Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have more than 40 years of experience reading the Bible, bible scholarship and exegesis, and exegetical study of the entire spiritual fossil record. I do NOT just decide what fits my argument. The test I use for whether or not something in the Bible is true or from Jesus or God is the Spirit of agape love (Who IS God). If it contradicts or is inconsistent with the Spirit of agape love it cannot be from God or Jesus, period. You test nothing and accept everything in the Bible without question making IT your God. At least, I use the God revealed by Jesus as my source of truth because Jesus IS the Word of God and He IS the Truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Why do you say I don't believe that? I just believe it means something less carnal than you do. I interpret it spiritually. You interpret it carnally. Guess who I think is correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Because that's what you have said in the past. You don't believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. Has that changed?
He was seen. He ate. That's a physical resurrection. That's what the Bible says. If some spirit is telling you otherwise - it ain't Jesus Christ.
What physical body can go through closed doors???? Our ancestors were terrified of Spirits, that is why Jesus cloaked so much of His teaching in parables and couched it in terms they were familiar with from the scriptures. It was essential that He provide the illusion of a physical resurrection not just because of a doubting Thomas, but because their carnal minds could not accept and would not believe in a spiritual one, even though Paul went into considerable detail explaining it in 1 Cor 15.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Question... why do you believe in the resurrection at all? The only reason anyone believes in a resurrection today is because it's in the Bible. Nobody has ever seen anyone come back from being dead and buried. Why do you only claim a partial spiritual resurrection? Or on what basis?
Because science suggests that our consciousness (Spirit) can continue after death. It explains why Jesus was necessary. His is the only human consciousness that is identical to God in the Holy Spirit of agape love. By His death and rebirth as Spirit He made His Holy Spirit (consciousness) available to all human consciousness connecting us to God. He abides with us as the Comforter sent in His name to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
I think there was great competition, and rivalry among the apostles. I believe Paul who was not an apostle, and never met Jesus, saw it as an opportunity, and ran with it.
Are you seriously claiming that both of these sets of New Testament passages are inerrant?
Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great (died in 4 BC). - Matthew
Jesus was born during the Judean census conducted by the Roman governor Quirinius in 6 AD - Luke
When entering Jerusalem Jesus sent for and rode one animal in the usual manner. - Mark, Luke, John
When entering Jerusalem Jesus sent for and rode two animals to fulfill a prophecy. - Matthew
Jesus was crucified on the Passover - Matthew, Mark, Luke
Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover - John
Here again is a very good explanation of Luke 2:2 from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Luke 2:2
And this taxing was first made ... - This verse has given as much perplexity, perhaps, as any one in
the New Testament. The difficulty consists in the fact that “Cyrenius,†or “Quirinius,†was not
governor of Syria until 12 or 15 years after the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born during the reign of
Herod. At that time “Varus†was president of Syria. Herod was succeeded by “Archelaus,†who
reigned eight or nine years; and after he was removed, Judea was annexed to the province of Syria,
and Cyrenius was sent as the governor (Josephus, “Ant.,†b. xvii. 5). The difficulty has been to
reconcile this account with that in Luke. Various attempts have been made to do this. The one that
seems most satisfactory is that proposed by Dr. Lardner. According to his view, the passage here
means, “This was the “first†census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.†It is called the “first†to
distinguish it from one “afterward†taken by Cyrenius, Act_5:37. It is said to be the census taken by
“Cyrenius; governor of Syria; “not that he was “then†governor, but that it was taken by him who
was afterward familiarly known as governor.
Here again is a very good explanation of Luke 2:2 from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Luke 2:2
And this taxing was first made ... - This verse has given as much perplexity, perhaps, as any one in
the New Testament. The difficulty consists in the fact that “Cyrenius,” or “Quirinius,” was not
governor of Syria until 12 or 15 years after the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born during the reign of
Herod. At that time “Varus” was president of Syria. Herod was succeeded by “Archelaus,” who
reigned eight or nine years; and after he was removed, Judea was annexed to the province of Syria,
and Cyrenius was sent as the governor (Josephus, “Ant.,” b. xvii. 5). The difficulty has been to
reconcile this account with that in Luke. Various attempts have been made to do this. The one that
seems most satisfactory is that proposed by Dr. Lardner. According to his view, the passage here
means, “This was the “first” census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.” It is called the “first” to
distinguish it from one “afterward” taken by Cyrenius, Act_5:37. It is said to be the census taken by
“Cyrenius; governor of Syria; “not that he was “then” governor, but that it was taken by him who
was afterward familiarly known as governor.
The author of this is obviously well versed in apologetics. As is common among fundamentalists, they create a fiction story that "explains" difficult verses rather than let those verses speak for themselves. The very fact that there IS a discrepancy speaks to the truth that scripture is NOT a conspiracy. Perfection would make it sound like the Quran---carefully crafted and with all alternative manuscripts destroyed.
But in effect you are admitting that what is "clear" language isn't clear at all. Luke may have written that Cyrenius was governor---he just didn't mean it. Obviously when God whispered in his ear the words to write, it was His intention to be historically obtuse.
But for people of heart faith, a perfect idol (the Bible) is unnecessary. Their faith reaches beyond the "Sacred Page."
I am not feeling all this sorrow, Eusebius. It seems somewhat shallow and insincere.
As far as scripture? I see men fighting, and competing for control over others. They use God to bring people to submission through religion. However, once in a while, I see a truth.
I have never spoken with God in scripture. We speak as old, lifetime friends.
Here again is a very good explanation of Luke 2:2 from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Luke 2:2
And this taxing was first made ... - This verse has given as much perplexity, perhaps, as any one in
the New Testament. The difficulty consists in the fact that “Cyrenius,” or “Quirinius,” was not
governor of Syria until 12 or 15 years after the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born during the reign of
Herod. At that time “Varus” was president of Syria. Herod was succeeded by “Archelaus,” who
reigned eight or nine years; and after he was removed, Judea was annexed to the province of Syria,
and Cyrenius was sent as the governor (Josephus, “Ant.,” b. xvii. 5). The difficulty has been to
reconcile this account with that in Luke. Various attempts have been made to do this. The one that
seems most satisfactory is that proposed by Dr. Lardner. According to his view, the passage here
means, “This was the “first” census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.” It is called the “first” to
distinguish it from one “afterward” taken by Cyrenius, Act_5:37. It is said to be the census taken by
“Cyrenius; governor of Syria; “not that he was “then” governor, but that it was taken by him who
was afterward familiarly known as governor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
The author of this is obviously well versed in apologetics. As is common among fundamentalists, they create a fiction story that "explains" difficult verses rather than let those verses speak for themselves. The very fact that there IS a discrepancy speaks to the truth that scripture is NOT a conspiracy. Perfection would make it sound like the Quran---carefully crafted and with all alternative manuscripts destroyed.
But in effect you are admitting that what is "clear" language isn't clear at all. Luke may have written that Cyrenius was governor---he just didn't mean it. Obviously when God whispered in his ear the words to write, it was His intention to be historically obtuse.
But for people of heart faith, a perfect idol (the Bible) is unnecessary. Their faith reaches beyond the "Sacred Page."
Here you go folks..... now this is a sure case of what they call,
"The blind leading the blind !"
Now on a more serious note with the bold part is just what Gnostic's believe and teach > they believe they are specially enlighten by God !
Look it up and read about the teaching of gnosis, educate yourselves !!
Here you go folks..... now this is a sure case of what they call,
"The blind leading the blind !"
Now on a more serious note with the bold part is just what Gnostic's believe and teach > they believe they are specially enlighten by God !
Look it up and read about the teaching of gnosis, educate yourselves !!
Just what DID Jesus promise to be our Guide and to be with us forever? I understand the problem, people that don[t know and live the characteristics of the Spirit don't trust the message OF the Spirit when it is presented to them.
Just what DID Jesus promise to be our Guide and to be with us forever? I understand the problem, people that don[t know and live the characteristics of the Spirit don't trust the message OF the Spirit when it is presented to them.
LOL, well I guess then you don't know nor trust the characteristics of the Spirit as the message you present is never displayed or inline with the Spirit in your post as the Spirit never acts out of His character which is found in Gal. 5 for those who want to know the Fruit of the Spirit. So here we have man's thoughts rather then God's truth !!
Thanks once again, nateswift, what you have meant for evil God is going to turn it around for the good of those who love Him !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carry on. 
