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 always asked my patients who came back from a near death experience if they say anything. Only a couple said they say a bright light, which I surmise was the one Anesthesia used to see for intubation.
One gang banger came it with a bullet that went in one side of his head and out the other. He was fighting and I leaned over and told him to relax that we were trying to help him. He to much of all of our surprise stopped moving.
I saw him on the floor weeks later and I told him how amazed I was that he was talking and going home soon. He told me that Jesus saved him. I asked him if he saw him and he said "No. I heard him say relax that he was trying to help him." I told him that that was me in the ER trying to get him to stop moving so we could get the breathing tube in. The mind does weird things under stress, and sometimes kindness goes a long way. I believe that Jesus was nothing more than a man made from man, but I also believe that there's nothing wrong with following the teachings of someone who exhibited great acts of tolerance and kindness.
I have only speculation, but that speculation is that few saw Jesus ass "God" prior to the writing of the gospels
I have just started reading the Gospels but thus far...I'm inclined to agree with this. It's becoming clear that the story of Jesus is largely metaphorical. Whether it was always that way, or whether the writers made it that way...I dunno. Surah 3:7 of the Quran says: "He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive - they are the basis of the Book - and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it interpretation." It seems to me that the society the Hebrews were living in was polytheistic (hence people being possessed by devils), and Jesus was a prophet sent to put the people on the right path. Mark 1:27 says, "He speaks with authority. When he gives orders, even the unclean spirits submit." I can't recall if this is in the Bible...but the Quran is clear that God told all the angels to submit to Adam. Adam had dominion over all of creation. He lost it when he disobeyed and listened to Satan, who was an angel that refused to submit to Adam. So Jesus was given the same authority as Adam. His "miracles" were not miracles but him discharging his duties as a Levitical priest. Him visiting all those cities was him going to all the communities of Israel trying to put them back on the path of righteousness. The twelve disciples, to me, were representatives from the 12 tribes who were enlisted to help Jesus get the Israelites back on the right path. This would explain why people said Jesus's brothers were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Those are all names of the tribes. "James" in Hebrew is "Jacob", and Joseph, Simon (Simeon) and Judas (Judah) are names of Jacob's (Israel's) children.
There is a lot of mixing up of names in the NT, done to sow confusion, no doubt...but I don't think it's a reason to discount it. It's just really difficult to figure out what's really going on.
"god in a book" is responsible for more deaths and mistreatment in our society (and others) than any other false belief.
Quote:
When I run into the idolatry of Bible worshiping I’m reminded of something I observe with the folks raised in the age of texting and cell phones. I see them expect “answers” from the little black box they hold. They seem to trust it rather than the reality around them. They seem to be losing a tactile sense of how the world works because their connection to it is mediated through their phones, tablets and computers.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank...b_1892812.html
(Frank Schaefer is the son of the late fundamentalist preacher, Francis Schaefer, the latter an icon to fundamentalist christianity ). Frank finally rejected his father's biblical idolatry after repenting and repudiating his earlier film work for his father.
Quote:
Then there is Mr. Schaeffer’s more biting take, born of hard experience:
“North Korea and evangelical empires have the same principle of leadership: nepotism to the nth degree. You may not get the call, but you inherit the mailing list.”
same source.
And this sums up the difference between fundamentalists and "liberal" Christians:
Quote:
Of course, folks who think the bible has to be taken literally are threatened when someone who does not believe like they do are still confident about going to Heaven and serving God. Gives ‘em the willies!
Take the bible literally? Here is what that would look like. We would stone homosexuals to death ... along with adulterers and misbehaving children. Sorry, but we would never, under any circumstance, allow women to preach the word of God. (But they can teach it to children in Sunday School?) And don’t forget, you must tithe 10 percent of your income. Before taxes! Then there is that whole business about handling snakes.
We preachers are notorious about moving in and out of scripture like it is some worn out back door, ever struggling with the temptation to use it to prove a point or leverage a position. I am guilty, I confess. But, if you will pardon the biblical quote, Jesus said we are to use our hearts, souls and minds in this faith adventure. Do you suppose he was saying there should be a logical dimension to our faith? I do.
Liberals reject the verbal, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. They make up their own theology thinking they don't need the Holy Spirit to determine what is true in the Bible.
Liberals reject inerrancy because the bible isn't inerrant. As I have stated many times before if it is inerrant, then the bible would be a God. Only God was perfect and for a book to be, it would also have to be God. In addition we couldn't understand something to be perfect unless we were perfect as well. I know I'm not (don't believe me, just ask my hubby )How can an imperfect being know what is perfect?
IIRC inerrancy never came about until the mid 1900's when the fundies wanted to convince others of their way. Believe or go to hell. Prior to that everyone understood what it was, a book written by man who were inspired by God.
I have just started reading the Gospels but thus far...I'm inclined to agree with this. It's becoming clear that the story of Jesus is largely metaphorical. Whether it was always that way, or whether the writers made it that way...I dunno. Surah 3:7 of the Quran says: "He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive - they are the basis of the Book - and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it interpretation." It seems to me that the society the Hebrews were living in was polytheistic (hence people being possessed by devils), and Jesus was a prophet sent to put the people on the right path. Mark 1:27 says, "He speaks with authority. When he gives orders, even the unclean spirits submit." I can't recall if this is in the Bible...but the Quran is clear that God told all the angels to submit to Adam. Adam had dominion over all of creation. He lost it when he disobeyed and listened to Satan, who was an angel that refused to submit to Adam. So Jesus was given the same authority as Adam. His "miracles" were not miracles but him discharging his duties as a Levitical priest. Him visiting all those cities was him going to all the communities of Israel trying to put them back on the path of righteousness. The twelve disciples, to me, were representatives from the 12 tribes who were enlisted to help Jesus get the Israelites back on the right path. This would explain why people said Jesus's brothers were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Those are all names of the tribes. "James" in Hebrew is "Jacob", and Joseph, Simon (Simeon) and Judas (Judah) are names of Jacob's (Israel's) children.
There is a lot of mixing up of names in the NT, done to sow confusion, no doubt...but I don't think it's a reason to discount it. It's just really difficult to figure out what's really going on.
Yet most Muslims do believe Jesus to have been a prophet. That's why most would never burn a Bible despite what fundamentalist christians have done to the Quran on several occasions.
Allegorical doesn't necessarily equate to perversity. It is those who follow their "book" literally who have committed the most atrocious crimes against humanity---that includes some Muslims who are, in terms of visibility, at the apex today of our view of god crimes.
Our NT would disagree with you regarding Jesus being a "Levite" priest.
Quote:
He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priestsâ€
( Hebrews 7:13-14 )
Quote:
This is why Jesus came in the order and with the rank of Melchizedek. Not only was he High Priest of the Most High God, he was also a King ( Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 7:1-2 ). The priesthood of Aaron never held this honor. However, Melchizedek and Jesus do. Which is why Jesus came from Judah and the royal line of King David, because it fulfilled scripture that the Messiah would come from David’s line and rule forever ( II Samuel 7:16, Psalm 89:3-4, Jeremiah 23:5, Micah 5:2, John 7:42 ). Being after the order of Melchizedek, afforded Jesus the right to the position of both High Priest and King.
Liberals reject inerrancy because the bible isn't inerrant. As I have stated many times before if it is inerrant, then the bible would be a God. Only God was perfect and for a book to be, it would also have to be God. In addition we couldn't understand something to be perfect unless we were perfect as well. I know I'm not (don't believe me, just ask my hubby )How can an imperfect being know what is perfect?
IIRC inerrancy never came about until the mid 1900's when the fundies wanted to convince others of their way. Believe or go to hell. Prior to that everyone understood what it was, a book written by man who were inspired by God.
Good post, and well said. I especially love the first sentence, lol. So simple and true!
What a crock!!!! You lie to yourself and everyone else when you say you use only Scripture. What you did is create a fiction story about how this happened and that happened and why "part of God" is unseen.
The real crock is you saying I used something other than Scripture. Your problem is a lack of enough study to see the truth. Especially the meaning of image and likeness.
I just proved it is possible, making your comment the lie/
Here is another lie. I dont try to lead anyone into fundamentalism or any other way of thinking. That is what you are doing. I simply tell what I believe and why I believe it and I always use Scripture. That keeps it out of something being my opinion. When you reject what God says, you have to rely on you opinion and have no way to verify it.
Here is another example of a lack of understanding from a lack of knowledge. During His incarnation, Jesus did not exhibit His godly attributes. He emptied himself of them(Phil 2:8) Because He has to be like man to fulfill His mission(Heb 3:17). WE don't want something spiritalized when it isn't supposed to be. You liberals use spiritualization only when you want to say the passage isn't true.
Another crock. Fundamentalist are require to love every one as they love them self. That includes homosexuals and even liberals. You on the other hand seem to hate conservative Christian.
Another crock. I used only Scripture and you simply can't understand it, so you continue to insult me . You even resorted to insulting other , calling them unthinking. You should be ashamed of your self for such a remark
Let me assure you there are many fundamentalist who are better readers than you are and reading does not always result in understanding. To understand, one needs to study and pray. You seem not have done much if any serious study.
That only applies to folks like you who thought they were fundamentalist, but were not. They, like you don't even understand the term.
First, I am NEVER offended by your statements, because a child of God cannot be offended by words. The children of other deities are often offended.
During "His incarnation, Jesus did not exhibit His godly attributes," so say you. Good, I'm glad to see you accept miracles as not "divine."
You fundamentalists only spiritualize when it is necessary to "harmonize." Other than that it is ALWAYS literal an unadulterated.
Your view of me "not" being a fundamentalist is refuted by hundreds of converts away from the Bible and toward the One to Whom the Bible points. Here are two dozen testimonies that you can pick up and read for yourself at Amazon.com.
Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists Paperback – June 30, 2003
This riveting new collection offers testimonies of former fundamentalists who became disillusioned with their churches and left. Presenting more than two dozen personal journeys, this book gives a clear picture of what attracts a person to the fundamentalist faith and what can drive believers away from their religion. Photos throughout.
Now can you provide even one fundamentalist testimony about leaving Christian "liberalism" for the holy ground of fundamentalism?
No you can't, just like you can't provide straight literal Scripture to refute any of the contradictions of the Bible.
You have no valid excuse to lie to yourself anymore. God is trying to call you into the fold of His followers who walk by Faith not by sight. A "literal" bible is literally unnecessary.
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-16-2018 at 12:02 PM..
Reason: Removed exgtra quote tag
People assume that "Son of Man" refers to Jesus. I'm not sure I believe that, because Jesus himself speaks of the "Son of Man", and I don't think he'd speak about himself in third person. It just doesn't make sense. I think this is something else done to throw people off. I'd love to know what "Son of Man" is translated from in Hebrew. I'm starting to think it's a reference to the "sons" (tribes) of Jacob. And since Judah is going to usher in the kindgom (the scepter will not depart from Judah...Genesis 49:10) the "spirit" will be with that "son" first.
Having people think Jesus descended from Judah is deception, IMO. His mother Mary was a Levite, and he had no father. People know who some of the descendants of Judah are today, and they don't want to accept that these are the people who will bring in the new kingdom. Saying Jesus was from Judah makes people think the prophecy has already been fulfilled, and it keeps them off guard in the last days. Because you don't recognize the signs.
Also I want to add, as further proof of my theory (because I can't be certain) that Jesus was a Levite: remember, the Levitical priests were not given territories. They were to stay in the outskirts of the land allotments to Israel. I think people believe Jesus was from Judah because he was traveling through Judean territories at the time he was alive. Joshua 18:9 says, "The men went and passed through the land, surveying it by citites, dividing it into seven regions and writing the results on a scroll."
Now...notice how Mark 8 discusses seven loaves of bread: "'How can anyone provide all these people with bread in this lonely place? How many loaves have you?' he asked; and they answered, 'Seven.'" (Mark 8:4-5) IMO, this passage is metaphorical. The "lonely place" represents the same place the Israelites were when Moses (high priest) was leading them in the desert. Why were they in the desert? They had been disobedient. Likewise, Jesus (high priest) was sent to a "lonely place" to lead the lost Israelites of his generation. Perhaps "seven" was the unsealing of the scrolls from Joshua.
Matthew 1:17 says: "There were thus fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David until the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen from the deportation until the Messiah." The verse prior to this said Jesus was called the Messiah. I'm wondering if there is a Messiah for different eras, and Jesus was the Messiah for his era. I don't know timelines, but did Jesus come before the Israelites went into Babylonian captivity? Because then it would make sense that he was trying to save them from being exiled.
The point of this thread is to show how points of view can be supported by taking Scripture out of context. I claim fundamentalists do this more than others, but all of us are probably guilty of doing it at some time.
I'm going to provide two Scriptures. It is okay to accept one and not the other and state your reasons for doing so. But to REFUTE one and not the other can only be done with relevant Scripture.
John 1:18
Ezekiel 24:9-11
Both statements cannot stand alone and harmonized in an inerrant Bible. They can only be understood within cultural boundaries and perhaps even in ignorance of what other Scripture says.
Now, I don't doubt there is a "fictional" story or two that fundamentalists have created to instill harmonization. But I contend they cannot do so using just Bible quotes. They have to add to the Bible thereby changing its meaning to meet their own inerrancy criteria.
Doing so is the apex of biblical idolatry.
Have a shot Omega--but remember -- you can voice your opinion, but can only claim one or the other is false by using solely Scripture. Putting out an unbiblical creative story is simply an admission that the Bible doesn't speak clearly---it needs fundamentalist help.
As stated elsewhere but for which no adequate apology has been forthcoming is a misquote of scripture from Ezekiel. The passage in question ought to be Exodus 24:9-11.
After consulting several extra-Biblical interpretations, I have discovered that the consensus of opinion among scholars regarding the passage in question (Exodus 24:9-11 NOT Ezekiel 24:9-11) states the obvious.
There is no definitive statement of what Moses and company saw that day - or what they did not see.
It cannot be accurately stated or implied that they saw the face of God or whether they saw something that represented God or the glory of God or a facet of God (which is more likely).
In summary the question is taken entirely out of context and asks participants to render argument regarding a false initial statement. The answer can be found further on in the book of Exodus, specifically Exodus 33:20-23 (*).
No accurate or appropriate rebuttal can be made regarding a question that takes a Bible passage out of context or misquotes one entirely. Such deliberate obfuscation is neither scholarly nor appropriate to an honest and forthright discussion of Biblical content.
Accusing evangelicals of misquotes, misinterpretation or deliberate falsification can be applied to the author of the initial post of this thread as well since it was he that wrote them in the first place multiplied by replies later on. Judge not that you be not judged for when you condemn others, your condemnation can be used to measure your own honesty - or the lack thereof.
Is the possibility of a straightforward examination of scripture implied by such statements? Absolutely not. The intent of this thread is to demonize believers, to misrepresent scripture and to confuse a principle commonly used to define and determine the difference between spiritual truth and lies.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock.
When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
- Exodus 33:19-23
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-16-2018 at 06:39 AM..
Reason: Rule: DO NOT post using red text
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.
god in a book
)How can an imperfect being know what is perfect?
