I’m in total agreement with this view.

To me its obvious that the Bible is full of self-proselytizing urgency which would never be required if the message was truly from God.

In fact, I have said on many occasions that if an omniscient God was serious about conveying an unambiguous message to mankind he would have inspired writers from all around the globe to write stories that support his theme. But his clearly isn’t the case. Why would that be? Why would God limit himself to only inspiring men in one tiny geographical location on planet earth whilst allowing men from all over the globe to write completely different and conflicting religions?

For me this is paramount. If God was so concerned with spreading his message worldwide he could have done that himself without ambiguity. The fact that he didn’t do this is clear evidence to me that these stories were indeed the invention of regional men who were not divinely inspired at all.

Ok I get it.....So then when yo say you could love Christ that was a joke....Because if that were not the case you would never say Savior from what? I don’t believe in Satan.

Just because you don't condone didn't not make it so. Jesus died on the cross that is fact...Now I understand as I don't believe in war you don't believe in crucifixion. I get that.

But also understand that it had to be done.....and both God and Jesus knew it was going to happen long before it did. And yes I to wish that man could of remained sinless but Adam and Eve took care of that....and so Jesus had to do what he had to do. And it to makes me very sad. When I watched the making of Passion of the Christ...I cried hysterically not only at how badly Jesus was treated but at the crucifixion itself....It is brutal....and as much as I felt that the Passion movie got it right...I honestly don't think they really showed how brutal it was.

Jesus has two natures: divine and human –
Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

And yes abra again you are right and I would never suggest that you only be capable of loving people who died for you.....But for me I understand the context in which Christ did hat he did. I know that in order for our salvation all of our sin had to be put on him.

Now if we look at it in your terms.....Jesus died and that was that...But for me that was just the beginning....When Christ rose on the third day again that was a prophecy fulfilled, and now he is once again at the right hand of his Father until he once again will return....

The Creator of the universe would of loved it more if man ld of never sinned....but you can't go back..and again their has to be a consequence for everything. And again satan played a huge role in the downfall of man.....and again right now he is doin the same. satan's greatest joy is taking human and turning them into hateful, vengeful, nasty, God hating people. He wants every single soul on this planet in his side......but I have news for satan....not going to happen and as much as satan knows scripture he also knows in the end he will loose and be caste to the pits of hell for all eternity.

I don't only love God for giving his only begotten son so that I may have everlasting salvation. I Love God for many many reasons.....For what he does daily in my life, for what he has shown me for my life......

And again abra you are 100% correct when you say what if man had never sinned and there was no reason for God to get himself nailed on a cross. But the fact is man did sin...and the only way was for Jesus to take our sin and die with it.


And yes you sure can Love God because he created you.....and you will in your scenario die, and thats that....But I want more. I want to be ushered into heaven by Jesus Christ himself. I want to live with the Father God and his awesome son with no illness, with no war, with just utter happiness.

And I love God for creating you Abra.....I don't always have to believe what you believe to just love you as a human being and I do.

This is part of the part that I can't accept.
First we have a book that begins with a creator who seems to have very little input into teaching those it created. It does, however, look kindly upon a chosen few and to them, supposedly, dictated the rules of the game. NEVER ONCE was there mention that abiding by the rules would not win you the game. Instead the unchosen are punished for not following the rules, over and over again in the Bible are the acts that severely punish those who do not 'follow the rules'.

Then suddenly the rules change - apparently it is not our fault that we can not follow the rules. Its a flaw in our 'created nature'. Obviously it took awhile for this part of the equation to get out. Go figure!

So the next order of business was to appear in a shape less foreign the the human perception. As if the creator 'God' Itself is incapable of totally understanding our pain unless It it can actually feel it from a human perspective. But people buy into that, even though they still attribute all the same emotions, including pain, to this creator.

So now we come to the opening quote in my post. The effect from such a dramatic display is that, because man sinned, God had to be martyred in order to take our sin away. ???? OK

BUT here's the catch - it's still completely provisional. But all it really seems to provide is that those who proclaim a belief in all this stuff, are given liscense to continue to sin. While all the rest - MAY or MAY NOT be redeemed, because no one, not even a believer, can deny that their creator is the only one who can know, who can pass judgement on every soul.

If not only find no clarity in this, I find the same kind of thinking that is instilled by people like C.S. Lewis. One foot in the box, the other - off the ground, where it will land is not difficult to decifer.

God gave us a part of him through Christ, in other words Jesus was God in human form. Remember the father, the son and the holy spirit is three things in one just like water. Water is liquid, ice and steam.

So your saying that two wrongs make a right?

Go sell it somewhere else. There’s no sale here.

I give God a little more credit than that.

The stories in the Bible don’t even come close to being divine.

They were clearly written by superstitious ignorant men.

I reject the mythology. I has no divine inspiration at all.

This whole doctrine is just a constant source of negativity.

It suggests that God's creation is inherently evil.

This clearly defies its initial declarations that God saw that it was good.

This doctrine is so demented and twisted that it can’t possibly be from God.

If you want to believe this fairytale, fine.

Don’t try to sell it to me as being real. There’s no sale.

I believe that God is far above this petty picture.

So what is the criteria by which you determine what is adequate representation of Jesus - and what has been "edited". And somehing that is edited presupposes that there was an original intent present, that was subsequesntly altered. So what scriptures have been altered?



What gives you the impression that the bible is a commentary rather than an account?



So you have difficulty with the idea that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Do you know anyone who has not ever sinned? I know I don't. So without the forgiveness of sin - or a status of rightiousness, how can one be indwelt with the spirit of God? This is the purpose of the cross. That we recieve the rightiousness of Jesus through our faith in his finished work on the cross. Through His rightiousness, acredited to us through our faith in Him, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, and redeemed.



However these notions are the gospel message. Jesus preached repentance. Why did he do that if it were not the message man needed to hear?



I'm fine with that. But I'm not clear on what part of the scriptures you have deemed "edited" - and what the criteria is you are using to determine this.

lol someoned must have not read the bible, or is just to negative to realize what the bible is saying?

Eljay Asked:

So what is the criteria by which you determine what is adequate representation of Jesus - and what has been "edited". And somehing that is edited presupposes that there was an original intent present, that was subsequesntly altered. So what scriptures have been altered?



>>>>>>> It is my belief, based on what my personal learning experience has entailed, including my own acceptance of Christ, that Jesus' message was on a 'different' level which focused much more on the notion of 'God' living within one, all being of 'God', a 'gnosis' type of knowledge which is more akin to Taoism and such Eastern teaching(s), than it is to Christianity.

This notion is completely supported by what I have witnessed by 'salvation'. 'Salvation', although I believe has been a man made construct to support Christianity, which has changed the original intent of Jesus, does in fact, open one up to what lay inside of themselves... shows one to themself... immediately taking on what has often been described as 'Jesus' eyes'. Hence, supporting the re-birth in Christ notion.

The fact remains that the changes needed for this to happen on a permanent basis lie within each one. One must remove that which is in the way of 'God', who is within...Although Christianity says it is because of the recent 'salvation', I believe Jesus says otherwise.

Every lifelong and pleasant Christian I have come to know has inner peace in common. Every lifelong pleasant person, who is not Christian, I know also has this in common. Inner peace, by removing what is in the way, attained by identical means, through different teaching(s).

I ask you Eljay, how can that be?

I suppose a case by case basis would be the only 'reasonable' way to compare which texts have been altered. I cannot just give a defining blanket summary, it is much more in depth than that would allow. Although I do feel that the 'trinity' message was a fabrication of man which almost covers the intent, more importantly though, covers the prophesy, and supports Christianity.

The crucifixion, while it very well is a definite possibility and defines Christianity, additionally distracts the original intent of the message contained in the 'Gospels'. It is well known that the gospels were written long after Jesus' death, some 60 or so years, and not by the original followers. In fact, they are a perfect collaboration of the ones that 'fit' into one man's notion of what they should look like... that man being Irenaeus. <<<<<<<



Here is what one highly respected and world-reknowned religious scholar has said...feel free to validate his value in the historical community should you feel the need. I selected his views based on his merit.

***L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin***

"The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about.

The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the "synoptic gospels," because they look at things in a similar way, or they are similar in the way that they tell the story. Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well."




>>>>>>> Eljay, it is well known and accepted among biblical historians and scholars alike, that the original followers' writings were not one in the same as the authors presented, and it is undeniable that there were, in fact, many more writings and gospels than those which are contained within the modern-day text. <<<<<<<




Eljay stated:

What gives you the impression that the bible is a commentary rather than an account?

>>>>>>> That has been covered...<<<<<<<



Eljay asked:

So you have difficulty with the idea that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Do you know anyone who has not ever sinned? I know I don't. So without the forgiveness of sin - or a status of rightiousness, how can one be indwelt with the spirit of God? This is the purpose of the cross. That we recieve the rightiousness of Jesus through our faith in his finished work on the cross. Through His rightiousness, acredited to us through our faith in Him, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, and redeemed.

>>>>>>> Eljay, with all due respect, and please believe me when I tell you that I do in fact respect you greatly.

THAT is the confusion in the message which was done to promote Christianity while simultaneously living up to what was accepted scriptural teaching(s)... the fulfillment of prophesy...

The truth in it is the location of 'God' when it is all said and done... inside the heart... the confusion lies in the method... I believe Jesus taught where it was and 'his' desciptions of how to 'attain' it are mostly not his teaching... just the words that fit the existing scripture, so they were accepted.

The most curious and undeniable truth here is the fact that it is all described after the fact. Systematically being reviewed and updated to fit what had been accepted as the truth regarding man's existence throughout history. <<<<<<<



Eljay states:

However these notions are the gospel message. Jesus preached repentance. Why did he do that if it were not the message man needed to hear?


>>>>>>> Who determined what the 'Gospel message' of today is Eljay? Jesus... or somone else? <<<<<<<



Eljay states:

I'm fine with that. But I'm not clear on what part of the scriptures you have deemed "edited" - and what the criteria is you are using to determine this.


>>>>>>> I am curious how you view the way the Bible has been 'put together' throughout history, as it is understood by biblical scholars and historians alike?

I also wonder what your take is on all of the lost texts that have been found, some of which are very likely to be lost gospels and further teachings of Jesus, and wonder if you have any curiosity about any of the scriptures which were edited out along the way? <<<<<<<



With much respect to you Eljay, I assure you.





Abra:

If you feel this conversation is too far 'off topic', I would be more than glad to begin a new thread, so this one may resume it's other course...

My sincerest apologies...

No problem,... I'm not really concerned about the thread at all. I posted it as a request made by someone else and he never showed up anyway.

Ok Abra, then with your consent, I hope to pursue this conversation building on the integrity which has been established between Eljay and myself. All are encouraged to participate, of course, should anyone choose.

God has three parts, which is known as the trinity. There's God the father, which I see as being the mind of God, There's God the son, Jesus Christ, which I see as being the body of God, and there's the Holy spirit, which I see as being the spirit of God.

That's how I see it.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Christianity is not an assurance of a "peaceful existance". I'm sure if you were in Iraq or Iran you would find that a believers life there - or outward appearance is anything but "peaceful". This is merely a subjective observation on your part, and not a true indication of the "purpose of Jesus' message" - if I'm understanding this to be what you are concluding.



Just an indication of what basic tennents you find disagreeable will give me some sort of idea.



If the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Jesus is not the gospel message - what is?



As to the authors of the gospels - 3 of the four were contemperaries of Jesus (Matthew and John both being Apostles, and Mark's account is merely the sermons of Peter.) the 4th - Luke, was written after he had "interviewed" as many of the eye witnesses of Jesus' ministry as he could find. As to the "additional gospels" they have yet to find one that was written any earlier than 250 ad. Hardly an adequate account of his ministry I would think.



So, if we are not to take the words of scripture as the means of aquiring the spirit of God (as in the account of Pentacost)
how are we to know? Are you suggesting that Jesus' account to Nicodemous is fabricated?



The gospel message of today? What has changed in the gospel message in 2000 years?



As to the accumulation of the texts of scripture - we'll never know if there were additional pastorial letters - if in fact any of the other Apostles wrote gospels (though it is widely believed that the gnostic gospels were written after those who are attributed to writing them passed away) however, what remains seems adequate enough to me to give a clear idea of who Jesus was, what his ministry was about, and flows consistantly from the Old Testament. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has been perfectly capable of preserving the original intent of the gospel message through years of transcribing. Not much of a powerful God if He weren't. Though I do not believe it is necessary to have monitored how those scriptures have been interpreted over time. Not necessary when the indwelling of the Holy Spirit leads one to the truth of the gospel message - negating the necessity to have to rely on man to do it for us.




Your sincerity is appreciated.

Thank you Eljay for your engaging in this conversation. And know as always, I respect your ability to keep one open-minded about the conversation at hand.


You asked:


I'm not sure what you are asking here. Christianity is not an assurance of a "peaceful existance". I'm sure if you were in Iraq or Iran you would find that a believers life there - or outward appearance is anything but "peaceful". This is merely a subjective observation on your part, and not a true indication of the "purpose of Jesus' message" - if I'm understanding this to be what you are concluding.


>>>>>>> True enough Eljay, if I were in Iraq or Iran a 'believers' life very well may not 'seem' peaceful, however does this then say anything about the inner peace? I think not. That is the measure, no? What one feels as a result of Christ living within one?

Eljay, I have witnessed a tremendous amount of peace within some that absolutely made me stand in awe... humbly in awe... Some of these were in fact of the Christian faith, and some were not... but they each had an unmistakable light which shined through and spread peace without saying a word, only for it to be validated with words after...

Regardless of their relationship with Christ or lack thereof, these people had 'God' living within, undeniably alive in spirit...

What is the measure to you Eljay, of 'God's' peace living within one?...<<<<<<<


You said:

Just an indication of what basic tennents you find disagreeable will give me some sort of idea.

>>>>>>> I thought that I had clearly given a couple of those examples with my previous post...<<<<<<<


You asked:

If the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Jesus is not the gospel message - what is?

>>>>>>> I do not believe that Jesus intended on becoming Christianity's marytr. The crucifixion and the subsequent 'resurrection' is Christianity's version of the gospel... edited as such... because it fit existing scripture and fulfilled accepted prophesy...

Throughout what is still available, and when compared to many of the ancient scriptural finds, there does seem a much different and deeper level of understanding that his teaching was based of the gnosis variety teaching that which lies within one.

Christianity's view is considerably different, although there are certain teachings which seem to have made it through the editorial process which support this notion quite strongly, regardless of the way it is commonly used. It is my belief that the 'good news' is the fact that 'God' lives within each of us, and we must look within in order to remove that which stops us from recognizing. <<<<<<<

You said:

As to the authors of the gospels - 3 of the four were contemperaries of Jesus (Matthew and John both being Apostles, and Mark's account is merely the sermons of Peter.) the 4th - Luke, was written after he had "interviewed" as many of the eye witnesses of Jesus' ministry as he could find. As to the "additional gospels" they have yet to find one that was written any earlier than 250 ad. Hardly an adequate account of his ministry I would think.


>>>>>>> May I ask you where and how you have arrived at a belief which has determined that the actual followers were indeed, the authors? I ask because this account which you give does go against both religious and non-religious historians accounts, as I have come to understand. <<<<<<<



Eljay states:

The gospel message of today? What has changed in the gospel message in 2000 years?

As to the accumulation of the texts of scripture - we'll never know if there were additional pastorial letters - if in fact any of the other Apostles wrote gospels (though it is widely believed that the gnostic gospels were written after those who are attributed to writing them passed away) however, what remains seems adequate enough to me to give a clear idea of who Jesus was, what his ministry was about, and flows consistantly from the Old Testament. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has been perfectly capable of preserving the original intent of the gospel message through years of transcribing. Not much of a powerful God if He weren't. Though I do not believe it is necessary to have monitored how those scriptures have been interpreted over time. Not necessary when the indwelling of the Holy Spirit leads one to the truth of the gospel message - negating the necessity to have to rely on man to do it for us.


>>>>>>> We have, in fact, a significant historical record, which is overwhelmingly in agreement with the notion that the Bible has been edited by men, throughout it's history, and has evolved along the way.

The measure of the worthiness of any given scripture was completely dependant on the editor, which usually if not always, was contingient upon what had already been accepted as truth.

This is a self-fulfilling way to stay afloat, is it not? Of course it seems to all fit within itself. Jesus went against this notion, and it is still captured in some of what is left of his teaching(s).Therefore the need to fulfill the scripture took Christianity away from it's original intent, I believe.

We can go more in depth should you choose to remain interested in the topic.

As always Eljay... <<<<<<<

should not the was be is

or is it a was

then or now

both or none

nope he eas a vessel of GOD
he was Son of GOD as in Adamtium man who taught us well than others who tried, Like Moses he tried to teach humans well, but really didnt do good, so GOD finally knew he had to bring his power into a human born from GOD to teach us humans, Jesus was not a normal human like us also, but he showed us how pain is and too tha hits for us!

Hi adj4u:



I do not believe the meaning is lost in my wording regardless of which is used and where, I suppose...

How are ya?

still get to look at the green part of the grass

instead of the roots

so that is a good think i guess

Ah yes...

It IS a wonderful thing!!!

Thank you!