but isn't that what we only have ? the opinions written by various peoples , interpreted as agenda needed to be = the bible , the koran , any other religious script ? nothing more than mans opinion.

you may believe God wrote the bible but that doesn't make it fact. Especially when that idea of God , a perfect being , is saddled with imperfect fear based human emotions like anger and jealousy . it's contradition at it's finest.

Not good enough!!



The created idea of Jesus being the Savior can only be witnessed in the New Testament where the alteration has been highly suspected because of its complete contradiction to the Old Testament that came from the same God. God does not change His mind. God does not call Himself the ONLY SAVIOR then decides to change that and call Jesus the Savior. This term describing Jesus as the Savior was used only twice in the N.T. This is noted in Lk.ii 11 and in Jn. iv 42. Besides these two occurrences , the only other occurrence in the Gospels clearly refers to God, not Jesus :

“Then Mary said: “My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit finds joy in God , MY SAVIOR, For He has looked upon his servant in her lowliness...” Luke 1: 46-48



We cannot ignore the reminder in Isaiah 46:9 where God speaks of Himself

“I am God, there is no other;, I am God, there is none like me.” (La Elaha Ella Allah).



http://www.submission.org/savior.htm



fullywired

It wasn't a changing, because it was always a part of God's plan. The Gospel of Christ is first introduced in Genesis which is in the OT.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

And will he not render to each man according to his deeds?" Proverbs 24:12 "The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." Ezekiel 18:20

If each man reaps what he sows, how can Jesus be the savior ? How could he have taken on the sins of mankind and negated them ? Only the One who accepts repentance and wipes out sins can do that. Indeed throughout the Old Testament, God ALONE is referred to as the SAVIOR. See , 2 Samuel 22:1-3 , and Isaiah 43:3-11

In Isaiah, God Himself speaks, saying clearly that He ALONE is the SAVIOR:

“For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your SAVIOR....It is I, the Lord; there is NO SAVIOR BUT ME...” Isaiah 43:3 &11

HE repeats this categorical statement in Hosea:

“I am the Lord, your God, since the land of Egypt; You know no God besides me, and there is NO SAVIOR but me.” Hosea 13:4





fullywired

Jesus is God.
Jesus did not die until after the OT times.
Jesus died for all sins past, present, future. We just need to seek his forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

You are not addressing the point ,your waffling



fullywired

So god sacrificed & resurrected himself ?

God had conversations with himself, prayed to himself the whole time ?

So god never sacrificed his only begotten son ?

What a farce !!

This creed you believe in was formulated by the Council of Nicea. Why ?

The creed was formulated in response to the claims of various early Christian groups, and so includes clauses that deny the beliefs of those groups.

In response to the Arians who believed that Jesus was not God, the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) decreed that he was fully God.

In response to the Apollinarians who believed Jesus was God but not fully human, the council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) decreed that Jesus was fully human.


Make it convenient and take your pick. (oops you already did)

Yes, LT, but my opinion of your opinion may be worthless. You see, your opinion may be based on your education, experience, etc., and my opinion may be based on the same for me, but if I give my opinion of your opinion and cite no real support for it other than it's my opinion, then it's not much, is it?




Jesus never claimed to be another god, in fact, He said the opposite:

Luke 4:14-21

As He stood there, a human as far as they could see, He was also God (the Spirit of the Lord on Him).

It's OK, MLR, like Irish has pointed out several times, you have no hope of actually understanding this mystery because you lack the key. Don't fret yourself so much. Clear understanding is available to you, all you have to do is acknowledge and accept.

My post never said he had claimed to be another god ,it stated that God said "there is no other saviour but me " So that let's Jesus out



fullywired

OH MY Iams........lets keep it context


Isaiah was talking about himself

Isaiah 61
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

The key ?

Well I found another set of keys, one of them is engraved with the word "reality" >>that one got me in through the out door. And then there was "light">> no more murky darkness that is called "mystery".


acknowledge & accept ? >>the computer says NO...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY

Not at all. Apparently you just don't understand. Many people can understand what I'm saying.

Yes, God sacrificed and resurrected Himself.
God, the Son prayed to God, the Father, so yes God prayed to God.
Yes, God the Father gave his only begotten Son, being Jesus who is God.

As far as your last bit of comments. Jesus is God and He lived with us as a man. I think this is pretty easy to understand.

What are these keys to understanding scripture Iams. I think this idea is very worthy of a more indepth discussion. As this thread is designated "Context"..... without using biblical verse to prove biblical verse might allow some of us to grasp the gist of what your trying to say here.

To say that noone has any "hope of actually understanding this mystery because you lack the key" is a profound statement, what is equally profound is the fact that "all you have to do is acknowledge and accept."

Just so you get where I'm coming from clearly: Secret Decoder Ring

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Well stop waffling and tell us in plain English

but your interpetation of the bible isn't the end all and be all. it's an interpretation , not fact.

we( psychology and heck anyone with a brain and can think ) knows anger and jealousy are emotions which at thier base are rooted in fear. no matter how you try to explain it they are not positive . Beneficial ? possibly , natural ? for humans yes , but not positive.

so if your idea of God feels angry and jealous - why ? what would a perfect all knowing being have to be jealous over ? or angry seeing how God is all knowing .

your support isn't support . It would be like me debating evolution theory with no evidence to back it up . nothing more than opinion and that's what the bible is. mans opinion of the times politically and culturallly , his/thier agenda and hopes . there is nothing tangible to be used as evidence . it isn't even theory .

aaahhh but you are LOL...you pulled a sheri and skipped my post that responded to yours 3 pages back!! LOL ya lil git lol

Like I initially said, it leaves Jesus out if He is not God. The trinity is obviously a dificult concept to understand, but in essence, Jesus is a facet of God, He is not another individual, He is God.

That's cuz you skipped the whole part about how he was actually a firefighter trying to rescue you from a fire in your house. That was the part which was showing the importance of context.... so, it's YOUR fault!

Instead of re=wording what my friend Irish has already put so well, here is a link to the post where he explain what I mean by the key you're missing. LINK

The fact that you either can't understand this, or won't accept it is part of the problem generated by the fact that you lack the key.

And it's really not as dificult or mysterious a topic as you may try to make it out to be. It's just a lack of understanding. I've been involved in logistics for over 17 years, I could write a note to a fellow logistician and hand it to you, and you might grasp the gist of it, but if you don't know the specialized jargon, you will probably miss out on a portion of the intended message. This is the same. You can read the Bible and you may get the gist, but to you it's deeper meaning is hidden because you lack a relationship necessary for it to make sense.

So, now religion and the understanding of it is some sort of secret society!?!

If people were meant to have faith before understanding what the bible means, then what is the point of the book?

I'm sorry, but the "you must have a relationship with God before you can understand the meaning of the bible" excuse is just that, an excuse to pass off the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions of the bible as some sort of mystical mystery.

The bible was written to bring people to Christianity and to show people the Christian God. If it has no meaning then it won't do that. It does, and what it shows people is coloured by their faith or lack of, but that does NOT change the context of it.

From this post in another thread, explained very eloquently...



I inserted the statement in parentheses.

...while it was said with regards to the question of why Jesus did not write a Gospel, it has relevance here as well. Why would God inspire a book about Himself that would be a barrier to having faith in Him?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''



There were more than one divine being, together they were called ELOHIM. THEY WERE NOT THE SYMBOLISM OF TRINITY, EVEN THOUGH MANY THEOLOGIANS TRY TO TEACH PARISHIONERS THAT. During Genesis period nobody knew about Jesus Christ. Theologians had no concept of TRINITY during Old Testament period. In fact, there is no word TRINITY in the entire Bible. According to
Biblical evidence, many deities continued to exist in various ways even during the period of Judges in Israel.
http://waypub.fatcow.com/ed/whytheyattack.html

Iams...did you miss this post of mine on context: Lets keep it context

OH wait....perhaps you are ignoring it.

yet in the bible any prophet had the Spirit of the Lord upon him. Samson is said to have the spirit of the lord on him.

Saul had the spirit of the lord on him --- and God replaced it with an evil one.

14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
1 Samuel 16:14

Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!"' (11:29). Numbers

and Jesus went by the OT . He was a Jew. didn't start a new religion but followed Judaism . So having the spirit of God on him didn't make him God it made him a prophet. But I'm sure you'll find a way to negate .

Remember who came to Jesus when he prayed in the garden ? moses and Elijah , the 2 biggest prophets in the OT. They were also supposedly at the side of Jesus when he ascended. This is very telling of thier importance to the culture at the time and the relationship with Jesus. viewed as equals in the sense of being prophets.

Iams you posted a link to the exact comment that I linked my question.......did you not click on my link called Secret Decoder Ring

Here I'll re-cite what was said, because I do believe that the state of christianity is in direct contradiction to what you are laying claim to here.
I'm fully aware of the concept of biblical hermeneutics, and am also aware of the desire that adherents to the faith have for a comprehensive or unified interpretation of scripture in order to lay to rest any insinuations of ambiguity.

But!

To imply "that the scriptures are a great puzzle that was dismantled to protect it from corruption" is contradictive to what we see in practice routinely, because the scriptures are corrupted by believers and non alike. If the goal was to protect them from corruption then that goal was not achieved.

We also know that what most hold in their laps today, as the bible, is not the original format or even "context" that these age old teachings were intended, they in essence are corrupted.

I witness hordes of believers that , for all intents and purposes, have an "earnest desire to know the truth", and have a born again soul, and have accepted redemption as per scriptural ultimatum.

Yet not an individual nor an organization, have a congruence of interpretation aside from the fundemantal basis of the Christian religion.

To assert that scriptures "are a great puzzle that was dismantled to protect it from corruption" seems to move an individual towards a more fairy-tale like or capricious understanding of nature and less towards what this corrupted version of teachings may in fact have been originally able to teach us.




It is more a claim of personal exclusivity to biblical understanding and less a genuine consideration, your comment above.

So what, then, am I to do with a Biblical passage that STRONGLY contradicts this moral intuition that you say is given to me by God? Suppose, for example, I come across a passage that tells me that God once ordered a group of soldiers to pillage a city, kill all the men (even non-combatants) and the un-virgin women, but enslave the children and marry the virgin women, whether or not they consent?

Seriously, what do I do with that passage? I really don't believe that it can be resolved by adding CONTEXT. And my moral intuition, which (as you tell me) was bestowed upon me by God, simply SCREAMS that this would be wrong today and it couldn't have been right then either.

So I've got two choices:

Ignore my moral intuition and accept the fact that pillage, slavery, and rape are sometimes good things OR trust my moral intuition, and recognize that same passages in the Bible completely SUCK for telling us right and wrong.


Which one do I pick IamS ?

I think this portrays the ' right way is my way ' thinking. which is absurd and arrogant. your interpretation is just that - your interpretation.

No, i just didn't see any reason to reply.

Guys, I'm sorry that the fact that you need the Holy Spirit leaves you feeling left out, or that this is a cop-out, like I said, there are other examples in "regular" life where a lack of experience, education, exposure gives one an edge over others.

your assumption and arrogance is showing. put on a slip and pray for forgivness.

your interpretation is just that. yours. it doesn't make it right or true. Plenty of professional educated biblical scholars would disagree with you.

Am I arrogant when I use my 20+ years of logistics experience to interpret a situation? No, the fact that someone who lacks my experience and training would be unable to resolve the issues or understand the processes I can does not make me arrogant, just knowledgeable. Would someone who lacked my logistics training feel slighted by the fact they could not understand a process that is obvious to me, or feel I was being arrogant because I was able to grasp something they couldn't? No, they would expect that as an expert in the field I would have a deeper understanding than them. Would anyone be insulted by the fact that I claimed a greater understanding of logistical processes than them if they were not logisticians? No, they would agree and actually expect me to have that greater understanding.

If I were a practicing Wiccan who spent time really studying the basis of my religion and then told others--who had either read a few articles or read a few pages from a book, or even read books on Wiccanism, but had not really studied them--that they lacked real understanding of Wicca, would I be getting called arrogant? No. Why not? Well, for one because I would not be a Christian, and for another reason because no one would think that just reading or even participating in one Wiccan ritual would have made their views on Wiccanism the equal of one who practiced it and studied it deeply. But everyone seems to think that they can claim that kind of knowledge and understanding of Christianity.

In fact, anyone claiming to have a clear understanding of Wiccanism because they had grown up in a sort-of-practicing Wiccan home, or had read whatever books Wiccans use as part of their religion, or even just read portions of the books or even just online articles would be called arrogant if they claimed the same kind of knowledge and understanding as a true Wiccan, wouldn't they?

Faith and knowledge are two very different things, Iams, and your analogy with your logistical skills is a false one. I posted above (#122) regarding the meaning and context of the bible, would you care to respond?

If I were talking about faith, you might have a point, but I'm talking about knowledge, so the analogy stands. I know God in a way that you currently don't, that knowledge gives me access you don't have.

No more a secret society than any other group of people with knowledge that requires specific training or education. Are accountants a secret society? No, but I certainly don't understand accounting. Could I become an accountant? Yes, it would take specific training and education, but I could. Could you gain the ability to understand the Bible? Yes, it's part of the free gift He offers. If you're unwilling to accept the offer, that is not my problem, the knowledge is available to you.

I will have to answer the rest of your post later. Heading off to church.

'IamsSon' "... No more a secret society than any other group of people with knowledge that requires specific training or education. ... Could you gain the ability to understand the Bible? Yes, it's part of the free gift He offers. If you're unwilling to accept the offer, that is not my problem, the knowledge is available to you...."


Agree that there are many layers of understanding that come with training under someone who already knows the Way. This is a long standing tradition with all established esoteic-religous systems. Simplest example is the Hidu pantheon, each colourful deity represents one aspect of the One God, so simple folk can take one aspect at a time, and that is possibly where it ends with them. And prayer and meditation have to do if no teacher makes himself or herself known. That is sometimes good enough when you consider the Muslim Sufi saint Rabi'a who spent most of her time in a cave worshipping God and with what glorious insights.

What is your justification for suggesting you have this knowledge, Iams?

In what way do you 'know' God that those who aren't Christian don't?

Please, no generic, ambiguous repsonses such as "I know Him in my heart" because that is faith, not knowledge.

You'll not get a straight answer.all they have is faith ,no knowledge



fullywired

If he has accepted Christ into his heart, then he is sealed by the Holy Spirit. One of the functions of the Holy Spirit is to teach, so that would allow Iams to have a greater access to knowledge and understanding, as well as various gifts and blessings.

Knowledge, in the epistemological sense can be defined as something that is true, believed and justified.

In evidentialism, justification is made via evidence, in reliabilism justification is made via reliability.

However, to be justified in the deontological sense there must be no obligation to believe a certain thing. Having religious faith presupposes an obligation of belief, therefore any knowledge gleaned of that faith while in that faith cannot said to be justified.

OK, back from church, and back to replying to your post.

Obviously, you can gain some basic understanding since you can read it and gain some understanding, just as if you read a Wiccan text, you would get the gist of the message, but you would not be someone who a Wiccan would consider to have any sort of real understanding of their religion.

That's your opinion and I can understand why, from your point of view this is what you want to believe.

Again, you're talking about different things. Yes, you can read the Bible and understand that God is telling you that because of your actions you have doomed yourself and that He has provided a way which is as far as even the majority of Christians go, but beyond that, beyond the surface knowledge, there is more which is unavailable to you or anyone who has not been given the Holy Spirit.

This is kind of a ridiculous statement given who you're talking to. I came to the relationship I have with God, by reading the Bible. And I am not unique in that.

However, I would like to point out how interesting it is that you ignored my Wiccan example completely. Wonder why that is? Here it is again:



I am suggesting nothing Leo, I am flat out saying it. I have knowledge which you, in your current state cannot have. It is not knowledge you can never have, I would love for you to have it, but currently you can't.

I know Him as my Savior, Friend, Father, Brother, High Priest and Counselor

In your opinion this is faith. I know in my life this is knowledge. Leo, the explanation you are seeking is not one I have. Maybe someone else can step in and give it. I just know that I know God as a real "person" for the same reason I know my parents, my siblings, my wife, and my children: because I spend time with them and have experienced different situations with them and communicate with them regularly.


Thanks WWF!


Leo, you have no obligation to believe in my personal relationship with God. None whatsoever. But the fact you don't believe it has ZERO impact on that relationship itself, it is still just as real. I also have no obligation to make you believe. I am simply sharing my experience. That's my role. God may or may not reveal Himself to you, and you may or may not choose to seek Him, but that is totally your responsibility.

I hope you will make some attempt to comment on the Wiccan analogy you skipped over.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

---1 John, 2 :27

It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason. ---Blaise Pascal

By the way this quote isnt denying the value of reason but simply demonstrating its limitation.

A great quaker once wrote:

For reason is not sin, but a turning from that from which reason came is sin. --Isaac Penington


From there perennial philosophy point of view, grace and intuition is a form of knowledge 'intuitive knowledge'.

This comes down to philosophical opinion though. Some may be of the opinion that intuitive knowledge (which derives from good practice and faith) isnt knowledge and others that it is.

Some may be of the philosophical opinion that intuitive knowledge or inner anointing is true knowledge while relative knowledge is non-existent or illusory.

Martin Luther (though personally I don't get into his religious approach or philosophy also he abhorred reason which I do not) has many decent spiritual quotations. This is one I have taken quite a liking too:

Religion is not "doctrinal knowledge", but wisdom born of personal experience.

Unless one is genuinely sincere in trying to understand spiritual/religious wisdom one will never get a reasonable appreciation of it or understanding of it. Religious fanatics and stubborn material rationalists will only ever understand what their prejudice allows them to.

Religious knowledge which is imparted via intuition or grace cannot be arbitrarily bestowed upon others. The best one can do (only if one has the knowledge of course which I do not) is perhaps show others methods in which one can quieten the mind and so allow the individual the experience intuitive knowledge for oneself, if not then stress not because the ultimate ground of all being (God, Tao, Brahman etc) will eventually whether in this life or the next infuse the knowledge itself (you may not agree with this but many exponents of the perennial philosophy teach that to realize God for oneself is the destiny of all).

Therefore, those to whom God has imparted religion by intuition are very fortunate and justly convinced. But to those who do not have it, we can give it only by reasoning, waiting for God to give them spiritual insight, without which faith is only human and useless for salvation. --Blaise Pascal


Minor grammatical errors hence the edit.

Got caught taking Bible verses out of context so you ignored hoping it would be......what?



That would be Numbers 31

What about cannibalism in the Bible?

What are you talking about, you expressed an opinion I consider too ridiculous to reply to, so I didn't, you did nothing else.