not in there. He is in our soul, our spirit and our essence. Living for God and living a godly life is easy because it is what you want to do, not what you have to do to gain your ticket to heaven. It transends any verse in the bible that may or may not have been God's original intention. Remember man wrote it. Not God.

Classy, I hit the disagree button on your post because...I disagreed. The bible is not the only path to God. I did not find Him in there but I found Him.

Cozy,

Perhaps I misjudge ordinaryguy. I just didn't trust his motives. I get you and while I disagree with almost EVERYTHING you just said.. I don't think your motives are wrong. I don't hink you are here to find amusement. I'm no judge and shouldn't judge so if I was offensive Ordinaryguy... I apologize.

I paid you back for the reddie :) yes I know... not very Christian like and even slighty immature on my part. I'm still a work in progress...

Jakester,

i love your posts...I'm 47 and get a little ticked sometimes and it shows..you are a young pup and I'm learning from you everyday. I know i'm always givin ya kudos...but you deserve them.

I'd like to add this...FAITH cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How can we spread the gospel or wisdom without the world of God. :)

Tess - yeah, that is a good point. I think sometimes I puzzle over the connection between faith and the hearing of the word of God. Reason being is that when I think back to Abraham, Abraham was alive and kicking before the scriptures were ever given. The word that he responded to from God initially was this:

"Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

When I look at this, I am amazed at the interaction. Abraham obeys God but he has no real context in which to believe God. Abraham was 75 years old when this took place but I presume, anyway, that Abraham had already believed in God prior to this event. His heart, I assume, was already prepared for God to command him in this way. This phenomenon is what I was talking about. The preparation of the heart that God does through the Spirit to bring about a heart of obedience to whatever thing God calls us to do. What do you think about Genesis 12? I'm curious as to your thoughts about it.

Well, that's interesting, because I find your point of view regarding Tj3 interesting as well. What's interesting to me is that you think God made His choices and decisions about the canon known through the ecclesiastical workings and councils of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas Tj seems to think He conveyed them to "the body of believers", but won't say exactly when or how. Isn't that interesting?

Personally, I don't think God gives two hoots about the Bible. I think it's a human creation from beginning to end, just like all the other holy books in the world, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. I think all such books are valuable for the insight they give into the tremendous variety of ways humans and their cultures have conceived of and related themselves to the world of Spirit. But reading them won't convince a skeptic that such a world exists, and it doesn't necessarily connect us to that world.


The Holy Bible is a human creation, but many of us believe it has been inspired by God. Perhaps you may wish to read what I amb telling our friend Galveston in a previous post I have sent today.

Of course, you realize that pretending to know whether God inspired to any extent these Scriptures is just a matter of faith as far as the O.T. is concerned. However, this is not insofar what refers to the N.T. because, if nothing else, the Gospels transmit to us the very Message from Jesus Christ via de Evangelists.

Yet, if you do not consider Jesus to be the Son of God –hence God himself- then I have nothing else to add…:):)

Tess - yeah, that is a good point. I think sometimes I puzzle over the connection between faith and the hearing of the word of God. Reason being is that when I think back to Abraham, Abraham was alive and kicking before the scriptures were ever given. The word that he responded to from God initially was this:

"Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

When I look at this, I am amazed at the interaction. Abraham obeys God but he has no real context in which to believe God. Abraham was 75 years old when this took place but I presume, anyway, that Abraham had already believed in God prior to this event. His heart, I assume, was already prepared for God to command him in this way. This phenomenon is what I was talking about. The preparation of the heart that God does through the Spirit to bring about a heart of obedience to whatever thing God calls us to do. What do you think about Genesis 12? I'm curious as to your thoughts about it.

Since he had the capacity to reason man has always believed in all sort of deities. At a given time, many determined than there should be One God only (even the Egyptians arrived for a while at that conclusion with Akhenaton) and Abraham was no exception.

He was, in all likelihood, fully prepared to listen to what God might ask him to do. As you know, Abraham was, according to the Genesis, was the tenth generation from Noah and the 20th from Adam…

He was not therefore the first one to believe in Yahweh!:):)

]The ONLY way to the Father is through Christ. NOT reading the Bible. But the beauty of the church today is THAT we do have the complete Word of God.

]So you believe. Has God not had anything else to say for 2000 years. Why did he stop?

The bible bores me, is hard to understand, and I'm not convinced that what it has to say really matters in my life. I'm not saying that everyone should do as I do. I'm just saying I don't want or feel the need to read it.

Believe me I've read it A LOT. I grew up Baptist , went to church at least 3 times a week, was in the GAs and had to memorize scripture, went to GA camp where we had "Bible Study" everyday and I hated it. My mother required that we have a devotion every night before we went to bed. This went on from about age 8 to age 20 when I moved out. Nothing like mandatory worship. I'd say I worship God more now than I ever did. I don't do it with reading, singing, listening to preachers but by living it. By the way, all the years of having nightly devotion did not seem to enhance the behavior of my mother who was the one that required we do it. You don't read about it, you DO it.


I'm not saying you can't be a Christian and not read the Bible. I'm saying you can't be an EFFECTIVE one. How can you even defend your faith if you are going by what you FEEL and THINk is the truth. Everyone has an opinion. Big deal.


Depends on your definition of effective. I don't try to defend my faith. I don't need to. It is what it is and I'm not out to convert others to be like me. To defend it sounds like you have to work at believing it. Like the "thou doest protest too much" analogy. If you were confident in it, you would not have to stomp your feet so hard and insist that you are right.




"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching,
for reproof,
for correction,
for training in righteousness;
that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).


Oh boy, more scripture.


Notice it says ALL. SCRIPTUURE.. the early church was using the OT. But hey, that verse was just inspired of God and written by Paul... why listen to little ol me.

So you say.

Cozyk,

I don't know if you have been paying attention but Christianity as understood in the NT is under attack. Christians have been persecuted for years... I WLL defend my faith and the Bible. The word says to study to show yourself approved so that you can answer people. LOL I enjoyed your "ohi boy" more scripture". Would you prefer it if i came in to the Christian boards and dropped my Bible off and just gave you some of my "thoughts' and "feelings" about God and what HE thinks. Come ON! What do you want me to back my words up with? I DO have a book of TESSY but I got a sneaking suspicion you isn't going to like that either... LOL LOL :)

No cozy it isn't "SO I say"... it is what the Bible says and I have no other authority.

I'm sorry you are turned off by mandatory reading, prayer, going to church etc... But see, I totally disagree with that too. I do NOT believe christianity is about rules, and you MUST DO THIS OR THAT. I don't feel guilty if I miss church, or a bible study. It is ALL about the relationship. But the thing is the relationship has got to be on HIS terms... according to the scripture. His requirement is coming to the Father through Jesus his son.

With this you appear to be touching on something with which I have a long-standing interest (in a non-pejorative sense of "interest"), and I wonder if you'd be willing to say more about what you have in mind with the contrast between "out there" and "in here". Given the reception you seem to be getting I will, of course, quite understand it you'd rather not expand on what you've said. But if you are willing, I'd like very much to hear more about how you think about this: what "in here" refers to and what is to be found there; whether there are things to be found "in here" that aren't available "out there".

This isn't intended as a challenge, nor to set-up a challenge. I don't see that you've said anything hostile to Christianity. In fact, it looks like you may be giving voice to something that a good many Christians feel (or, at least, something I've often heard said). I'd be grateful if you would be willing to say more about how you think about these matters.

I'd be delighted. Here's a link to a new thread (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-where-here-342303.html#post1669642) in Religious Discussions.

Tess - yeah, that is a good point. I think sometimes I puzzle over the connection between faith and the hearing of the word of God. Reason being is that when I think back to Abraham, Abraham was alive and kicking before the scriptures were ever given. The word that he responded to from God initially was this:

"Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

When I look at this, I am amazed at the interaction. Abraham obeys God but he has no real context in which to believe God. Abraham was 75 years old when this took place but I presume, anyway, that Abraham had already believed in God prior to this event. His heart, I assume, was already prepared for God to command him in this way. This phenomenon is what I was talking about. The preparation of the heart that God does through the Spirit to bring about a heart of obedience to whatever thing God calls us to do. What do you think about Genesis 12? I'm curious as to your thoughts about it.


I'm going to go read over Genesis 12 and then maybe we will start a new thread. I'd love to get everyone take on it. ( but I need to clean up the bathrooms first... the life of a housewife is NOT glamorous... ha!)

Akoue,

I understand. I was simply saying...take it to a religious discussion room. He doesn't have an answer for christianity. Look I don't want him to PROVE himself to me and I'm pretty sure he ain't tryin to. I don't dislike ordinary guy, on the contrary, i enjoy discussing things with him. THIS board isn't the place....lets start a new thread in religious discusssions....then we can get everyone viewpoint. I like that.

I agree. I've started a new thread and posted a link in my response to Akoue above.

cozyk disagrees: It's THAT attitude that turns people off. I pray to God, I be still and listen to what God is telling me. The instruction book is not necessarily needed. Especially if reading it just makes your head hurt.

And so again simply because you have a different opinion of what I said you gave me a reddie. What is it with you and reddies? Have you not read the guidelines about the rating system?
So again I will refer you to the guidelines for proper use of the rating system.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum-help/using-comments-feature-official-guidelines-24951.html
If you choose to not read and understand the inspired word of God, that is your right. But it is still my belief that to be an effective Christian you need to read and understand what God wants in your life.

Jakester,
I love your posts... I'm 47 and get a little ticked sometimes and it shows..

You're just a young gal. I got another 7 years on you!

I agree with your comments about Jakester - He seems to be very solidly grounded.


I'd like to add this... FAITH cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How can we spread the gospel or wisdom without the world of God. :)

Indeed - Also Romans 10:14-17

The Holy Bible is a human creation, but many of us believe it has been inspired by God.

We believe it is inspired by God because God said that it is

2 Tim 3:16

I get it now. The option to disagree is not for when you disagree with what a poster has written. Okay now, that makes a lot of sense.

I get it now. The option to disagree is not for when you disagree with what a poster has written. Okay now, that makes a lot of sense.

English translation please?

cozyk...

The problem with your reddies is you base them on nothing more than your opinion. In Christianity we believe there is an answer to everything in the word and we TRY to back it up. I could even understand you giving reddies because you disagreed with doctrine, or felt someone was pulling a verse out of context . But you base your disagrees on nothing more than what you THINK and it doesn't make the poster wrong. It is best to simply comment back without giving reputation if you are going to do that. In almost every case you disagreed and backed it up withnothing but what you THINK is correct. That my take... and some people get irritated. Not me of course... cough cough. ;)

It is my understanding that reddies are to be given only when an answer is factually incorrect or advice given is potentially dangerous. Reddies are not supposed to be given when someone merely disagrees with the opinion expressed by a poster.

But perhaps it would be helpful if a mod would address this since I've noticed that the rules don't seem to be followed very well in the Christianity forum.

I'm sorry for throwing my reddies around under the wrong conditions. I have a better understanding now and I promise to use them in "accordance to the law" from now on. Really, I'm sorry folks. Peace

"Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

When I look at this, I am amazed at the interaction. Abraham obeys God but he has no real context in which to believe God. Abraham was 75 years old when this took place but I presume, anyway, that Abraham had already believed in God prior to this event. His heart, I assume, was already prepared for God to command him in this way. This phenomenon is what I was talking about. The preparation of the heart that God does through the Spirit to bring about a heart of obedience to whatever thing God calls us to do. What do you think about Genesis 12? I'm curious as to your thoughts about it.

Yes, I see what you are saying. And you are right Abraham had no scripture to refer to or any example to follow... but he actually HEARD God and he Believed the LORD and his promises. He uprooted his family, his idols and left for a strange land. THAT Is FAITH. Wow. Oh no doubt the Lord prepared his heart!! AND consider this and I don't think I am off track in comparing this passage... The Apostle Paul was a Jew, under the law living and obeying what he thought was right... then BOOM he HEARD the Voice of the Lord and it rocked his world too! I always chuckle a bit when I read how he was persecuting Christians and anyone who owned the name of Jesus and when the Lord met up with him notice what he said.. (.he immediately called him LORD.)

ACts 9:4-5 And he fell to the earth, heard a voice saying unto him. Saul, SAul why persecutes though me? And he (Paul) said Who art thou LORD?

Then of course there was Moses who had an encounter with the Lord also... they are all examples of hearing the voice of the Lord and then obeying because they BELIEVED and the Lord presented himself at just the right time, the right moment.

It must be something to actually HEAR the voice of the Lord.. huh?

And yet, having said all that, we are blessed far more today because we have them as examples, we have thousands of promises AND the complete word of God. We can understand salvation and that God had our redemption planned in Genesis. BUT It ALWAYS takes the Holy Spirit to open our eyes. And I believe it was the same with Abraham, Paul, Moses and the list goes on... The Lord Jesus himself said that no one could come to him unless the Father draws them... He most certainly opens our eyes, and prepares our hearts!!

I'm sorry for throwing my reddies around under the wrong conditions. I have a better understanding now and I promise to use them in "accordance to the law" from now on. Really, I'm sorry folks. Peace

Ain't no big deal. It is just a reddie anyway cozyk... I mean really what does it all mean? Does the one with the least reddies win something... lol. You are forgiven.:)

Akoue,
I am with you on that about ordinaryguy (whom I think is far from ordinary).
I also believe that God is "in there" that is "In me" and abides "there" as the Holy Spirit.
Being a believer in the Holy Eucharist I believe that I have taken Jesus Christ (God the Son) within me.
And there a lot more about where God is in this world and what that does for me.
But that is for a different thread than this one.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
I am with you on that about ordinaryguy (whom I think is far from ordinary).
I also believe that God is "in there" that is "In me" and abides "there" as the Holy Spirit.
Being a believer in the Holy Eucharist I believe that I have taken Jesus Christ (God the Son) within me.
And there a lot more about where God is in this world and what that does for me.
But that is for a different thread than this one.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

Just out of curiosity, did you check out ordinaryguys new thread? YOU might find it interesting...

classyT,
No I have not seen it, but I will now.
Thanks,
Fred

classyT,
I looked but could not find it.
Under what topic is it, Please.
Fred

classyT,
I looked but could not find it.
Under what topic is it, Please.
Fred
Here it is, Fred.
What/Where is "in here"? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-where-here-342303.html#post1669642)

ordinaryguy,
Thanks much.
I went there and saw that.
Very Good.
Fred

This thread has gone on so long and I have to say ,every time I see the title *was she ever a Christian* a part of me just cringes because what I feel is who cares if she ever was ?

This is a person who does not or should not be pigeonholed.

She is a human being and putting labels on people restricts them and makes them less then who they are ,not more.

The effort of people to put everyone into a neat little package so they can say someone is so and such is fascism.

She is a good person and that is all you need to know.

artlady
Very goof point.
Thanks.
Fred

So let me get this straight , the proof that the book is written by God is in the book who's authenticity is being disputed.Nice

Sigh! This is the same old tired argument that we hear over and over and over again on here. We have had entire threads on this topic. First, please be aware that the Bible is a collection of books, not a single book, so using one book to validate another is not using internal evidence, but is using external evidence for validation.

Second, there is considerable evidence both internal to the Bible and external to the Bible, not the least of which is the overwhelming amount of detailed fulfilled prophecy.

But that is not the topic of this thread. This is the Christian Q&A board and your comment sounds like your purpose is to attack Christianity.

Dare81,
I must agree with Tj3 on this.
If you really want to doubt God's word in the face of all the evidence that it is valid that is your choice.
But if your effort is to cause doubt about God's word here among dedicated Christians that is a different matter and destined for failure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why do you people argue so much on these Christian threads?
There is something inherently wrong here,there just is.
You are missing the point of any teaching if it makes you intolerant and argumentative.

Dare81,
Yes, you are right.
I have nothing to worry about there except for you if you are not saved by Jesus Christ.
Fred

artlady,
Maybe some here are intolerant but from what I can see there are very few.
Most here believe that a person can believe as the person wants to.
Most here are willing to share why they believe as they do, but I have not seen anyone recently say that a person MUST believe as the person posting says to.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Dare,
Please do not try to read something into what I said that I did not.
I was responding to your statement about worry.
I never have ever said that someone was going to go to hell.
I am concerned for people who do not know or accept and follow Jesus Christ because I believe that those folks who do that well are much happier in life.
For me it's a matter of love, not judgment or intolerance.
I would like to see the best for everyone.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

this thread has gone on so long and i have to say ,every time i see the title *was she ever a christian* a part of me just cringes because what i feel is who cares if she ever was ?

This is a person who does not or should not be pigeonholed.

She is a human being and putting labels on people restricts them and makes them less then who they are ,not more.

The effort of people to put everyone into a neat little package so they can say someone is so and such is fascism.

She is a good person and that is all you need to know.

i agree!:):)

You said
"except for you if you are not saved by Jesus Christ."

According to you if i am not saved by Jesus i am going to hell, you have the truth and i do not.Making you superior to me.

Dare81,

The Bible itself is quite clear that no one is morally superior and arcura did not say or imply that. Christianity says that all men are in the same situation initially, we are ALL sinners (Romans 3:23) on our way to hell. Jesus (God the son) came to earth manifest in the flesh to die on the cross to pay the price for our sins that whoever will receive Him as saviour and accept that sacrifice he made will be saved. All merit for this act is His (Jesus), not ours.

There is a bumper sticker that sums it up well - "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven"

That forgiveness is available to you also.

Why do you people argue so much on these Christian threads?
There is something inherently wrong here,there just is.
You are missing the point of any teaching if it makes you intolerant and argumentative.

I don't mind the discussing of scriptures and someone backing up there belief with the Bible... sometimes I suppose it CAN turn argumentative and I have been guilty so I usually step back and STOP. But I am passionate about my beliefs and when someone stops in to poke fun, find amusement or to be critical I take issue and I will say something. But I agree with you artlady, it does No good to argue and usually in an argument I have found most people are so interested in their point of view, they miss the other persons and so on. The apostle Paul warns us to stay away from arguing, so when I feel I am getting heated or mad... I think it is wise to stop. However a good healthy debate or discussion... I can learn from.

I don't mind the discussing of scriptures and someone backing up there belief with the Bible...sometimes I suppose it CAN turn argumentative and I have been guilty so I usually step back and STOP. But I am passionate about my beliefs and when someone stops in to poke fun, find amusement or to be critical I take issue and I will say something. But I agree with you artlady, it does No good to argue and usually in an argument I have found most people are so interested in their point of view, they miss the other persons and so on. The apostle Paul warns us to stay away from arguing, so when I feel I am getting heated or mad...i think it is wise to stop. However a good healthy debate or discussion....i can learn from.

I agree that debate is good.Very often we come to a forum with a very closed mind and by sharing different perspectives we come away a richer person.There is so much positive here but sometimes it gets downright Jerry Springerish (?) :rolleyes:
Thank-you for your input Classy T

Artlady,

LOL LOL Jerry Springerish... that was funny. Hey if you ever catching me being like that REMIND me that I am suppose to be CLASSY! :)

Artlady,

LOL LOL Jerry Springerish...that was funny. Hey if ya ever catchin me being like that REMIND me that I am suppose to be CLASSY! :)

I don't think that I have ever see a time that you weren't classy!

Dare81,
Yes, I am a Christian, but I do not know that you will go to hell. Only God knows.
Some Christians do believe that they will go to heaven and others to hell, but the bible says the God will be the judge of that, not them.
Only God knows the hearts and minds of people.
He has infinite wisdom and understanding along with perfect love and mercy.
Those are things we human motals do not have.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

cozyk,
My faith (and it is in the Bible) is that only God knows who will go where and ol=nly Gid will be the judge of that.
So, that means that if God for some reason or other wants to save some non-Christians he will do you whether others like it or not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Dare8,
I have told you what I believe and it is in the bible.
More than 1 billion Christians believe as I do that non-Christians can be save if God so decides.
That is why we do not pre-judge people by telling them they will go to hell for thus and such reason.
What you are claiming is what many (but not all) Protestants believe.
I do agree with Tj3, that you need to look at other evidence than what you now believe.
Study the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a start.
You don't need to but one for it in on line at
English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Search Utility (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Satan is ALIVE and VERY Powerful. Love and pray for her. By loving her and re-enforcing the teachings of Christ you are doing your job and the Lord will be proud. Keep the faith and He will touch her heart. All you can do is love, God will handle the rest!

May I remind you that there is a report buttom, As most of the members who have been here a while, the Christian forum is not a discussion area, it is for christians to give answers to others about christian beliefs,

Disrespect to christian faiths are not allowed on these threads.

There was a entire discussion area created for these types of discussion.

I have deleted three or four pages of posts, and will close this thread since it has ran its course