[Tj3]

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.

[arcura]

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

[Sunflowers]

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.

[arcura]

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

[cozyk]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[450donn]

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!

[cozyk]

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.

[450donn]

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-...nes-24951.html

[Tj3]

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?

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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]

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?

[classyT]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[450donn]

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.

[Tj3]

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!

[Tj3]

How about the Didache?

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

[Akoue]

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.