[jakester]

Obviously, I am referring to the logical fallacy of proving something by citing the thing to be proved.

Your second comment must be a joke, right? Again obviously, I'm referring to those who say people who don't believe the way you have laid out are "accursed".

Hey, Athos - I'll be right back with my comments.

[DrJ]

I find it interesting that most people who reject Christianity do so because they disagree with what God said in His word. They believe that they are right and the Bible is wrong. Whereas Christianity believes that we should submit ourselves to God's word, and He is right.

In any case, when push comes to shove, God's word will be the final say.

I believe 100% of what God said in His Word. However, I assure you, our definitions of each of those things will vary greatly.


How can today's Christian be so sure that the Bible you are reading is the same one that was written? And you can't just quote me the verse that threatens anyone to adds to it or takes away from it because that is not proving anything.

[classyT]

If we must come to God through Jesus, what about those who never heard of Jesus?

I don't know. I am willing to let God be God and according to the Bible He is righteous and JUST in all of His ways.

Here is an interesting verse though.. I don't claim to understand it full but I think it is appropriate.

John 1:9

(speaking of Jesus)

That was true Light which lighteth EVERY man that cometh into the world.

[classyT]

I believe 100% of what God said in His Word. However, I assure you, our definitions of each of those things will vary greatly.


How can today's Christian be so sure that the Bible you are reading is the same one that was written? And you can't just quote me the verse that threatens anyone to adds to it or takes away from it because that is not proving anything.

Dr D.

Ummm... if you believe 100 % then why do you have a problem with the verse that says not to add or take away?

Christianity is based on faith not on proof.

[classyT]

God knows their heart and if they would have served him if they knew. The Bible says that God searches the depth of our souls deeper than we even know ourselves. So I believe if the native in the deepest jungle knew deep down there was something that created him then that is all he can be accountable for.

Exactly nohelp! It is ultimately going to be about what YOU did with Christ anyway.

[DrJ]

Dr D.

Ummm... if you believe 100 % then why do you have a problem with the verse that says not to add or take away?

Christianity is based on faith not on proof.

I have no problem with the verse. The verse states:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The problem is that people use this to try and prove that the Bible is still in tact as it was originally written. However, this verse is just a warning to those that do add to it or take away from it. It has nothing to do with whether that has actually happened or not.

[Tj3]

If we must come to God through Jesus, what about those who never heard of Jesus?

Rom 1:19-21
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
NKJV

The reality is that God condemns no one - they condemned themselves:

John 3:17-19
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 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

Because all have sinned (Rom 3:23), we have all condemned ourselves and all are guilty if being sent to hell for eternity. Jesus came to die on the cross so that those who would receive His free gift might be saved and have their sins washed.

There are those who never heard and is sad and it is up to those of us who know the gospel to get the word out, but what is sadder is those who have heard the gospel, like those living in North America, including those on this board who still reject the gospel.

[Tj3]

Could your interpretation be wrong? Could "Scripture" be mis-translated?

When the "author" posts here, I will take it up with the author. Until then, I will take it up with you.

I did not interpret it. I have a copy of the Greek check it out.

[N0help4u]

The problem is that people use this to try and prove that the Bible is still in tact as it was originally written. However, this verse is just a warning to those that do add to it or take away from it. It has nothing to do with whether that has actually happened or not.

The Bible also says that we should be able to say that we have hidden Gods word deep in our heart. It also says study to show yourself approved. I believe if you really want to know God you will keep searching and then eventually you will know deep down that you have found that peace in your heart and your life.
I believe that as much as man has tried to mess with the Bible Gods truths are there because there are things in it that no man of that time could have thought up on his own and there are things that cross reference that could not have been placed the way they were.

[DrJ]

The Bible also says that we should be able to say that we have hidden Gods word deep in our heart. It also says study to show yourself approved. I believe if you really want to know God you will keep searching and then eventually you will know deep down that you have found that peace in your heart and your life.
I believe that as much as man has tried to mess with the Bible Gods truths are there because there are things in it that no man of that time could have thought up on his own and there are things that cross reference that could not have been placed the way they were.

I couldn't agree with you more. "if you really want to know God you will keep searching and then eventually you will know deep down that you have found that peace in your heart and your life." exactly!

God's Truths are evident regardless of the details that people argue about incessantly.

These Truths are also found in other "paths" (trying as I might to bring this full circle and back on topic) throughout the world.

The truth is that the Church had control over the Bible for how long? To assume that it was untouched and not rewritten to manipulate the population with fear seems absurd.

[Tj3]

I couldn't agree with you more. "if you really want to know God you will keep searching and then eventually you will know deep down that you have found that peace in your heart and your life." exactly!

The Bible has everything.

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

These Truths are also found in other "paths" (trying as I might to bring this full circle and back on topic) throughout the world.

If that were true, God would not have condemned the other paths. The fact is that the Bible claims exclusivity, and if anyone claims that other paths are equally good, then they are denying the Bible. You cannot have it both ways.

The truth is that the Church had control over the Bible for how long? To assume that it was untouched and not rewritten to manipulate the population with fear seems absurd.

The truth is that the church never controlled it, and we have copies going back so far that we can verify that it has not been altered, more so than any other anicent work.

[jakester]

The only problem with your thesis is that it assumes the words are those of Jesus. Is it possible they are later interpolations? Remember that the Bible, as we have it, comes no earlier than several centuries after Jesus walked the earth. By then, much had occurred in the situation of "Christians". The sect became exclusive as they gained power. Within a short time after gaining political power, they were actually executing those who didn't believe as they did. Do you think Jesus would ever have approved of that approach?

Could the Jesus who gave us the Beatitudes have excluded all those who didn't believe in him? Food for thought.

Athos - your objections are well taken. Anything is possible, but the bible is the only source document that is used to refer to anything Jesus said. You mentioned that he is the author of the Beatitudes but how you do know he really said the things contained there? Logically, if you could argue that the other sections of the bible attributed to things he said were really false, then how do we know that the Beatitudes were attributed to Jesus? I think a lot of our disagreement relating to what we think he said or did not say stems from our own perception of reality and what makes sense according to our worldview. If our worldview is one where there is no judgment for evil and no punishment, then the sections of the bible where Jesus is credited for saying that people will die in their sins or be punished for unbelief will not be attributed to him. We can pick what we will but we have to see that our worldviews often influence what we want to see.

Now, when you refer to the sect that executed those who didn't believe, I'm assuming you are referring to the Crusades. I don't believe Jesus taught that it was right to execute those who didn't believe. He did teach that those who refused to believe in him would perish in their unbelief but that was a matter to be settled between the individual and God... not between me and the unbeliever. God said "vengeance in mine, I will repay." So, I ought to let people be free to be unbelieving or believing and worry about myself. God, in the end, will sort people out.

I hope I addressed each of your points in turn. Let me know if I missed anything.

Sincerely.

[tickle]

All versions of the bible were written long after Jesus passed, and for that matter, all disciples.

The bible, in any version has proven to be an exemplary source of archeological information and that is the only credence I will give it.

Tick

[Tj3]

All versions of the bible were written long after Jesus passed, and for that matter, all disciples.

Not possible. The NT was written by disciples. It was all written within a few decades of Jesus' death and resurrection. That is well established.

[tickle]

Not possible. The NT was written by disciples. It was all written within a few decades of Jesus' death and resurrection. That is well established.

Sorry, don't think so, been around a long time and I don't think you are right. They can't even decode the Dead Sea Scrolls properly which is supposed to contain some of the disciples teachings. By the way, The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Toronto, Ontario this weekend !'

Are you an agnostic ?

Recent news report on the bones of St. Peter. Archeologists were finally permitted to examine bone fragments and have determined they are within the normal range that he was supposed to have passed, by carbon dating, but they really done know they are HIS remains and they can't determine that without DNA testing which is impossible to do. Any comments on that one ?

If you can't give me absolute proof the bible is first hand knowledge, then I would say you are blowing through your hat.

Tick

[DrJ]

The Bible has everything.

You have no way of knowing this. And that is a silly thing to put your faith into as there is nothing in the Bible that states that this may be accurate.

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Look at verse 16. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.." There were 4 more books that were put into the Bible after Timothy wrote this. And how many other books/letters were written that were NOT included in the Bible.

And WHO had the say so as to which books would be included? The Church.

You cannot say with any accuracy what all Timothy was or was not referring to with the word "Scripture".

If that were true, God would not have condemned the other paths. The fact is that the Bible claims exclusivity, and if anyone claims that other paths are equally good, then they are denying the Bible. You cannot have it both ways.

Again, this is based off the assumption that the Bible is exactly as God had intended it... unscathed by the dirty hands of man.

The truth is that the church never controlled it, and we have copies going back so far that we can verify that it has not been altered, moreso than any other anicent work.

The Bible as we know it wasn't seen until around 300 AD. That's over 200 years after the last book was written. That's a lot of time to manipulate those pages...

[450donn]

The only problem with your thesis is that it assumes the words are those of Jesus. Is it possible they are later interpolations? Remember that the Bible, as we have it, comes no earlier than several centuries after Jesus walked the earth. By then, much had occurred in the situation of "Christians". The sect became exclusive as they gained power. Within a short time after gaining political power, they were actually executing those who didn't believe as they did. Do you think Jesus would ever have approved of that approach?

Could the Jesus who gave us the Beatitudes have excluded all those who didn't believe in him? Food for thought.

So, your saying that Matthew was written later than AD70? Or that Mark was written after AD140/ Or that Luke was written long afterAD 60? Hummm. Please tell us where you get this information. Because my bible clearly indicates differently.

[DrJ]

N0help4u agrees: exactly but many people want to follow a wishy washy watered down truth or their own assumptions of what they FEEL as truth

Unfortunately, that is true. However, don't you think that there are those who see and believe the actual Godly Truths.. in the same Spirit in which the Bible was written?

[N0help4u]

Unfortunately, that is true. However, don't you think that there are those who see and believe the actual Godly Truths.. in the same Spirit in which the Bible was written?

Yes that is exactly what we are trying to say. The Bible says the truth will set you free and when you have been set free YOU KNOW.

[450donn]

If we must come to God through Jesus, what about those who never heard of Jesus?

That is the only reason that Jesus has not returned to claim his church. He is waiting for all people on earth to be given a chance.