NationStates Jolt Archive

I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

And you're expected to believe it exists even though it isn't actually there?

And you're expected to believe it exists even though it isn't actually there?

What isn't there? The world?

I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?Do you expect anyone to take this/you as serious?

snip

What are you saying here? You had a vision and believe yourself to be some kind of prophet?

And you're expected to believe it exists even though it isn't actually there?

That's your opinion, and so far, peripheral has proved his opinion much better than yours. Also, you are describing a situation that requires faith, some people have it, some do not... yet. By being so close minded you are really representing a person that the whole world hates... someone who is not understanding.

Just food for thought.
P.S. I really liked the vision. ;)
SqR

Do you expect anyone to take this/you as serious?

What are you saying here? You had a vision and believe yourself to be some kind of prophet?

Nice. How amusing that the first three replies from people question the nature of the 'vision'. :D

Do you expect anyone to take this/you as serious?

No?

I'm describing something, and asking for thoughts. If your thought is 'yah-boo-sux', that is fine.

Or - if you are asking if this really 'happened' - then 'yes', because I have no reason to lie, now, do I?

That's your opinion, and so far, peripheral has proved his opinion much better than yours. Also, you are describing a situation that requires faith, some people have it, some do not... yet. By being so close minded you are really representing a person that the whole world hates... someone who is not understanding.
One opinion is just that, one's opinion. If you think one is better than the other, then it is simply that, one's opinion.

Being a sceptic isn't being close minded, nor is it 'not understanding'.

The situation does require just that, faith and if you don't have it, it doesn't mean squat.

What are you saying here? You had a vision and believe yourself to be some kind of prophet?

I don't believe that is what I said, at all.

But, prophet or not (indeed - wouldn't being a 'prophet' actually be opposed to the 'vision'?) does it not make sense that discernment might work on the whole world, not just one book?

Again - the examples of Job, or the biblical use of non-believers to chastise Israel would support such a thought.

One opinion is just that, one's opinion. If you think one is better than the other, then it is simply that, one's opinion.

Being a sceptic isn't being close minded, nor is it 'not understanding'.

The situation does require just that, faith and if you don't have it, it doesn't mean squat.

If you have no faith, one might wonder why you decided to click on a thread entitled "For the Christians"?

No?

I'm describing something, and asking for thoughts. If your thought is 'yah-boo-sux', that is fine.

Or - if you are asking if this really 'happened' - then 'yes', because I have no reason to lie, now, do I?

You could be lying for attention, to gain converts to some religion you're about to be told by "God" to form, or you could just be a compulsive liar.

If you have no faith, one might wonder why you decided to click on a thread entitled "For the Christians"?
I was curious. I thought for a minute, someone might have a view that unique.

Yes, this book exists, it's called the Catechism.

*waits for the flaming to start*

I don't believe that is what I said, at all.

But, prophet or not (indeed - wouldn't being a 'prophet' actually be opposed to the 'vision'?) does it not make sense that discernment might work on the whole world, not just one book?

Again - the examples of Job, or the biblical use of non-believers to chastise Israel would support such a thought.

proph·et (prŏf'ĭt) pronunciation
n.

1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
5.
1. Prophets (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The second of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, comprising the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. Used with the.
2. Prophet One of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, especially one believed to be the author of one of these books. Used with the.
6. Prophet Islam. Muhammad. Used with the.

You say you had a vision where god spoke to you and now you're relaying that message to us. Sounds like you're claiming to be a prophet to me.

As to the rest of it, it does make more sense that the whole world is a giant puzzle to be resolved before enlightenment is reached than the whole truth being condensed into a book to be bought in any bookstore. This will, however, piss off the major religions royally who seem to like to claiming that the only way to enlightenment is through them.

Yes, this book exists, it's called the Catechism.

*waits for the flaming to start*
*takes out blowtorch and flames you*

Teehee. ^_^

You could be lying for attention, to gain converts to some religion you're about to be told by "God" to form, or you could just be a compulsive liar.

Why would I want to gain 'attention' from people I have no real contact with? If I did - by the way - I have other avenues.

Why would I want to gain 'converts' that are faceless digital entities? What would my 'church' look like? Banks of monitors?

If you read my opening gambit, I never once claimed I had been told to start a religion, or that that was my intent.

I could be a compulsive liar... but I'm not. Why instantly assume what I say is untrue? I said it was "what might be described as a vision"... I made no concrete claims it was anything.

I was curious. I thought for a minute, someone might have a view that unique.

And it isn't?

An idea of Chritianity that would embrace the 'world' as a means to God isn't something a little different?

I'd say it might be different just because of how proximate it might allow the believer to be to earth-religion practise, like Wicca.

Why would I want to gain 'attention' from people I have no real contact with? If I did - by the way - I have other avenues.
Some people are just strange like that.

Why would I want to gain 'converts' that are faceless digital entities? What would my 'church' look like? Banks of monitors?

If you read my opening gambit, I never once claimed I had been told to start a religion, or that that was my intent.
Again, people are strange like that.

I could be a compulsive liar... but I'm not.
Which is precisely what a compulsive liar would say ;)
Why instantly assume what I say is untrue?
I see no reason to believe it is true.
I said it was "what might be described as a vision"... I made no concrete claims it was anything.
You mean no concrete claims as to what it was, but you do claim that it happened and clearly attach some importance to it, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time posting it.

I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

Someone's been paying attention in Sunday School?

You say you had a vision where god spoke to you and now you're relaying that message to us. Sounds like you're claiming to be a prophet to me.


Read it again. I didn't say it was a vision. I didn't claim it was divine in origin.

But, I was hoping the comments might focus on the contents of the message, rather than shooting messengers.


As to the rest of it, it does make more sense that the whole world is a giant puzzle to be resolved before enlightenment is reached than the whole truth being condensed into a book to be bought in any bookstore. This will, however, piss off the major religions royally who seem to like to claiming that the only way to enlightenment is through them.

Thanks for this - you responded to what was 'in' the message.

*takes out blowtorch and flames you*

Teehee. ^_^

;) It's only a matter of time before some rampaging hater of my particular brand of Christianity spots what I just said, turns purple and tries to exorcise me over the net.

And it isn't?

An idea of Chritianity that would embrace the 'world' as a means to God isn't something a little different?

I'd say it might be different just because of how proximate it might allow the believer to be to earth-religion practise, like Wicca.
Or embrace the notion that they believe in the same God that other religions do; they just have different names for 'Him'.

Is it wrong to think: 'maybe this Christian will be different and suggest that those who believe in God despite being Muslim or Jewish believe in the same God that this Christian does'? Since, Allah, Yahweh and the Lord are the same entity.

That's what I thought when I said 'unique' view. A suggestion that the three religions do have something in common and that no one's God is better than any other as they are the same 'being'.

You mean no concrete claims as to what it was, but you do claim that it happened and clearly attach some importance to it, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time posting it.

I do claim it happened.

You may call it a dream, or a daydream, or an hallucination. I don't mind - I made no claims about it myself.

As for importance, more a 'matter of interest'. It didn't waste any of my time to post it, and it might reveal something interesting to me.

I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I do believe that spirituality is the essence of this world and if one is observant, then they can see it all around them. Those that are filled with hatred and fear don't see too much.

Or embrace the notion that they believe in the same God that other religions do; they just have different names for 'Him'.

Is it wrong to think: 'maybe this Christian will be different and suggest that those who believe in God despite being Muslim or Jewish believe in the same God that this Christian does'? Since, Allah, Yahweh and the Lord are the same entity.

That's what I thought when I said 'unique' view. A suggestion that the three religions do have something in common and that no one's God is better than any other as they are the same 'being'.

Job and Israel are common to all three questions. I made no claims about whether the three 'big religions' were worshipping the same god.

The Book I 'saw' was the Bible, so I obviously pitched the matter to Christians. My personal belief would be that all three 'gods' are just faces - or aspects - of one central concept.

But - that isn't what I was discussing. I was discussing the fact that we accept histories where the world is used as the instrument of teaching and learning, but we might still embrace the writing-about-the-world as a substitute for the world.

Someone's been paying attention in Sunday School?
Why would you limit this to Sunday School?

Faith - The belief that things unprovable are true
Delusion - The belief that things are true which are not verifiable in external reality or by logical argument.
See the parallels?
Does this mean that all religious belief is actually a form of socially approved psychotiic illness?
I've worked for a long time with people who have visions and hold some very strange ideas. We usually just give them medication - and it helps.

Faith - The belief that things unprovable are true
Delusion - The belief that things are true which are not verifiable in external reality or by logical argument.
See the parallels?
Does this mean that all religious belief is actually a form of socially approved psychotiic illness?
I've worked for a long time with people who have visions and hold some very strange ideas. We usually just give them medication - and it helps.

Isn't that just treating the symptoms, not the disease?

Faith - The belief that things unprovable are true
Delusion - The belief that things are true which are not verifiable in external reality or by logical argument.
See the parallels?
Does this mean that all religious belief is actually a form of socially approved psychotiic illness?
I've worked for a long time with people who have visions and hold some very strange ideas. We usually just give them medication - and it helps.

Even assuming you are right - how does that address the matter I discussed?

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

I was curious. I thought for a minute, someone might have a view that unique.
I think the OP offered a somewhat unique view. :D

No?

I'm describing something, and asking for thoughts. If your thought is 'yah-boo-sux', that is fine.

Or - if you are asking if this really 'happened' - then 'yes', because I have no reason to lie, now, do I?People who claim to have vision always have reasons to lie, especially if the alleged visions deal with god and interaction with god. Just to get attention and to appear important.

Isn't that just treating the symptoms, not the disease?

Absolutely. Just like when I put the creams on my eczema. It doesn't cure it but it sure feels better. Same with the people I work with. If it were possible to cure the disease, we would. In the meantime, treating the symptoms is the best we can do, and when they're well, the clients prefer to be this way. When they're ill, they don't recognise that they're ill. A bit like religion really.

Oh, and by the way, seeing visions can actually be 'normal'. It usually coincides with a period of stress. It's only when they persist that we start to worry;)

Faith - The belief that things unprovable are true
Delusion - The belief that things are true which are not verifiable in external reality or by logical argument.
See the parallels?
Does this mean that all religious belief is actually a form of socially approved psychotiic illness?
I've worked for a long time with people who have visions and hold some very strange ideas. We usually just give them medication - and it helps.
As a person with faith, I try to avoid things that are Most Evil. Perhaps I should keep that in mind when viewing your posts. :p

People who claim to have vision always have reasons to lie, especially if the alleged visions deal with god and interaction with god. Just to get attention and to appear important.
And you are seeking attention by calling the OP a liar?

Be gone troll. :D

As a person with faith, I try to avoid things that are Most Evil. Perhaps I should keep that in mind when viewing your posts. :p

Preserving faith by avoiding any challenges to it. Welcome back the Inquisition.

Preserving faith by avoiding any challenges to it. Welcome back the Inquisition.
There is no Inquisition here. No one is forcing you to believe. Come back when you can prove that your challenges to my faith are justified. :)

People who claim to have vision always have reasons to lie, especially if the alleged visions deal with god and interaction with god. Just to get attention and to appear important.

This sounds like opinion, to me.

Of course, it is irrelevent anyway, since all it shows is that you didn't actually read the first post. I didn't say it was a vision, or that I interacted with God.

You brought your own prejudices to the table, and completely missed the opportunity to discuss what was in the post.

Thing with lucid dreams is now not only does your unconscious mind have influence over the dream, so does your conscious mind.

So it's hard for me to take seriously any claims of channeling deities or divine messages from a dream when most likely, it was just you.

Thing with lucid dreams is now not only does your unconscious mind have influence over the dream, so does your conscious mind.

So it's hard for me to take seriously any claims of channeling deities or divine messages from a dream when most likely, it was just you.

Which is all well and good, but - again - why are we discussing me? Te messenger is of interest, of course, but the message is what I wished to discuss.

And, again, I didn't actually say anything about channeling deities. I deliberately made a point of leaving it entirely ambiguous, just in the hope that people would not keep hitting that one stmbling block.

Even if it was 'just' me (which you seem to think would somehoe lessen the significance), the point of discussion was what was IN the vision/dream/illusion.

Which is all well and good, but - again - why are we discussing me? Te messenger is of interest, of course, but the message is what I wished to discuss.

You can't always control what is discussed in NS general threads...

And, again, I didn't actually say anything about channeling deities. I deliberately made a point of leaving it entirely ambiguous, just in the hope that people would not keep hitting that one stmbling block.

Even if it was 'just' me (which you seem to think would somehoe lessen the significance), the point of discussion was what was IN the vision/dream/illusion.

Well, I am not a Christian, so it seems the message doesn't apply for me.

And yes, compared with receiving hallowed messages from the divine, having a dream is less significant from a spiritual perspective.

You can't always control what is discussed in NS general threads...


No. In any forum situation there is always potential for some people to radically hijack the direction of discussion.

That doesn't make that little hijack significant, and certainly doesn't mean such hijacking should be indulged.


Well, I am not a Christian, so it seems the message doesn't apply for me.


Why? If there really is a God - he (she/it?) will be relevent on the same world that you and I both live upon, n'est pas?


And yes, compared with receiving hallowed messages from the divine, having a dream is less significant from a spiritual perspective.

And this just seems inconsistent. If you are not a believer, then the 'spiritual perspective' is irrelevent.

Indeed - if one is not a Christian, a message that is not from God could arguably be much more important than one that was...

This sounds like opinion, to me.

Of course, it is irrelevent anyway, since all it shows is that you didn't actually read the first post. I didn't say it was a vision, or that I interacted with God.

You brought your own prejudices to the table, and completely missed the opportunity to discuss what was in the post.Well:I had what might be described as a vision.
...

What do you think?I think you suffer from delusions. Given the type and content of "what might be described as a vision" you also suffer from bible-based faith.

First of all, the anti-psychotic drugs are in aisle 6.

Second, I question your belief in "spriritual gifts" that somehow grant you intuitive knowledge. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that you know things without any sort of demonstrable means of having learned them. And I wonder why you think that's even possible.

No?

I'm describing something, and asking for thoughts. If your thought is 'yah-boo-sux', that is fine.

Or - if you are asking if this really 'happened' - then 'yes', because I have no reason to lie, now, do I?

I do not question you nor your vision, rather I hold the ideals presented to me by God. Thomas needed to be shown the wounds of Jesus before he believed, but when given proof he believed.

The internet leaves little to no ability to prove such occurences of yours, but go ahead. Explain.

Someone said something about this vision justifying other earthworship religions. But God, not so much wouldn't, but couldn't allow for another to be worshiped like so. Are there any grounds for worshiping anything other than God?

If God holds anything equally as important as Himself, He is an idolater.

Very well. You said "For Christians". Let's see.

You actually have a very important revelation there. I have a feeling, though, that this:

"but you live IN the other. This Book is The World."

Is an interpretation of what you recieved. You said that you don't know what that second Book is, firstly. Secondly, the World is not a good source of spiritual information. Perhaps, then, I can supply a few points of insight.

The bible is, in truth, a book...just a book. It can be read, memorized, even loved, but in the end it is just that..a worldly object: same for crosses, churches, fish, money, trees, and your own person. If someone were to take my own and say "Do what I say or I'll burn this bible", I can just shrug and say "want a lighter?"

What is within the bible is the Word, an actual living aspect of God. That is the focal point that Christianity is based on, since Jesus Christ, which we all talk so much about, is that same Word come down as a human. It's that Word that we are meant to follow.

The bible, meanwhile, contains the Word. The problem is that it's hidden to us for the most part, even after reading the book. No memorization, analysis, or interpretating can be used to pick up anything of real use: only by Revelation, the image you had of God whispering by your shoulder, do you find the Word and truly know what you need to know. Without that Revelation, the bible itself is not only no more enlightening than, say, a Harry Potter novel (which is NOT evil.. in fact, it's a pretty interesting series), but it is potentialy a dangerous piece of literature (as proven many...MANY times in world history, sad to say). When a Christian reads the bible properly, they are truly seeking that Revelation, showing them the Word that's contained in the pages.

Thus, what you were told is NOT a far fetched statement (that is, in the spiritual sense.). Just make sure that you don't add your own analysis into the vision.

You keep saying you wanted to discuss what's in the dream, but what is in the dream is irrelevant to the outside world and to anyone else. It is simply borne of the subconscious and influenced by the conscious mind, combining and distorting memories and imaginations. There is no meaning in what the final 'output' is.

Well:I think you suffer from delusions. Given the type and content of "what might be described as a vision" you also suffer from bible-based faith.

It would be a delusion if I believed it to be a vision of reality, perhaps. But, I did not claim that. I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional.

Do I also suffer from bible-based faith? I don't know how you drew that from what I wrote. I don't recall that I actually even stated my own religion.

First of all, the anti-psychotic drugs are in aisle 6.

Second, I question your belief in "spriritual gifts" that somehow grant you intuitive knowledge. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that you know things without any sort of demonstrable means of having learned them. And I wonder why you think that's even possible.

Hmm - another person who has decided that I must be insane in some fashion. I wonder why so many people who question the value of faith even feel the need to comment in a thread like this.

You say you question my 'spiritual gifts' - but I didn't say they were mine - although a lot of people believe that such 'gifts' as discernment are very real.

You say you wonder why I think it is possible to know things that cannot be demonstrated? Just because I cannot build a logical bridge to something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you never had a moment of 'inspiration'? An idea that suddenly flashed, fully-formed, into your head?

I do not question you nor your vision, rather I hold the ideals presented to me by God. Thomas needed to be shown the wounds of Jesus before he believed, but when given proof he believed.

The internet leaves little to no ability to prove such occurences of yours, but go ahead. Explain.

I'm not claiming some revelatory truth. I've not claimed to be messiah or prophet. I just recounted an incident... what some might call 'a vision'.

Can I 'prove' it? How would I?

I can see - if I look at scripture - that it is replete with stories of the faithful being corrected, punished or reconciled by non-scriptural forces. In effect, while the Bible (or other scripture) may be a good starting point - just maybe there is truth to be found outside of the words of the prophets. Maybe even 'truth' that doesn't always agree with the written texts.

As I suggested - one of the Books is dictated to men - with all the problems that go with transcribing, especially from a foreign language. The other 'Book', if it can be 'read' as such, would be the Book that was written in God's own hand. If they disagree - which one should we trust?

Someone said something about this vision justifying other earthworship religions. But God, not so much wouldn't, but couldn't allow for another to be worshiped like so. Are there any grounds for worshiping anything other than God?

If God holds anything equally as important as Himself, He is an idolater.

I made the comment you are refering to - but it doesn't strictly 'justify' other earthworship religions - so much as suggest a possible middleground.

If Wiccans (or Gaians, whatever) believe the earth holds power, and contains hiddne mysteries - well, maybe that is true? We could argue about the name of god, or how many faces he/she/it has - but, ultimately, that might be missing the point.

You are talking about worshipping the earth? I am talking about acknowledging that maybe there is more to the mudane earth than being mundane. I don't want to argue about the names and faces of god - I don't believe that was the point.

Very well. You said "For Christians". Let's see.

You actually have a very important revelation there. I have a feeling, though, that this:

"but you live IN the other. This Book is The World."

Is an interpretation of what you recieved. You said that you don't know what that second Book is, firstly. Secondly, the World is not a good source of spiritual information. Perhaps, then, I can supply a few points of insight.

The bible is, in truth, a book...just a book. It can be read, memorized, even loved, but in the end it is just that..a worldly object: same for crosses, churches, fish, money, trees, and your own person. If someone were to take my own and say "Do what I say or I'll burn this bible", I can just shrug and say "want a lighter?"

What is within the bible is the Word, an actual living aspect of God. That is the focal point that Christianity is based on, since Jesus Christ, which we all talk so much about, is that same Word come down as a human. It's that Word that we are meant to follow.

The bible, meanwhile, contains the Word. The problem is that it's hidden to us for the most part, even after reading the book. No memorization, analysis, or interpretating can be used to pick up anything of real use: only by Revelation, the image you had of God whispering by your shoulder, do you find the Word and truly know what you need to know. Without that Revelation, the bible itself is not only no more enlightening than, say, a Harry Potter novel (which is NOT evil.. in fact, it's a pretty interesting series), but it is potentialy a dangerous piece of literature (as proven many...MANY times in world history, sad to say). When a Christian reads the bible properly, they are truly seeking that Revelation, showing them the Word that's contained in the pages.

Thus, what you were told is NOT a far fetched statement (that is, in the spiritual sense.). Just make sure that you don't add your own analysis into the vision.

I disagree with your assertion. You comfortably state "the World is not a good source of spiritual information", but, I think maybe that might not be so. I think that, maybe, just like with scripture - there is the capacity to find truth in even such a thing as 'the world'. Roses grow in manure, and you can sift gold from riverbeds - it is possible to find something more 'pure' even in something more 'base'.

If there is a gift of discernment, I find it illogical to assume it only works on one book.

You keep saying you wanted to discuss what's in the dream, but what is in the dream is irrelevant to the outside world and to anyone else. It is simply borne of the subconscious and influenced by the conscious mind, combining and distorting memories and imaginations. There is no meaning in what the final 'output' is.

Or, maybe you are wrong.

Which is why I said I didn't want to discuss the messenger - only the message.

No. In any forum situation there is always potential for some people to radically hijack the direction of discussion.

That doesn't make that little hijack significant, and certainly doesn't mean such hijacking should be indulged.

So discussing where the OP is coming from is a hijack?

Why would that be, when that actually seems to be intimately related with the content of the OP?

Why? If there really is a God - he (she/it?) will be relevent on the same world that you and I both live upon, n'est pas?

This thread is "for the Christians," which I am not, hence it is irrelevant.

Whether there is or is not a God seems to be less of an issue than whether an individual believes there is.

And this just seems inconsistent. If you are not a believer, then the 'spiritual perspective' is irrelevent.

Not at all. Christianity does not have a monopoly on spirituality, nor does monotheism.

This thread is "for the Christians," which I am not, hence it is irrelevant.

Whether there is or is not a God seems to be less of an issue than whether an individual believes there is.


The thread is entitled "For the Christians". If you are not Christian, it could be argued that it is you that is irrelevent in this debate, not God.


Whether there is or is not a God seems to be less of an issue than whether an individual believes there is.


I agree. I have not actually stated as a condition of the discussion that one MUST believe in (a) God.


Not at all. Christianity does not have a monopoly on spirituality, nor does monotheism.

But, if you are not a believer, then the concept of 'discernment' might not be relevent to you. I'm talking about the 'gift' of discernment - which enables one to find truth in scripture, possibly being a tool that can be applied to something bigger than one book.

You seem to want to argue about whether it is possible to repair an engine, by claiming my toolbox doesn't exist.

The thread is entitled "For the Christians". If you are not Christian, it could be argued that it is you that is irrelevent in this debate, not God.

It could be argued that I am irrelevant, but that wouldn't support the notion that God's existence matters as much as belief.


But, if you are not a believer, then the concept of 'discernment' might not be relevent to you. I'm talking about the 'gift' of discernment - which enables one to find truth in scripture, possibly being a tool that can be applied to something bigger than one book.

You seem to want to argue about whether it is possible to repair an engine, by claiming my toolbox doesn't exist.

Not at all. I might be arguing that since the engine or toolbox's existence is unknowable, debating the existence of it is irrelevant.

You say you question my 'spiritual gifts' - but I didn't say they were mine - although a lot of people believe that such 'gifts' as discernment are very real.
That they believe it doesn't make it so.
You say you wonder why I think it is possible to know things that cannot be demonstrated? Just because I cannot build a logical bridge to something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But it does mean you have no reason to believe it exists. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists (blessed be her holy hooves), even though I have no evidence of her.
Have you never had a moment of 'inspiration'? An idea that suddenly flashed, fully-formed, into your head?
Sure I have. But I have no reason to think it correct until I investigate it further.

It could be argued that I am irrelevant, but that wouldn't support the notion that God's existence matters as much as belief.


I didn't say it would. That is not my hijack.


Not at all. I might be arguing that since the engine or toolbox's existence is unknowable, debating the existence of it is irrelevant.

Your use of my metaphor is flawed. Apparently you didn't understand how I extrapolated it from what you had said.

If you are not a Christian - you would not be using the 'Christian' toolbox - but:

If you were not a believer at all, you wouldn't be using any toolbox.

You made a point about Christians not being the only people with faith - so, I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed you were 'faithful', but not Christian.

That would make you irrelevent to the Christian toolbox.

On the other hand, if you are not 'faithful' at all, then you have no 'toolbox' - which makes me wonder why you would waste your time and mine, with discussion about the relative merits. Or, entering a 'For the Christians' thread.

That they believe it doesn't make it so.


And? I don't see how your quibbling it's existence is relevent to this discussion - which (one might argue) uses it as one of the 'assumptions' of discussion?


But it does mean you have no reason to believe it exists. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists (blessed be her holy hooves), even though I have no evidence of her.


Not at all - 'reasons' to believe do not have to be logical.

Add to which - I'm not sure I ever actually expressed what I believe, although you may have drawn your own conclusions.


Sure I have. But I have no reason to think it correct until I investigate it further.

But, by the same token, you have no reason to believe it to be necessarily incorrect.

I disagree with your assertion. You comfortably state "the World is not a good source of spiritual information", but, I think maybe that might not be so. I think that, maybe, just like with scripture - there is the capacity to find truth in even such a thing as 'the world'. Roses grow in manure, and you can sift gold from riverbeds - it is possible to find something more 'pure' even in something more 'base'.

If there is a gift of discernment, I find it illogical to assume it only works on one book.

Oh no.. it doesn't work on JUST that one book: it's more of the 'shortest path' you can say.

Since the Word is active, it can come to you from anyplace. Myself, I've experienced Inspiration (walk down the street, suddenly BOOM!), messages through dreams, Messengers (the legendary "I just needed to tell you that..."), direct intervention (the 'Voice of God'), even a direct Vision once. I know one person who hears god on a daily basis. Such things are how the very Prophets of old operated.

The trick is, "The devil wears Angel wings". Unless you have an absolute link with God, that Message you heard while walking could be from Him, from the devil, your insticts, your mind, ext. They ALL can sound the same, and present a powerful case (blah, Satan's known for saying Scripture).

Thus, you can say that the Bible is used as a guide: a physical focal point. Physicaly reading the 'god inspired works' while mentaliy going "what is God trying to say to me" means when God steps in and speaks to you, you'll listen. Along with that, you can use the physical book to cross-check for accuracy (once you get past translation/cultural issues in the text: example: Donkeys were MUCH more prized then than they are now).


To put it another way, if I'm studing something scientifical, I'll read the past research and use that as a foundation. My analysis may expand from there, but everything will still start at the foundation.

When I'm trying to learn about God, my bible becomes a foundation. I've recieved plenty of revelation from outside, and in the end it will all come from God, but it still starts with the bible.



Sidenote: ALOT of these arguments just seem out of place here. This is like someone asking if their car is blue or green and a third jumping in saying "That's not a car!"

The basis of this thread involves the ASSUMPTION in a Christian viewpoint on the world: that it IS a car and the color is to question. There's probably plenty of other threads to argue for or against the Christian viewpoint as a whole. For now, a focus is probably needed.

Oh no.. it doesn't work on JUST that one book: it's more of the 'shortest path' you can say.

Since the Word is active, it can come to you from anyplace. Myself, I've experienced Inspiration (walk down the street, suddenly BOOM!), messages through dreams, Messengers (the legendary "I just needed to tell you that..."), direct intervention (the 'Voice of God'), even a direct Vision once. I know one person who hears god on a daily basis. Such things are how the very Prophets of old operated.

The trick is, "The devil wears Angel wings". Unless you have an absolute link with God, that Message you heard while walking could be from Him, from the devil, your insticts, your mind, ext. They ALL can sound the same, and present a powerful case (blah, Satan's known for saying Scripture).

Thus, you can say that the Bible is used as a guide: a physical focal point. Physicaly reading the 'god inspired works' while mentaliy going "what is God trying to say to me" means when God steps in and speaks to you, you'll listen. Along with that, you can use the physical book to cross-check for accuracy (once you get past translation/cultural issues in the text: example: Donkeys were MUCH more prized then than they are now).


To put it another way, if I'm studing something scientifical, I'll read the past research and use that as a foundation. My analysis may expand from there, but everything will still start at the foundation.

When I'm trying to learn about God, my bible becomes a foundation. I've recieved plenty of revelation from outside, and in the end it will all come from God, but it still starts with the bible.


I see where you are coming from, but I see a logical flaw. The Pharisees used the scripture, and were 'educated' by the real world ministry of someone who drew his inspiration purely from a higher source.

The old Israel relied on scripture, but was constantly corrected, conditioned and controlled by the application of outside forces.

You almost seem to be arguing that the scripture is the 'tool' that God would use to communicate - and, we can see it might be a starting point, but that doesn't mean it has to be an end point.

If God can use Babylon to chastise Israel, he can use the shape of trees to teach one person one lesson. Or, maybe, he can actually use the sin of the flesh as an instructional tool. That's what I'm thinking - 'discernment' is what enables the Christian to pick what is 'true' from the scripture. In theory (at least) discernment might be able to find truth in the mundane world... or even in 'sin'.

If you are going to believe that Satan could lie to you through the flesh, or through the world - there is no reason to believe Satan could not lie to you through the scripture. Indeed - if you are going to argue that it is impossible to tell between the 'voices', then you have to accept Satan could have written the Bible - since 'discernment' is not trusted as an active tool.

Sidenote: ALOT of these arguments just seem out of place here. This is like someone asking if their car is blue or green and a third jumping in saying "That's not a car!"

The basis of this thread involves the ASSUMPTION in a Christian viewpoint on the world: that it IS a car and the color is to question. There's probably plenty of other threads to argue for or against the Christian viewpoint as a whole. For now, a focus is probably needed.

Agreed with the sidenote. I'm not sying it has to be a Christian viewpoint, but if we are talking about 'discernment' and the Bible, it is likely that the 'toolbox' we are using is a Christian toolbox. So - all these side arguments are just that - side arguments, missing 'the point'.

Which is why I said I didn't want to discuss the messenger - only the message.If the messenger isn't reliable there's no need to discuss the message. If the messenger is reliable and the supposition of the message is not reliable there's also no need to discuss the message. If the messenger is reliable and the supposition of the message is reliable and the message is not reliable there's also no need to discuss the message.

If the messenger isn't reliable there's no need to discuss the message. If the messenger is reliable and the supposition of the message is not reliable there's also no need to discuss the message. If the messenger is reliable and the supposition of the message is reliable and the message is not reliable there's also no need to discuss the message.

Utter poppycock.

If an unreliable source tells you that the Titanic sunk, does that mean it is still afloat?

No - because even a bad messenger can be accurate, whether by accident or design.

If the messenger isn't reliable there's no need to discuss the message. If the messenger is reliable and the supposition of the message is not reliable there's also no need to discuss the message. If the messenger is reliable and the supposition of the message is reliable and the message is not reliable there's also no need to discuss the message.

No, that's logically fallacious. It doesn't matter how reliable the source is, it matters whether or not what they are saying is verifiable. That would be like discounting verifiable evidence or a valid argument because the information came from somewhere that is biased.

It's also problematic because you have to define what an unreliable source is, which ultimately is dependent on your own biases, making your judgement of unreliability unreliable in itself.

After all, the Church considered Galileo and Copernicus to be unreliable sources and discounted their evidence even though it was valid and worked.

Oops, I *bump*ed the wrong key....

Peripheral Visionaries: I do agree with the messege. It makes perfectly good sense to me. God knew that the Bible would be written and interpreted by man. God knows that mankind is filled with faults and contradictions and yes even hypocrisy. I believe that the Bible was written as a guide for mankind to do what is right. To give mankind Hope. To give mankind decency, good values and morals. To give mankind a belief of a Superior Being, God.

I believe that they're is quite possibly another Book, somewheres that I do not know where but somewheres indeed.

I enjoyed what you had written and I thank you. I feel sorry for the ones making a mockery of it and I dismiss their claims of you claiming to be a prophet. I really don't think God has any prophets that are online claiming to be prophets. The Internet is filled with people pretending to be other people of all kinds, it is filled with hate and propaganda, it does indeed have some false prophets, although there may be good people who access the internet it seems that the evil and bad are much louder, unfortunately the real world is the same. If God were to have prophets of the present day, I am sure He would have them mixed in face to face with the real people of the real world. Not through the internet.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/threadlich.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/threadlich.jpg

Hardly. My first real chance to get back to my thread, only a couple of days after I last commented. A little excessive to call it grave-digging.

But, thanks for sparing enough time to at least spam it.

Peripheral Visionaries: I do agree with the messege. It makes perfectly good sense to me. God knew that the Bible would be written and interpreted by man. God knows that mankind is filled with faults and contradictions and yes even hypocrisy. I believe that the Bible was written as a guide for mankind to do what is right. To give mankind Hope. To give mankind decency, good values and morals. To give mankind a belief of a Superior Being, God.

I believe that they're is quite possibly another Book, somewheres that I do not know where but somewheres indeed.

I enjoyed what you had written and I thank you. I feel sorry for the ones making a mockery of it and I dismiss their claims of you claiming to be a prophet. I really don't think God has any prophets that are online claiming to be prophets. The Internet is filled with people pretending to be other people of all kinds, it is filled with hate and propaganda, it does indeed have some false prophets, although there may be good people who access the internet it seems that the evil and bad are much louder, unfortunately the real world is the same. If God were to have prophets of the present day, I am sure He would have them mixed in face to face with the real people of the real world. Not through the internet.

I'm pretty sure Biblical precedent sets a kind of 'closing date' on Prophecy. If one accepts the old testament as valid, the age of prophets ended about five centuries before Christ.

If there were modern day prophets, I don't think they would be banned from the internet, but I do think that prophecy and other aspects of ministry, are more likely to be well received face-to-face.

Hardly. My first real chance to get back to my thread, only a couple of days after I last commented. A little excessive to call it grave-digging.

But, thanks for sparing enough time to at least spam it.

I aim to please :)

I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

I think you should definitely at least write it down in a journal in as much detail as you can remember, and if it happens again, do the same.

Are you a religious person? If so, definitely talk to someone in authority about it and see what insights you get.

If an unreliable source tells you that the Titanic sunk, does that mean it is still afloat?No, it means that as long as there is no reliable confirmation from at least one other independent source you should STFU.

I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

I think it's an attempt (conscious or unconscious) to reconcile orthodox Christianity with the modernist junk.

I think it's an attempt (conscious or unconscious) to reconcile orthodox Christianity with the modernist junk.Orthodox Christianity is junk no less. No need for reconciliation.

...snip...
So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

I think you talk of another book or the world as a book. IF so, what does the scripture say about the world now?


John 1:10
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

John 8:23
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 15:18-19
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

And finally some direction about what to do about the world around us…

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Perhaps you should look at your dream again, I’m not saying I can know, but you can… Test the Spirits

1 John 4 1-3
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

Did the dream confirm scripture and confirm that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and is from God?

No, it means that as long as there is no reliable confirmation from at least one other independent source you should STFU.

I don't think it means that, at all. I think you are commiting the logical fallacy of 'poisoning the well'. The fact is - it really doesn't matter how 'reliable' a source is, in debate - if you can't rebutt the evidence, it stands.

I think it's an attempt (conscious or unconscious) to reconcile orthodox Christianity with the modernist junk.

Possible, I'm sure.

The funny thing is - a lot of people are beginning to argue (especially in light of Thomas' gospel), that this 'modernist junk' is much closer to what Jesus preached than the 'orthodox' junk.

I think you talk of another book or the world as a book. IF so, what does the scripture say about the world now?


John 1:10
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

John 8:23
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 15:18-19
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

And finally some direction about what to do about the world around us…

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Perhaps you should look at your dream again, I’m not saying I can know, but you can… Test the Spirits

1 John 4 1-3
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

Did the dream confirm scripture and confirm that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and is from God?

There are different 'worlds' being used here. I'm sure you can see that, really.

However, if you look at Romans 12:2, you see a passage that does seem to imply 'discernment' is universal... not just for 'scripture'.

I wonder, though, how one 'tests the spirit' of a past event...

Possible, I'm sure.

The funny thing is - a lot of people are beginning to argue (especially in light of Thomas' gospel), that this 'modernist junk' is much closer to what Jesus preached than the 'orthodox' junk.

Which is why I reject it: the gospel of Thomas is not part of the Canon for a reason. It was not written by an apostle (as Matthew and John) or any person travelling with an apostle (as Luke and Mark). It was not written by anyone else who Jesus called specifically (as James). It is not part of the Old Testament. So, it is not part of the Canon. Moreover, the events and doctrines I've heard from it contradict what is given in the Canon, so I reject the idea that it is inspired.

Which is why I reject it: the gospel of Thomas is not part of the Canon for a reason. It was not written by an apostle (as Matthew and John) or any person travelling with an apostle (as Luke and Mark). It was not written by anyone else who Jesus called specifically (as James). It is not part of the Old Testament. So, it is not part of the Canon. Moreover, the events and doctrines I've heard from it contradict what is given in the Canon, so I reject the idea that it is inspired.

The reason it is not part of 'the canon' is that it was not presented to the convocation at Niceae, and was lost until earlier in this last century. Simple - absence from the Canon is due to absence.

Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, James... these are all names, but any serious student of the scripture knows that these names were 'added' to the documents much later, and that the oldest scriptures are not titled at all. There is no reason to suppose that any of them were written by the names claimed on the texts, except for custom. And Jesus warned us against custom.

As to rejecting texts that contradict - the entire New Testament 'contradicts' the old - both in presenting new scripture (which is claimed cannot happen in the Old), and in presenting a version of Jesus that contradicts the Old Testament prophecy of Messiah. John also contradicts facts in the other Gospels - so we should probably ignore that one anyway. And the only reason that Matthew, Luke and Mark agree so well, is that they are all copied from the same earlier text.

The reason it is not part of 'the canon' is that it was not presented to the convocation at Niceae, and was lost until earlier in this last century. Simple - absence from the Canon is due to absence.

Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, James... these are all names, but any serious student of the scripture knows that these names were 'added' to the documents much later, and that the oldest scriptures are not titled at all. There is no reason to suppose that any of them were written by the names claimed on the texts, except for custom. And Jesus warned us against custom.

As to rejecting texts that contradict - the entire New Testament 'contradicts' the old - both in presenting new scripture (which is claimed cannot happen in the Old), and in presenting a version of Jesus that contradicts the Old Testament prophecy of Messiah. John also contradicts facts in the other Gospels - so we should probably ignore that one anyway. And the only reason that Matthew, Luke and Mark agree so well, is that they are all copied from the same earlier text.

All of this is what the modern historians say.

All of this is what the modern historians say.

Yes, and they say it for a reason. The Gospel of Q is not a knew concept and the idea that the Gospels were not directly written by the individuals whose name they bear is a long accepted truth. To suggest that Luke was penned by Luke directly is to simply ignore pretty much every accepted source of the last 2000 years.

2000 years ago, the Gospel of Thomas was taught by Christians. That's hardly modern and has little to do with historians.

To the OP, I hardly think your concept is new, but your statements are eloquent. It's hardly new to accept that the world has much to teach it provided we view through the wisdom written upon our hearts.

To everyone who found it necessary to attack the OP, how sad. S/he makes it quite clear that it was simply a dream that s/he found meaningful and people can't wait to suggest he's crazy for dreaming or for thinking the dream had any significance whatsoever. I thought the argument for atheism was supposed to founded in reason not emotion. You do your arguments a disservice.

Yes, and they say it for a reason. The Gospel of Q is not a knew concept and the idea that the Gospels were not directly written by the individuals whose name they bear is a long accepted truth. To suggest that Luke was penned by Luke directly is to simply ignore pretty much every accepted source of the last 2000 years.



It seems rather odd that after making your point with the Q reference, you then questioned Luke as your choice target gospel to attack as not likely being written by it's namesake? When everyone knows that Luke is the only one of the four gospels that IS likely to have been written by someone with the gospels namesake on it, and that is the hypotheses of the scholars who hypothesize about Q, but instead of arguing if Luke wrote Luke argue about whether or not the same Luke actually wrote the book of Acts. Just odd on your part, is all.

2000 years ago, the Gospel of Thomas was taught by Christians. That's hardly modern and has little to do with historians.


As to the gospel of Thomas, it's hardly a gospel by any stretch of the imagination, it's misnamed, it's a book of quotes, IMO. Why mention it though?

It seems rather odd that after making your point with the Q reference, you then questioned Luke as your choice target gospel to attack as not likely being written by it's namesake? When everyone knows that Luke is the only one of the four gospels that IS likely to have been written by someone with the gospels namesake on it, and that is the hypotheses of the scholars who hypothesize about Q, but instead of arguing if Luke wrote Luke argue about whether or not the same Luke actually wrote the book of Acts. Just odd on your part, is all.

Amusing. In fact, many argue and have always argued that Luke was written anonymously. Some even argue that it was derivitive of Mark or other writings and the author actually claims to be writing as one who has compiled information and does not claim to be an eyewitness.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-4;&version=31;

It clearly contains much from the Pauline letters and from Mark. The suggestion that this is coincidence is simply ludicrous. Q is argued to be one of the sources of Luke. But, then, hey, you knew that, right? You were just funning with me and you're not actually this ignorant. Good. I thought so. To suggest otherwise would simply be disappointing.

As to the gospel of Thomas, it's hardly a gospel by any stretch of the imagination, it's misnamed, it's a book of quotes, IMO. Why mention it though?

Um, are you reading the thread or am I the only one who earns a read? If you follow what I was replying to, you'll probably find your first clue why I mentioned it. Hope that helps.

As far as whether it's a gospel... it's not a stretch of the imagination that it is a text written around the same time as the other Gospels claiming to record what Jesus taught (in quotes, in this case) like all of the other gospels. Gospel simply means "Good News" and Thomas is as reliable a source for recording it as any other Gospel. The fact that it is quotes has no bearing on its classification as a gospel. To suggest that it does is what takes a stretch of the imagination and quite the stretch of language as well. The Q was thought to be a similar gospel but with a different message (and thus different selected quotes of Jesus). Thomas and many like it were refered to as gospels in the early centuries before the canonization of the gospels occurred.


Quick, pull your skirt down, your bias is showing.

I don't think it means that, at all. I think you are commiting the logical fallacy of 'poisoning the well'. The fact is - it really doesn't matter how 'reliable' a source is, in debate - if you can't rebutt the evidence, it stands.So since there is no evidence to rebut there is no need for debate. First you must check if the messenger did not just make the stuff up he's trying to tell you. E.g. if a Mormon tells me anything about ancient history, there's no need to go into it, since I already know it's rubbish. A lie remains a lie no matter how deep you go into its details. So if one tells you something but you have no other source to confirm it, you would be wise not to spread this "information" around. There is no irrefutable or conclusive evidence contained here, all we have is a dreamer's belief.

So since there is no evidence to rebut there is no need for debate. First you must check if the messenger did not just make the stuff up he's trying to tell you. E.g. if a Mormon tells me anything about ancient history, there's no need to go into it, since I already know it's rubbish. A lie remains a lie no matter how deep you go into its details. So if one tells you something but you have no other source to confirm it, you would be wise not to spread this "information" around. There is no irrefutable or conclusive evidence contained here, all we have is a dreamer's belief.

So which part is the lie? The part where he said he was dreaming or the part where he said it was meaningful to him? Was it the part where he asked for people's opinion on his philosophical ideas? He admits that it's the substance of a dream, that it may or may not have any bearing on the world, that it may or may not be useful to others. What part of that is rubbish and a lie?

He's not trying to tell you that this is fact. He's trying to talk to you about philosophy and for several pages he gets people who try to act like he's crazy because he actually wants to discuss philosophy. Again, I thought Atheists pride themselves on reason. You guys are acting on pure emotive reasoning.

So since there is no evidence to rebut there is no need for debate. First you must check if the messenger did not just make the stuff up he's trying to tell you. E.g. if a Mormon tells me anything about ancient history, there's no need to go into it, since I already know it's rubbish. A lie remains a lie no matter how deep you go into its details. So if one tells you something but you have no other source to confirm it, you would be wise not to spread this "information" around. There is no irrefutable or conclusive evidence contained here, all we have is a dreamer's belief.

So - if a Mormon tells you that yesterday was Tuesday, there is no need to check, because you "already know it's rubbish"?

See the problem? The worst liars in the world CAN be right - even if it is by accident or lack of design.

To assume that an argument can be invalidated because you don't like the person saying it - is illogical - and flawed.

So - if a Mormon tells you that yesterday was Wednesday, there is no need to check, because you "already know it's rubbish"?

See the problem? The worst liars in the world CAN be right - even if it is by accident or lack of design.

To assume that an argument can be invalidated because you don't like the person saying it - is illogical - and flawed.

Being that today is Wednesday, I would already know it's rubbish ;)

Though you are right, stereotypes are occassionally right, but not always.

Being that today is Wednesday, I would already know it's rubbish ;)

Though you are right, stereotypes are occassionally right, but not always.

In before the edit. :)

It was originally 'today is Wednesday', but I changed it because of the mention of 'history'. Then I accidentally sent it in without changing the day.

[QUOTE=Peripheral Visionaries;11991186]

My advise is not to eat cheese before going to bed

Amusing. In fact, many argue and have always argued that Luke was written anonymously. Some even argue that it was derivitive of Mark or other writings and the author actually claims to be writing as one who has compiled information and does not claim to be an eyewitness.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-4;&version=31;


And the author being a non-eyewitness is clearly stated in the gospel itself, as you yourself just quoted, how then do you accuse it of not being written by Luke? Who do you think Luke was other than what the gospel says he was? How is truthful reporting of ones own credentials a changing of the name centuries later, as YOU said, the Gospels were not directly written by the individuals whose name they bear is a long accepted truth? YOU made the statement that the gospels were written and then names were assigned to them after the fact, and then you cited Luke, but Luke is NOT thought to have be assigned after the fact because it describes itself as after the fact and not written by an apostle who walked with Christ.

How are you not understanding this?

It clearly contains much from the Pauline letters and from Mark. The suggestion that this is coincidence is simply ludicrous. …

How is it ludicrous at all? The Gospel was written by someone that plainly admits as much. They knew Paul AND they researched other reports of the events for their own gospel. What is the conspiracy you think it is trying to cover up when it plainly says it of itself?


Q is argued to be one of the sources of Luke. But, then, hey, you knew that, right? You were just funning with me and you're not actually this ignorant. Good. I thought so. To suggest otherwise would simply be disappointing.

To suggest that you are capable of discussing and debating a topic without an implied or innuendo route to make personal insults against your opponent would be lying, apparently. Regardless, Q is irrelevant to what it says, if it existed, because Luke already plainly says it used other sources in it’s compilation, how then would it be surprising that Q and Luke and Mark and Matthew would share some source material? It’s a red herring accusation on your part, it means nothing for the book to be guilty of what it already confesses and adds nothing to the discussion for your part.


Um, are you reading the thread or am I the only one who earns a read? If you follow what I was replying to, you'll probably find your first clue why I mentioned it. Hope that helps.


The point was, YOU referred to Thomas as being a teaching tool of Christians two thousand years ago, as if that in and of itself tells us anything.

How does the existence of Thomas discredit the other gospels or the traditional Christian doctrines that have survived through the ages? Simply saying that Thomas was used then changes nothing and adds nothing to the discussion, which is why I asked you what you meant by mentioning it and why mention it at all then without any other comment? (as the accusations from others earlier in the thread claimed it changes our understanding of what was taught then, you added nothing)

As far as whether it's a gospel... it's not a stretch of the imagination that it is a text written around the same time as the other Gospels claiming to record what Jesus taught (in quotes, in this case) like all of the other gospels. Gospel simply means "Good News" and Thomas is as reliable a source for recording it as any other Gospel. The fact that it is quotes has no bearing on its classification as a gospel. To suggest that it does is what takes a stretch of the imagination and quite the stretch of language as well. The Q was thought to be a similar gospel but with a different message (and thus different selected quotes of Jesus). Thomas and many like it were refered to as gospels in the early centuries before the canonization of the gospels occurred.


The ‘Good News’ is the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection and the conquering of death and sin by Jesus Christ, as the four Gospels have AND others like the gospel of Peter have, but the book of Thomas does NOT have that story in it, and neither does it have a story of a sequence of events of Jesus life on earth, as even the discredited infancy gospels have. The books of Thomas is not a gospel as it does not have the “Good News” in it, nor a sequence of Jesus life, it does have quotes and sayings in it of no particular order and no comment about those sayings to whom and when Jesus was saying those quotes and under what circumstances the comments were made. It is more like the book a proverbs, a collected book of wisdom, hardly a gospel.

Quick, pull your skirt down, your bias is showing.

Interesting that you think so.

And the author being a non-eyewitness is clearly stated in the gospel itself, as you yourself just quoted, how then do you accuse it of not being written by Luke? Who do you think Luke was other than what the gospel says he was? How is truthful reporting of ones own credentials a changing of the name centuries later, as YOU said, the Gospels were not directly written by the individuals whose name they bear is a long accepted truth? YOU made the statement that the gospels were written and then names were assigned to them after the fact, and then you cited Luke, but Luke is NOT thought to have be assigned after the fact because it describes itself as after the fact and not written by an apostle who walked with Christ.

How are you not understanding this?

The Gospel of Luke is a name assigned more than a century later. There is no evidence his name was Luke. However, if you have some please present it and quit embarassing yourself. The point was not only that it was written after the fact. It was that it is not likely written by the person whose name it bears. You'll notice the part I said that you quoted is about the name not whether or not they were with Christ.



How is it ludicrous at all? The Gospel was written by someone that plainly admits as much. They knew Paul AND they researched other reports of the events for their own gospel. What is the conspiracy you think it is trying to cover up when it plainly says it of itself?

That 'Luke' knew Paul is not accepted. The only evidence is the fact that it says 'we' a couple of times, a pretty common literary device. Again, you claim things you have no evidence for as if it helps your case. It simply exposes your ignorance. He read the letters of Paul, but then so have I. Prove he actually knew Paul.



To suggest that you are capable of discussing and debating a topic without an implied or innuendo route to make personal insults against your opponent would be lying, apparently. Regardless, Q is irrelevant to what it says, if it existed, because Luke already plainly says it used other sources in it’s compilation, how then would it be surprising that Q and Luke and Mark and Matthew would share some source material? It’s a red herring accusation on your part, it means nothing for the book to be guilty of what it already confesses and adds nothing to the discussion for your part.

Amusing. It's not a red herring when it's a direct response to the point of another poster. The Church has often tried to claim that Luke was the doctor. You've tried to claim that Luke definitely knew Paul. Neither of these claims have any evidence. I love how you agree with me and then suggest that it's a red herring. The point is that the Gospels were not written by first person sources. They were not written by Apostles. The names were assigned after the fact. You act as if I was making some different claim. I wasn't. The person I was replying to suggested that these facts are revisionist, but they were widely accepted until recent times. The fact that you agree with many of them hardly hurts my argument unless you're suggesting that you agreeing is evidence for being wrong.


The point was, YOU referred to Thomas as being a teaching tool of Christians two thousand years ago, as if that in and of itself tells us anything.

Again, you're not reading what you replied to. The person suggested that acceptance of Thomas is revisionist. The idea that Thomas was taught by Christians 2 millenia ago is quite relevant to such a comment. Of course, why use logic when you'd rather attack me for your misunderstanding.

How does the existence of Thomas discredit the other gospels or the traditional Christian doctrines that have survived through the ages? Simply saying that Thomas was used then changes nothing and adds nothing to the discussion, which is why I asked you what you meant by mentioning it and why mention it at all then without any other comment? (as the accusations from others earlier in the thread claimed it changes our understanding of what was taught then, you added nothing)

I didn't suggest the Gospel of Thomas discredited anything. I have no intention of discrediting the other Gospels. You want to try reply to what I actually said and not your delusions. Someone was trying to discredit Thomas. I pointed out that it's source is as valid as any other Gospel.

Again, it would help you look less stupid if you looked at the context of comments. This is simply sad.

The ‘Good News’ is the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection and the conquering of death and sin by Jesus Christ, as the four Gospels have AND others like the gospel of Peter have, but the book of Thomas does NOT have that story in it, and neither does it have a story of a sequence of events of Jesus life on earth, as even the discredited infancy gospels have. The books of Thomas is not a gospel as it does not have the “Good News” in it, nor a sequence of Jesus life, it does have quotes and sayings in it of no particular order and no comment about those sayings to whom and when Jesus was saying those quotes and under what circumstances the comments were made. It is more like the book a proverbs, a collected book of wisdom, hardly a gospel.


Again, you revise the use of Gospel and then suggest something is not a Gospel because you've revised the term. Now, it's not surprising to me that you completely overlook the teaching of Christ in the 'Good News', however, I think it's pretty core to the whole issue. So does the dictionary.


Interesting that you think so.

Interesting that you don't.

... However, if you have some please present it and quit embarassing yourself...

...It simply exposes your ignorance...

...Of course, why use logic when you'd rather attack me for your misunderstanding...

....You want to try reply to what I actually said and not your delusions...

...Again, it would help you look less stupid if you looked at the context of comments. This is simply sad....

Is civility entirely beyond your capacity or do jackassery responses entertain you? I suspect the later.

I withdraw from this futile discussion with you unconvinced of your arguments or your position and maintain my original points which you seem to be ignoring by design.

Is civility entirely beyond your capacity or do jackassery responses entertain you? I suspect the later.

I withdraw from this futile discussion with you unconvinced of your arguments or your position and maintain my original points which you seem to be ignoring by design.

I'm amused by the hypocrisy of calling me a jackass while demanding civility. I'd withdraw were I you as well. You've clearly gotten caught misunderstanding the conversation. Play your little games all you like, but you didn't challenge the guy who brought up Thomas, you challenged me for staying on that subject once it was brought up. You entered on the attack and your argument was annihilated. You don't have to accept it. Everyone can see it for themselves.

Meanwhile, let's play your game -

To suggest that you are capable of discussing and debating a topic without an implied or innuendo route to make personal insults against your opponent would be lying, apparently.

Is civility entirely beyond your capacity or do jackassery responses entertain you? I suspect the later.

You've insulted me. I've insulted the argument you're making. Physician, heal thyself.

This is the same ol, same ol. Every thread you show up in you come with the same level of venom you complain about and then ditch the thread when you get nailed to the wall on your lack of knowledge. It's not an insult to point out your proven ignorance on a subject or to point how stupid it is to ask why I posted about a subject brought up by someone else.

Incredulous.

According to you, the gospels are named after their namesakes, after the fact. Even as I agree with you in possibility, I, in my very first post to you in this thread, said you made your point with the reference to Q, but then I questioned why you would refer to Luke of proof of your accusation that they named the gospels for their namesakes after the fact?...

Here it is, simple as can be. If a person or group had a gospel they wanted to lend credence to, a couple of centuries after the events of Christ, why would they name them LUKE? Was Luke an apostle? No. Was he a famous follower or deciple? No. Why then name this gospel Luke unles it was written by somone who had that name? What benefit is there to naming the book Luke if Luke did not write it?

Luke was not a name from the story. No one ever claimed Luke was an important person in those events. Thus, your argument that the namesake is added later for the gospel of Luke is self defeating. Luke does not exist in the scriptures except that he wrote the gospel Luke and the book of Acts.

Say it again to yourself. Repeat it. We understand why one might name a gospel in Peter's name, in the name of Andrew, Bartholomew, James greater or James the lesser, John, Jude, Judas Iscariot, Matthias, Matthew, Peter, Philip, Simon, Thomas. James or even Paul, for examples of characters known from the NT books and gospels, and with all of those names, why name one Luke? Who was Luke except the character that wrote the gospel? Why would they want the namesake (according to you) except for that feat?

Your argument is baseless because you are attacking things never said. Address the issues brought up please.

As to the insults I've supposedly said against you, are you suggesting that to accuse someone of being insulting is an insult itself? Thus to accuse someone of being intentionally insulting is justification for them to continue to be, or even a justification for them to be even more insulting thereafter? I think not. Erroneous conclusion there .

Please, next time read the bottle for dosage before taking Lunesta.

Aside from the fact that almost none of the "Gospels", could have possibly been written by anyone who was alive at any point in Jesus' life, besides possibly The Gospel ofThomas, I'd say thats a pretty good reason why they arent written by the name on the cover.

Speaking of Thomas, as for earlier comments about it that may invalidate the "Canon" Gospels, the obvious reason would be becuase it makes no reference to miracles, divinity, or even refering to Jesus as anything other than "Teacher".

Its merely 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.
It reads much like Confucious.

The fact that it makes no reference to his supposed ressurection would be an indicator that early Christians, if indeed this text was used as a teaching tool, may indicate that Jesus was not seen as divine himself.

In fact, I believe the Council of Nycea (sp?) were the ones who ultimately decided he was, in fact, the Son of God, and the Messiah.

This means that core elements of the religion may have changed a few hundred years after its originator died.
Approximately the same time some of the Gospels that we know today are thought to have been written.

Incredulous.

According to you, the gospels are named after their namesakes, after the fact. Even as I agree with you in possibility, I, in my very first post to you in this thread, said you made your point with the reference to Q, but then I questioned why you would refer to Luke of proof of your accusation that they named the gospels for their namesakes after the fact?...

And I showed you why. You don't read. It's not really my responsibility to make you read. Luke is generally thought to be anonymous. That makes Luke an excellent example of exactly my point. You're misunderstanding of this fact, again, is not really my problem.


Here it is, simple as can be. If a person or group had a gospel they wanted to lend credence to, a couple of centuries after the events of Christ, why would they name them LUKE? Was Luke an apostle? No. Was he a famous follower or deciple? No. Why then name this gospel Luke unles it was written by somone who had that name? What benefit is there to naming the book Luke if Luke did not write it?

Tell me you're kidding. Please, please, tell me you're kidding. You really don't know who Luke was? Read a book.


Luke was not a name from the story. No one ever claimed Luke was an important person in those events. Thus, your argument that the namesake is added later for the gospel of Luke is self defeating. Luke does not exist in the scriptures except that he wrote the gospel Luke and the book of Acts.

Amusing. So now I'm responsible for your ignorance. He didn't write Luke or the book of Acts most likely. It's something that was decided after the fact. There a reason that was decided. Because there was this guy Luke and they thought it would be cool if he wrote them. Except as a member of the Gospels and those that knew the stories of the Gospels where does Matthew exist?


Say it again to yourself. Repeat it. We understand why one might name a gospel in Peter's name, in the name of Andrew, Bartholomew, James greater or James the lesser, John, Jude, Judas Iscariot, Matthias, Matthew, Peter, Philip, Simon, Thomas. James or even Paul, for examples of characters known from the NT books and gospels, and with all of those names, why name one Luke? Who was Luke except the character that wrote the gospel? Why would they want the namesake (according to you) except for that feat?

Or a character in the Gospel, like Mark, Matthew and John.


Your argument is baseless because you are attacking things never said. Address the issues brought up please.

Amusing. I don't think you're qualified to speak about what was said since you acted as if I had no reason to reply to arguments other people made because according to you it adds nothing to the discussion as if you've not read the majority of the posts in this thread. Again, I'm not responsible for your ignorance.

As to the insults I've supposedly said against you, are you suggesting that to accuse someone of being insulting is an insult itself? Thus to accuse someone of being intentionally insulting is justification for them to continue to be, or even a justification for them to be even more insulting thereafter? I think not. Erroneous conclusion there .

You didn't accuse me of being insulting. You accused me of 'jackassery' and lying. That's not quite the same as saying "would you mind being a little less insulting?" You know the difference. You choose to ignore the difference. According to you suggesting that an argument is ignorant is insulting, rather than an attack on the argument. According to you, to suggest an argument is stupid is insulting rather than an attack on the argument. If you're going to try to take the holier than thou approach you try to take in every thread you'd think by now you'd realize that if you do it while insulting me I'm going to embarrass you AGAIN and AGAIN. Why keep giving me amunition? You use this crying about how I'm mean as a way to drop arguments. We've seen it time and again. Stop your complaints about how I'm treating you exactly like you treat myself and others and address the arguments. All of them.

Stop pretending like you're better than everyone and, you know, make your argument. But this time, how about you read the posts I was responding to so you don't make arguments that are completely ignorant of the context you're replying to.

Amusing. So now I'm responsible for your ignorance. He didn't write Luke or the book of Acts most likely. It's something that was decided after the fact. There a reason that was decided. Because there was this guy Luke and they thought it would be cool if he wrote them.

Like Hanukh (Enoch). The different "Book of Enoch" scriptures were likely written thousands of years after the chracter they claim as 'author' might have lived.

So - why bear the name? Enoch is not recorded in scripture as the big scholar or documentarian.

No - the text just takes a name that might be argued to be 'historical'. It doesn't need to be some key figure - just someone that can be claimed as 'of the time'.

Aside from the fact that almost none of the "Gospels", could have possibly been written by anyone who was alive at any point in Jesus' life, besides possibly The Gospel ofThomas, I'd say thats a pretty good reason why they arent written by the name on the cover.

FYI: The dating of Thomas is held to be between 50-140, a huge difference in years if we are looking for the ‘earliest’ gospel that we have. Whereas the Gospel of Mark is held to be within the years of 65-80 and a high likelihood of being between 70-75 specifically within that framework. How then is Mark not accredited by the naysayers as being a possible eyewitness account? A mere thirty to forty five years after the crucifixion, it would be comparable to people their memoirs of WWII and publishing them between 1975 and 1990, it would hardly raise an eyebrow of suspicion.

Speaking of Thomas, as for earlier comments about it that may invalidate the "Canon" Gospels, the obvious reason would be becuase it makes no reference to miracles, divinity, or even refering to Jesus as anything other than "Teacher".

Its merely 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.
It reads much like Confucious.


As already mentioned above, the years Thomas are thought to have been recorded are between 50-140. Is it possible that some of the lines were written before the entire group was preserved? Perhaps new lines were added from the oral recordings for ninety plus years? There is no reason to assume that the book was intended to be the exclusive Jesus document by any particular Christian group. The group with Thomas in hand is likely to also have had the Gospel of Mark and the epistles in their other hand. It compliments the other works, it wasn’t used instead of the other works. But I agree with your critique of it, it does read like Confucius mumbo jumbo ;)

The fact that it makes no reference to his supposed ressurection would be an indicator that early Christians, if indeed this text was used as a teaching tool, may indicate that Jesus was not seen as divine himself.

That’s a false dichotomy, it’s not an, if this then that, situation. I recognize that you said it may indicate that Jesus was not seen as divine, but I submit that there is to correlation between the assumption and the book at all. The existence of that book tells us nothing about their belief about Jesus’ divinity.


In fact, I believe the Council of Nycea (sp?) were the ones who ultimately decided he was, in fact, the Son of God, and the Messiah.

This means that core elements of the religion may have changed a few hundred years after its originator died.
Approximately the same time some of the Gospels that we know today are thought to have been written.

At the council of Nicea, an assembly of over 300 church leaders from around the known Christian world mind you, and they came together to put into writing their common beliefs and doctrines and establish the parameters of their shared Christian theology.

They did not invent their Christian beliefs at the council, they codified what they already collectively believed. The vote for the divinity of Christ (by signing the creed or not), for example, was something along the lines of 94% for it and only 6% against it before the debates (17 wouldn’t sign it) and after their debates and interrogated Arius beliefs and doctrine understanding (Arius being the primary leader of the non-signers) 14 more changed their votes to be in favor of the creed stating Jesus’ divinity is a core belief of Christianity, thus making the final tally a 99% favorable vote against a 1% anti-divinity vote. The interrogation of Arius showed that Arius had a new interpretation of every verse they question him on and since the new interpretation he proposed had no backing from the scriptues themselves (meaning he wasn’t able to claim he had old apostle beliefs of old Christian beliefs) his interpretation were decided to be wrong.

Can you imagine a bill going though congress with a 99% approval rating and THEN claiming that it was somehow controversial? Then why pretend that the council of Nicea ‘invented’ something new on the Christians of that time? They didn’t, they codified what they already believed and they already believed that Jesus was divine.

Like Hanukh (Enoch). The different "Book of Enoch" scriptures were likely written thousands of years after the chracter they claim as 'author' might have lived.

So - why bear the name? Enoch is not recorded in scripture as the big scholar or documentarian.

No - the text just takes a name that might be argued to be 'historical'. It doesn't need to be some key figure - just someone that can be claimed as 'of the time'.

You do know that it is accepted that Luke was recorded between 80-130AD right? We are not talking about hundreds of years later, or even a few years later. He is essentially saying that a contemporary of Luke wrote a gospel and then says that this 'anonymous person' put Luke's name on it and not their own name... which begs the question, why bother? Luke's name at that time wouldn't have impressed anyone, Luke was still alive.

The gospel of Luke freely admits that it was not written by an apostle, but a follower of an apostle, a Christian convert writing after the fact from collected data, which the actual author would have been for writing it between 80-130AD, fifty to one hundred years after the crucifixion, why not just use your own name, the author would have the exact same credentials as the namesake of Luke did. Since there is no motive to changing the name and no gospel of Luke that was not identified with that title (meaning we have to reason to think that it was ever not called Luke from it’s first publishing), we can declare that without the revelation of further evidence to the contrary, a person named Luke did write the gospel. It’s revisionist nonsense to pretend anything else.

You do know that it is accepted that Luke was recorded between 80-130AD right? We are not talking about hundreds of years later, or even a few years later. He is essentially saying that a contemporary of Luke wrote a gospel and then says that this 'anonymous person' put Luke's name on it and not their own name... which begs the question, why bother? Luke's name at that time wouldn't have impressed anyone, Luke was still alive.

The gospel of Luke freely admits that it was not written by an apostle, but a follower of an apostle, a Christian convert writing after the fact from collected data, which the actual author would have been for writing it between 80-130AD, fifty to one hundred years after the crucifixion, why not just use your own name, the author would have the exact same credentials as the namesake of Luke did. Since there is no motive to changing the name and no gospel of Luke that was not identified with that title (meaning we have to reason to think that it was ever not called Luke from it’s first publishing), we can declare that without the revelation of further evidence to the contrary, a person named Luke did write the gospel. It’s revisionist nonsense to pretend anything else.

The original manuscript did not have a name attached.

Naming the gospels came much later. That is the point.

FYI: The dating of Thomas is held to be between 50-140, a huge difference in years if we are looking for the ‘earliest’ gospel that we have. Whereas the Gospel of Mark is held to be within the years of 65-80 and a high likelihood of being between 70-75 specifically within that framework. How then is Mark not accredited by the naysayers as being a possible eyewitness account? A mere thirty to forty five years after the crucifixion, it would be comparable to people their memoirs of WWII and publishing them between 1975 and 1990, it would hardly raise an eyebrow of suspicion.



As already mentioned above, the years Thomas are thought to have been recorded are between 50-140. Is it possible that some of the lines were written before the entire group was preserved? Perhaps new lines were added from the oral recordings for ninety plus years? There is no reason to assume that the book was intended to be the exclusive Jesus document by any particular Christian group. The group with Thomas in hand is likely to also have had the Gospel of Mark and the epistles in their other hand. It compliments the other works, it wasn’t used instead of the other works. But I agree with your critique of it, it does read like Confucius mumbo jumbo ;)



That’s a false dichotomy, it’s not an, if this then that, situation. I recognize that you said it may indicate that Jesus was not seen as divine, but I submit that there is to correlation between the assumption and the book at all. The existence of that book tells us nothing about their belief about Jesus’ divinity.



At the council of Nicea, an assembly of over 300 church leaders from around the known Christian world mind you, and they came together to put into writing their common beliefs and doctrines and establish the parameters of their shared Christian theology.

They did not invent their Christian beliefs at the council, they codified what they already collectively believed. The vote for the divinity of Christ (by signing the creed or not), for example, was something along the lines of 94% for it and only 6% against it before the debates (17 wouldn’t sign it) and after their debates and interrogated Arius beliefs and doctrine understanding (Arius being the primary leader of the non-signers) 14 more changed their votes to be in favor of the creed stating Jesus’ divinity is a core belief of Christianity, thus making the final tally a 99% favorable vote against a 1% anti-divinity vote. The interrogation of Arius showed that Arius had a new interpretation of every verse they question him on and since the new interpretation he proposed had no backing from the scriptues themselves (meaning he wasn’t able to claim he had old apostle beliefs of old Christian beliefs) his interpretation were decided to be wrong.

Can you imagine a bill going though congress with a 99% approval rating and THEN claiming that it was somehow controversial? Then why pretend that the council of Nicea ‘invented’ something new on the Christians of that time? They didn’t, they codified what they already believed and they already believed that Jesus was divine.

You're speaking with people who refuse to accept traditional history. They insist on agreeing with the modern revisionist historians who are trying to turn everything into a godless political struggle so that their atheist evolutionary ideas can have basis. Most of it is subconscious, yes, but that is still their aim.

And then there are those like Jocabia who have to reconcile these new theories with Christianity (because they have faith in Christ or, more correctly, who they think Christ is) so they end up throwing out traditional Christianity, which means they are no longer Christian. And they insist that you are the one who is wrong because of their new found faith: in man's opinions about the past, rather than God's Word.

FYI: The dating of Thomas is held to be between 50-140, a huge difference in years if we are looking for the ‘earliest’ gospel that we have. Whereas the Gospel of Mark is held to be within the years of 65-80 and a high likelihood of being between 70-75 specifically within that framework. How then is Mark not accredited by the naysayers as being a possible eyewitness account? A mere thirty to forty five years after the crucifixion, it would be comparable to people their memoirs of WWII and publishing them between 1975 and 1990, it would hardly raise an eyebrow of suspicion.


It is possible. Just, not likely. Average lifespans were much shorter 2000 years ago, than they were 50 years ago. If most people are expected to die in their third or fourth decade, it does become increasingly unlikely that an 'eyewitness' is recording events 40 years after they are supposed to have witnessed them as an adult.

Looking at average lifespans, a modern comparison would be someone writing this year about their First World War memories.



As already mentioned above, the years Thomas are thought to have been recorded are between 50-140. Is it possible that some of the lines were written before the entire group was preserved? Perhaps new lines were added from the oral recordings for ninety plus years?


Maybe, like the Levitical books, what we aer presented with in "Thomas" is the final written version of a text that had actually been circulating in other forms since much earlier?

Like the three non-John gospels originating in the earlier "Q" manuscript?


At the council of Nicea, an assembly of over 300 church leaders from around the known Christian world mind you...


Just 'turned up' did they?

No - they were invited representatives. And, any time invites are sent out, there is usually reason behind who they are sent to.


They did not invent their Christian beliefs at the council, they codified what they already collectively believed.


Not at all, they formalised an 'accepted version'. There is no point pretending it was supposed to be 'representative' - it was just the formal declaration of what was going to be accepted by the establishing church.


The vote for the divinity of Christ (by signing the creed or not), for example, was something along the lines of 94% for it and only 6% against it before the debates (17 wouldn’t sign it) and after their debates and interrogated Arius beliefs and doctrine understanding (Arius being the primary leader of the non-signers) 14 more changed their votes to be in favor of the creed stating Jesus’ divinity is a core belief of Christianity, thus making the final tally a 99% favorable vote against a 1% anti-divinity vote.

People often capitulate under pressure.

If you are told you have to sign the church document, or risk being declared apostate, a lot of people will put their names on things they don't implicitly believe.

You're speaking with people who refuse to accept traditional history. They insist on agreeing with the modern revisionist historians who are trying to turn everything into a godless political struggle so that their atheist evolutionary ideas can have basis. Most of it is subconscious, yes, but that is still their aim.

And then there are those like Jocabia who have to reconcile these new theories with Christianity (because they have faith in Christ or, more correctly, who they think Christ is) so they end up throwing out traditional Christianity, which means they are no longer Christian. And they insist that you are the one who is wrong because of their new found faith: in man's opinions about the past, rather than God's Word.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, my friend.

Jesus spoke expressly against accepting 'traditions'. I find it odd that someone might claim to be a Christian, and yet attack other Christians for not blindly following tradition... for not blindly disobeying Jesus' directives.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, my friend.

Jesus spoke expressly against accepting 'traditions'. I find it odd that someone might claim to be a Christian, and yet attack other Christians for not blindly following tradition... for not blindly disobeying Jesus' directives.

Read that in context of Jesus other teachings and you will find that you are most incorrect in your application of that verse.

Jesus spoke against accepting tradition that was against Scripture. He cautioned against blindly accepting tradition next to Scripture.

But that is not what traditional Christianity is. Traditional Christianity is the same as orthodox Christianity; the first name just doesn't confuse people with Eastern Orthodoxy as the second does.

Those doctrines taught in traditional Christianity are those required to be believed by Scripture: they were taken directly from the Canon. To not believe them is to reject what God has revealed about Himself, which is to reject God. Which means you are not Christian if you do so.

Read that in context of Jesus other teachings and you will find that you are most incorrect in your application of that verse.

Jesus spoke against accepting tradition that was against Scripture. He cautioned against blindly accepting tradition next to Scripture.

But that is not what traditional Christianity is. Traditional Christianity is the same as orthodox Christianity; the first name just doesn't confuse people with Eastern Orthodoxy as the second does.

Those doctrines taught in traditional Christianity are those required to be believed by Scripture: they were taken directly from the Canon. To not believe them is to reject what God has revealed about Himself, which is to reject God. Which means you are not Christian if you do so.

No - you are just wrong.

Jesus spoke against strict adherence to scripture, as well as strict adherence to 'tradition'. He basically said that the Jews were so mixed up trying to work out what the letters of the laws meant, that they had completely missed the 'spirit' of the law.

Jesus looking at today's church would say the same thing.

The things he preached most specifically on, were love and charity - all the ways we could help each other, all the ways we could love each other.

Modern Christians have (far too often) made it a religion of hate - why you can't do this or that.

In your strict embrace of the LETTER of the law, you are in direct opposition to what Jesus taught in his earthly ministry - and are little more than a Pharisee in jeans.

I had what might be described as a vision.

So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

i believe you had this experience.

that's an advanced message -- it seems legitimate to me. represents an upward spiral out of book bondage and into the next level of your own personal spiritual growth.

thx for sharing your vision, i found it very interesting.

feel free to telegram me if you wish.

No - you are just wrong.

Jesus spoke against strict adherence to scripture, as well as strict adherence to 'tradition'. He basically said that the Jews were so mixed up trying to work out what the letters of the laws meant, that they had completely missed the 'spirit' of the law.

Jesus looking at today's church would say the same thing.

The things he preached most specifically on, were love and charity - all the ways we could help each other, all the ways we could love each other.

Modern Christians have (far too often) made it a religion of hate - why you can't do this or that.

In your strict embrace of the LETTER of the law, you are in direct opposition to what Jesus taught in his earthly ministry - and are little more than a Pharisee in jeans.

No, you are wrong. If Jesus did not mean for us to judge, why did He tell us that we would know a tree by its fruits? If He meant for us to not uphold the Law, why did He call those who followed His commands His friends? And remember, He is one with the Father, so the God of the Old Testaments' commands are His.

"Modern Christians" have turned many things away from what they are to be, but if they are truly Christian, then they aer right in saying that the Law must be upheld.

As for the letter of the Law, Jesus spoke against not obeying the spirit of the Law. He didn't say anything wrong about obeying the letter of the Law. The Pharises were obeying the commandments, but were forgetting that if they do not obey the Law for the right reasons, then they are worse than they were before, because they are now Hypocrites. Jesus spoke of obeying the letter without the spirit, not against obeying the letter with the spirit.

Not at all - 'reasons' to believe do not have to be logical.
Yes they do. That's what reason is.
But, by the same token, you have no reason to believe it to be necessarily incorrect.
Exactly. Which means this moment of inspiration has no effect at all, and leaves me exactly where I was in my position of uncertainty. So how is inspiration relevant?

i believe you had this experience.

that's an advanced message -- it seems legitimate to me. represents an upward spiral out of book bondage and into the next level of your own personal spiritual growth.

thx for sharing your vision, i found it very interesting.

feel free to telegram me if you wish.

Thanks for a serious and constructive response. Thanks for addressing the message, rather than the messenger. Such responses have been a lot rarer than I'd hoped for.

I actually find wisdom in what you said here, too - I can see a very real way in which such a dream can be my mind telling me 'look, you've got all you are going to get from reading and re-reading the fine-print'. I can see that this can clearly be my own consciousness telling me my quest for truth must move elsewhere.

Again - thanks for a constructive (on topic) post.

The original manuscript did not have a name attached.

Naming the gospels came much later. That is the point.

You are mistaken. But you don't have to take my word for it either.

The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke. This attestation probably does not stem from reading Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1) or Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem 4.2.2), nor Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82), who also ascribe the third Gospel to one called Luke. Indeed, considering that the immediate recipient of Luke is mentioned in the preface, and given that the author of the third Gospel is aware that many other accounts have been drawn up before him, it is entirely probable that the author had indicated his name on the autograph. (The "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the preface of Luke is most likely his patron, as seen in the similar references to "most excellent X" in the prefaces to the De libris propriis liber of Galenus, the De antiquis oratoribus of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, the Scriptor De Divinatione of Melampus, the Peri ton kata antipatheian kai sumpatheian of Nepualius, and both Josephi vita and Contra Apionem of Josephus.) This Luke has traditionally been identified as the one named in Philemon 24 as a co-worker of Paul. Does the internal evidence support the idea that the author of Luke-Acts had known Saul of Tarsus?
link (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html)

You are mistaken. But you don't have to take my word for it either.

The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke. This attestation probably does not stem from reading Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1) or Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem 4.2.2), nor Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82), who also ascribe the third Gospel to one called Luke. Indeed, considering that the immediate recipient of Luke is mentioned in the preface, and given that the author of the third Gospel is aware that many other accounts have been drawn up before him, it is entirely probable that the author had indicated his name on the autograph. (The "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the preface of Luke is most likely his patron, as seen in the similar references to "most excellent X" in the prefaces to the De libris propriis liber of Galenus, the De antiquis oratoribus of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, the Scriptor De Divinatione of Melampus, the Peri ton kata antipatheian kai sumpatheian of Nepualius, and both Josephi vita and Contra Apionem of Josephus.) This Luke has traditionally been identified as the one named in Philemon 24 as a co-worker of Paul. Does the internal evidence support the idea that the author of Luke-Acts had known Saul of Tarsus?
link (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html)

Probable.

Likely.

My argument is hardly crumbling under the constant barrage of speculation.

It is possible. Just, not likely. Average lifespans were much shorter 2000 years ago, than they were 50 years ago. If most people are expected to die in their third or fourth decade, it does become increasingly unlikely that an 'eyewitness' is recording events 40 years after they are supposed to have witnessed them as an adult.


Not really. You have to remember that the reason why lifespans were so short back then was due to high child mortality rates; if you survived past age 5 or so, you were likely going to live to be about 60-70 years old barring an early death due to combat or something like that.

However, as far as things went, the 1st and 2nd centuries AD were the Pax Romana, which meant by and large your chances of dying in combat, from illness, or from destitution were all far lower than they would be in later years.

No, you are wrong. If Jesus did not mean for us to judge, why did He tell us that we would know a tree by its fruits? If He meant for us to not uphold the Law, why did He call those who followed His commands His friends? And remember, He is one with the Father, so the God of the Old Testaments' commands are His.

"Modern Christians" have turned many things away from what they are to be, but if they are truly Christian, then they aer right in saying that the Law must be upheld.

As for the letter of the Law, Jesus spoke against not obeying the spirit of the Law. He didn't say anything wrong about obeying the letter of the Law. The Pharises were obeying the commandments, but were forgetting that if they do not obey the Law for the right reasons, then they are worse than they were before, because they are now Hypocrites. Jesus spoke of obeying the letter without the spirit, not against obeying the letter with the spirit.

If Jesus DID mean us to judge, why did he tell us 'judge not'?

He makes a big deal out of being separate - calling ourselves away from sin - but his own example shows him embracing the sinner. And, I mean - physically embracing, as well as spiritually embracing.

Indeed, if one reads his Mount sermon, it is clear that the sinner is the focus of the ministry. He calls them blessed.

Your last paragraph, I almost agree with. The version of Christianity you preach is letter-pefect, perhaps - but appears entirely devoid of any contact with the spirit of the law. Your Christianity is worse than none, because it perverts the Prince of Love into a judgmental tyrant of hate.

If Jesus DID mean us to judge, why did he tell us 'judge not'?

Speaking of a judgemental nature.

He makes a big deal out of being separate - calling ourselves away from sin - but his own example shows him embracing the sinner. And, I mean - physically embracing, as well as spiritually embracing.

And? What's your point in this? Most Christians do this.

Indeed, if one reads his Mount sermon, it is clear that the sinner is the focus of the ministry. He calls them blessed.

Care to quote that? He calls the downtrodden and the weak and the meek etc. blessed, but I don't see Him calling sinners blessed. In fact quite the opposite. You were the one pointing out the sin of the Pharises.

Your last paragraph, I almost agree with. The version of Christianity you preach is letter-pefect, perhaps - but appears entirely devoid of any contact with the spirit of the law. Your Christianity is worse than none, because it perverts the Prince of Love into a judgmental tyrant of hate.

And you read only what you want, not what I say. I have never usurped God's love with my own thoughts of what should be (at least not in my debates on here). But I have also refused to compromise His wrath, justice, and sovereignty. And it is only when we understand those things that we truly understand His grace, mercy, and love.

Probable.

Likely.

My argument is hardly crumbling under the constant barrage of speculation.

Your argument about the name of Luke not being on the oldest versions of the gospel has been disproved beyond a doubt. The oldest versions of it have the name already on it, how can you 'conjecture' from that that there are older versions without the name on it. There is no reason to make that proposition that the original gospel was written with no name on it. This one did, it was Luke.

Your argument about the name of Luke not being on the oldest versions of the gospel has been disproved beyond a doubt. The oldest versions of it have the name already on it, how can you 'conjecture' from that that there are older versions without the name on it. There is no reason to make that proposition that the original gospel was written with no name on it. This one did, it was Luke.

"The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke. This attestation probably...

considering that the immediate recipient of Luke is mentioned in the preface, and given that the author of the third Gospel is aware that many other accounts have been drawn up before him, it is entirely probable...

that the author had indicated his name on the autograph. (The "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the preface of Luke is most likely...

his patron,...

Reading comprehension. It's not just for kids.

Not really. You have to remember that the reason why lifespans were so short back then was due to high child mortality rates; if you survived past age 5 or so, you were likely going to live to be about 60-70 years old barring an early death due to combat or something like that.


Prove it.

In the text "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean", by Lawrence Angel, we are presented with 41.9 as the median (not mean) lifespan in 'Hellenistic era' males (3 years less for the female).

Care to quote that?


If I have to explain the beatitudes to a 'believer', I believe I might be wasting my time.


And you read only what you want, not what I say. I have never usurped God's love with my own thoughts of what should be (at least not in my debates on here). But I have also refused to compromise His wrath, justice, and sovereignty. And it is only when we understand those things that we truly understand His grace, mercy, and love.

You refuse? You?

Again, your pride is prodigious.

Fortunately, I do not believe the values of god's alleged wrathful or just nature relies on your dispensation.

If I have to explain the beatitudes to a 'believer', I believe I might be wasting my time.

You don't want to quote it? Fine, I will, so that we may what it says:

Matthew 5:2-12 "And he [Jesus] opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kindom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were sent before you."

Hmmmmm, I don't see anything about sinners being called "blessed" But that's only in the Beatitudes. You originally said in the whole Sermon on the Mount. Let's keep looking.

Matthew 5:13-16 is about being the salt of the earth and light of the world so that people will see good works and turn to God.

17-20 is about the Law.

21-26 is about anger and how sinful thoughts are equal to carrying out the action.

27-30 is about the sinfulness of lust.

31-32 is about divorce.

33-37 is about the proper use of oaths.

38-42 is about the sinfulness of revenge.

43-48 is about loving your enemies.

Matthew 6:1-4 is about charity (not welfare, but that's another discussion).

5-15 is the Lord's Prayer.

16-18 is about fasting properly.

19-24 is about materialism.

25-34 is about not worrying.

Matthew 7:1-6 is about not having a judgemental attitude (not about judging being sinful, but, again, that's another discussion).

7-11 explains that those who truly seek God will not be turned away.

12-14 is the Golden Rule

15-20 is about being able to tell if a person is truly as they say they are. "You shall know a tree by its fruits."

21-23 is about the wicked being turned away from heaven.

24-27 is about building your life on Jesus. Build your house on the Rock, not the sand.

28-29 explains that everyone was astonished at His wisdom

So, I see nothing about sinners being called "blessed."

You refuse? You?

Again, your pride is prodigious.

Fortunately, I do not believe the values of god's alleged wrathful or just nature relies on your dispensation.

Yes, I refuse: God is not Santa Clause or the Teddy Bear which so many wish to make Him out to be.

the answer was given to you...
I had what might be described as a vision.

Imagine a perfectly lucid dream, where you are sat looking at a book, and a paternal figure is standing somewhere behind your right shoulder, explaining things in the book to you.

The book is The Bible. Imagine we somehow know that the voice behind us is God.

The explanation runs something along the lines of the following:


"It is good that you read the book, but do not consider it an Ending, it is only a Beginning. It teaches you about My 'gifts'.

I gave you the gift of prayer, so you could ask Me questions.

I gave you the gift of discernment so you could see the truth for yourself.

I gave you tribulations to let you find truth.

Consider Job. He learns from his experience, from his interactions. From his 'prayer'. He is brought closer to God aside from the words of prophets.

Consider My message to Israel. They start with the words of the Prophets, but I teach them truth by the direct strength of My touch.

I gave you two Books. One, I gave to men, to be written by men, and explained by men. This Book is The Word.

The other, I wrote in My own Hand. You may live BY one of the books, but you live IN the other. This Book is The World.

The words of prophets are a Beginning, but the time has come for you to learn to read the other Book."


So - spiritual gifts enable us to learn the truth with or without a text. Maybe there is a 'greater text', that we cannot yet read, or that each person has to learn to 'read' for themselves. I was not shown what the 'other' Book says, or how to read it... I was just told that it exists.

What do you think?

Yes, I refuse: God is not Santa Clause or the Teddy Bear which so many wish to make Him out to be.

Why not though??

Where do you stop believing?

If you can believe in God, why not another god?

Why not a tricksy god who leaves all sorts of evidence for a false god just to see what happens?

I just never quite understood where the leap stops?

Why not though??

Where do you stop believing?

If you can believe in God, why not another god?

Why not a tricksy god who leaves all sorts of evidence for a false god just to see what happens?

I just never quite understood where the leap stops?

I don't understand your question in relation to what you quoted.

Prove it.

In the text "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean", by Lawrence Angel, we are presented with 41.9 as the median (not mean) lifespan in 'Hellenistic era' males (3 years less for the female).

A problem is that the Hellenistic era occured nearly 400 years before the birth of Christ and ended nearly 25 years before he was born. It doesn't really reflect the Roman era very well, especially considering that there was a lot more conflict, less arable leand, and a lot less urbanization in Hellenistic Greece than there was in Rome or Roman Judea.

Here's a study on life expectancy during the Roman era, which is when Jesus and the authors of the Gospels would have lived. Given that the writers of these Gospels would've been fairly well educated and most likely fairly well off, it isn't likely that they would have a short lifespan.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

If you could make it to 30, you had at least 60 years median.

I don't understand your question in relation to what you quoted.

Sorry probably not the place for it.... I just missed the bit that explained how God was different from Fairies, Unicorns or Santa Claus... my bad.

Looks like I would be heading this thread in places it doesn't need to go.

Sorry probably not the place for it.... I just missed the bit that explained how God was different from Fairies, Unicorns or Santa Claus... my bad.

Looks like I would be heading this thread in places it doesn't need to go.

My point was that people want to go to God as if He were Santa Clause: He never really gives the coal He threatens to. Or as a Teddy Bear: something to snuggle and when it wacks you, you feel how soft it is.

Both are inaccurate pictures of God.

You're speaking with people who refuse to accept traditional history. They insist on agreeing with the modern revisionist historians who are trying to turn everything into a godless political struggle so that their atheist evolutionary ideas can have basis. Most of it is subconscious, yes, but that is still their aim.

And then there are those like Jocabia who have to reconcile these new theories with Christianity (because they have faith in Christ or, more correctly, who they think Christ is) so they end up throwing out traditional Christianity, which means they are no longer Christian. And they insist that you are the one who is wrong because of their new found faith: in man's opinions about the past, rather than God's Word.

You don't understand that YOU are throwing away traditional Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas was traditional Christian doctrine during the time right after Christ. The revision came when the Church rejected some of the scriptures choosing instead to trim down the taught doctrine, when the church changed Christ's life to have him live and die at a different time to coincide with Babylonian holidays.

It's not modern revisionism to recognize that the Chuch openly and admittedly revised Christian doctrine and Christian history and to go back to a time before that happened.

I know you're not aware of this but there is no dispute that the council rejected some doctrine that prior to that time was considered Christian, that's revision. I know you're not aware of this but there is no dispute that the Church changed the date of Christ's birth to coincide with that of Mithras, that's revision. I know you're not aware but there is no dispute that the Church changed the resurrection of Christ to be on Easter (I'm certain in fact that you don't know who Easter was), that's revision.

I love that you don't realize that it's YOU who are the revisionist.

Read that in context of Jesus other teachings and you will find that you are most incorrect in your application of that verse.

Jesus spoke against accepting tradition that was against Scripture. He cautioned against blindly accepting tradition next to Scripture.

But that is not what traditional Christianity is. Traditional Christianity is the same as orthodox Christianity; the first name just doesn't confuse people with Eastern Orthodoxy as the second does.

Those doctrines taught in traditional Christianity are those required to be believed by Scripture: they were taken directly from the Canon. To not believe them is to reject what God has revealed about Himself, which is to reject God. Which means you are not Christian if you do so.

You are rejecting some scripture based on tradition. The people who lived immediately after Christ believed in that scripture and were very close to that teaching. The Gospel of Thomas was not even considered by the Council. It was not available.

You are rejecting the facts about Christ in favor of tradition. You are rejecting the teachings of Christ in favor of tradition. It's a shame you can't see something so obvious.

When was Christ born? Was it December 25th? Nope. That's not scriptural, just traditional.

When did Christ resurrect? On Easter? No, Easter was a Babylonian god whose son was resurrected on... gasp... the holiday we call Easter. The Church has a tradition of bending Christianity to a political will.

...You are rejecting the facts about Christ in favor of tradition. ...There are facts available about Christ, or rather Yeshua? What facts?

Easter was a Babylonian godWhat is the name of this god?

what about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eostre

No, you are wrong. If Jesus did not mean for us to judge, why did He tell us that we would know a tree by its fruits? If He meant for us to not uphold the Law, why did He call those who followed His commands His friends? And remember, He is one with the Father, so the God of the Old Testaments' commands are His.

"Modern Christians" have turned many things away from what they are to be, but if they are truly Christian, then they aer right in saying that the Law must be upheld.

As for the letter of the Law, Jesus spoke against not obeying the spirit of the Law. He didn't say anything wrong about obeying the letter of the Law. The Pharises were obeying the commandments, but were forgetting that if they do not obey the Law for the right reasons, then they are worse than they were before, because they are now Hypocrites. Jesus spoke of obeying the letter without the spirit, not against obeying the letter with the spirit.

Jesus gave us the meaning of the Law very concisely. He summarized it for us and said exactly what it is He would like for us. Do you remember how he summarized it?

Jesus said that the Law is to love God and to love each other. He also summarized it as to treat others as we would like to be treated. Both say the same thing. Be loving. Very simple. Very clear. You seem to think other things are more important, but Jesus clearly said otherwise.

There are facts available about Christ, or rather Yeshua? What facts?

What is the name of this god?

Uh, Easter. Here I'll help you with English. If I say, "Joe was a man." Then the name of the man was, dah-dah, Joe. If I say, "Easter was a Babylonian god," the name of the god was, dah-dah, Easter.

Uh, Easter. Here I'll help you with English. If I say, "Joe was a man." Then the name of the man was, dah-dah, Joe. If I say, "Easter was a Babylonian god," the name of the god was, dah-dah, Easter.My English is probably better than yours.

There is no Babylonian god of that name. So I supposed the word would have been altered.
BTW I already found and linked the wikipedia article referring to an anglo-saxon goddess Eostre, who is in fact the eponym of Easter.

Jesus gave us the meaning of the Law very concisely. He summarized it for us and said exactly what it is He would like for us. Do you remember how he summarized it?

Jesus said that the Law is to love God and to love each other. He also summarized it as to treat others as we would like to be treated. Both say the same thing. Be loving. Very simple. Very clear. You seem to think other things are more important, but Jesus clearly said otherwise.We don't know what Yeshua said or thought. He wrote no books, you know.

My English is probably better than yours.

There is no Babylonian god of that name. So I supposed the word would have been altered.
BTW I already found and linked the wikipedia article referring to an anglo-saxon goddess Eostre, who is in fact the eponym of Easter.

She was also called Easter. From your link - Eostre ("Easter") is the name of a putative goddess of the Anglo-Saxons.

And her origins are from Samiramis, who was a Babylonian Goddess. It's actually fairly common knowledge for those who care to learn it. Her son was Tammuz who was born in December and died and was resurrected in the spring. Christmas and Easter are celebrations of those events. It's no coincidence that this celebration became known as Easter, because Eostre was just a more modent incarnation of the same mythology.

Reading comprehension lesson over.

We don't know what Yeshua said or thought. He wrote no books, you know.

Uh-huh. I guess we don't know what Socrates said or thought either. Unless of course you think it's possible for someone else to write his life down. No, no, that's impossible. No one can ever write about someone else. It's simply impossible.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kindom of heaven.


Hmm, I wonder what 'poor in spirit' means...


Yes, I refuse: God is not Santa Clause or the Teddy Bear which so many wish to make Him out to be.

Again - you refuse? How important do you honestly think you are?

You know what they say about pride, don't you?

My point was that people want to go to God as if He were Santa Clause: He never really gives the coal He threatens to. Or as a Teddy Bear: something to snuggle and when it wacks you, you feel how soft it is.

Both are inaccurate pictures of God.

Discussing the nature of god wasn't my intention... but, you must admit, your vision of 'god' doesn't actually have any impact - I very much doubt he feels the need to be defined by your limitations.

A problem is that the Hellenistic era occured nearly 400 years before the birth of Christ and ended nearly 25 years before he was born. It doesn't really reflect the Roman era very well, especially considering that there was a lot more conflict, less arable leand, and a lot less urbanization in Hellenistic Greece than there was in Rome or Roman Judea.

Here's a study on life expectancy during the Roman era, which is when Jesus and the authors of the Gospels would have lived. Given that the writers of these Gospels would've been fairly well educated and most likely fairly well off, it isn't likely that they would have a short lifespan.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

If you could make it to 30, you had at least 60 years median.

Hmmm - I'm looking at a table derived from the data in Angel's text, and it clearly shows the era between 300bc and 120ad as having this 'median lifespan' of like 40 years. That table calls it 'Hellenistic' - if you don't like the naming they use, fine - but I see no reason to question the numbers.

I find myself wondering if you know what 'median' means.

Hmmm - I'm looking at a table derived from the data in Angel's text, and it clearly shows the era between 300bc and 120ad as having this 'median lifespan' of like 40 years. That table calls it 'Hellenistic' - if you don't like the naming they use, fine - but I see no reason to question the numbers.

But Hellenistic is a very specific term that applies to Greece, and specifically the Hellenistic era. The conditions in Greece are different from Judea, or from Latinum, or any of the Roman provinces of the time.

And even so, that doesn't mean that it's unlikely. A significant number of people lived in to their 50's or 60's, or even later, during the Roman era. It's impossible to really know for sure because lifespan is not something that can be determined according to the median. They could've lived to be 90 for all we know.

I find myself wondering if you know what 'median' means.

Median: The middle quantity of a given distribution, or the average of the two quantities that make up the center of a distribution plot.

But Hellenistic is a very specific term that applies to Greece, and specifically the Hellenistic era. The conditions in Greece are different from Judea, or from Latinum, or any of the Roman provinces of the time.


The apostles wouldn't have been living in the conditions peculiar to Rome, either, really.


And even so, that doesn't mean that it's unlikely. A significant number of people lived in to their 50's or 60's, or even later, during the Roman era. It's impossible to really know for sure because lifespan is not something that can be determined according to the median. They could've lived to be 90 for all we know.


Who? All of them?


Median: The middle quantity of a given distribution, or the average of the two quantities that make up the center of a distribution plot.

You realise this is illogical? You argue a high infant mortality rate brings down the number, but you don't think about what that would mean in terms of median.

If our infant mortality were high enough to skew the results that much, our median would be about 6 years.

Hmm, I wonder what 'poor in spirit' means...

Well it doesn't mean sinful, because then Christ would call them dead in spirit.

Again - you refuse? How important do you honestly think you are?

You know what they say about pride, don't you?

I don't think I'm important at all. Why? What does it matter how important I am? Answer: it doesn't. You are taking a sentence which means one thing and stretching it out to mean something else in an attempt to slander me.

What does it matter what they say about pride in this instance? And more importantly, who is this they? I don't care what they say; I care what Scripture says in determining correct doctrine and moral behavior.

Discussing the nature of god wasn't my intention... but, you must admit, your vision of 'god' doesn't actually have any impact - I very much doubt he feels the need to be defined by your limitations.

Who's defining Him? Me? No, I merely repeat what Scripture says and until someone uses Scripture and Scripture alone to refute me, I will maintain it.

"The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke. This attestation probably...

considering that the immediate recipient of Luke is mentioned in the preface, and given that the author of the third Gospel is aware that many other accounts have been drawn up before him, it is entirely probable...

that the author had indicated his name on the autograph. (The "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the preface of Luke is most likely...

his patron,...

Reading comprehension. It's not just for kids.

You're really trying hard to ignore the obvious flaw with your conclussion there aren't you? You want to ignore the fact that the first sentence tells you plain and simply that the oldest copy we have is from the very end of the second century, thus, we know it is a copy of an earlier version. But this one DOES have euangelion kata Loukan on it, period, not speculation. Then the author discuss the possible reasons why it is there, and the topic moves into the speculative matter of guessing if the author of the copy was influenced by others, earlier than himself. But it IS there. We don't have any older copies of the book that doesn't have the name Luke on it.

Where is your evidence that the book was ever written without the name on it? You made the assertion that the gospel had no name at first and it's name was assigned to it hundreds of years later, you have produced zero evidence that any such thing ever actually happened and I presented evidence to the contraire that shows irrevocably that the name was already on there, on the oldest copy we have yet found.

The apostles wouldn't have been living in the conditions peculiar to Rome, either, really.

Honestly, we don't know that for sure; we'd first have to establish that MMLJ were the sole authors of the Gospels and after that we'd have to find out who they were, and then finally see if we could find out how long they lived.

However, the people who wrote this were literate, which likely means they were most likely middle/upper class freeborn or citizens. Even though literacy was quite high in ancient Rome, it depended on socioeconomic factors which also affect lifespan. As a result, they were more likely to live longer than others in their same position. Other things like climate or diet might even affect the data.

Also, there are stylistic differences between the Gospels that may suggest different educational levels and types of education.

Who? All of them?

Well, we don't know for sure how many people wrote these gospels; if it were four fairly wealthy educated men, I wouldn't be surprised if all of them lived to be in their 60's or older.

You realise this is illogical? You argue a high infant mortality rate brings down the number, but you don't think about what that would mean in terms of median.

It affects the mean moreso than the median. If you've got 5 people whose ages were 2,5,45,67,68, the average age is 37.4 while the median age is 45. It all depends on the data set used.

If our infant mortality were high enough to skew the results that much, our median would be about 6 years.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, we don't know that for sure; we'd first have to establish that MMLJ were the sole authors of the Gospels


No we don't. I mentioned 'apostles'. we shouldn't assume that the apostles and the authors are necessarily the same people.


However, the people who wrote this were literate,


I've seen exactly the opposite argument made on a lot of the scriptural sites I've visited. Indeed - it is usally assumed that the authors were largely illiterate, and that it is 'god dictating' that makes the text sensible.


Also, there are stylistic differences between the Gospels that may suggest different educational levels and types of education.


Indeed. Such stylistic differences even crop up within the Gospels. The most sensible assumption would be that the texts were written by one or more authors consulting older sources.


Well, we don't know for sure how many people wrote these gospels; if it were four fairly wealthy educated men, I wouldn't be surprised if all of them lived to be in their 60's or older.


If almost no one in that area lived beyond 40, I'd be very surprised. You seem to be assuming that these wandering ministers who often went without meals, and for whom the main part of their job was walking through deserts - would somehow have the same health circumstances as the wealthy citizens in the heart of the Roman empire.


It affects the mean moreso than the median. If you've got 5 people whose ages were 2,5,45,67,68, the average age is 37.4 while the median age is 45. It all depends on the data set used.


It does indeed depend on the date. And you are trying to suggest a model (that you can't support) that is proposing that the median is set to 40-ish by infant mortality.

You're really trying hard to ignore the obvious flaw with your conclussion there aren't you? You want to ignore the fact that the first sentence tells you plain and simply that the oldest copy we have is from the very end of the second century, thus, we know it is a copy of an earlier version. But this one DOES have euangelion kata Loukan on it, period, not speculation. Then the author discuss the possible reasons why it is there, and the topic moves into the speculative matter of guessing if the author of the copy was influenced by others, earlier than himself. But it IS there. We don't have any older copies of the book that doesn't have the name Luke on it.

Where is your evidence that the book was ever written without the name on it? You made the assertion that the gospel had no name at first and it's name was assigned to it hundreds of years later, you have produced zero evidence that any such thing ever actually happened and I presented evidence to the contraire that shows irrevocably that the name was already on there, on the oldest copy we have yet found.

The Gospel of Judas exists in documents dated back to about 130-170 CE. EVen if you don't accept that gospel as canonical, it proves that gospel documents did exist before this 200 CE figure your 'source' claims.

Thus - their suggestion that the oldest such documents might have borne names is hardly worth considering - they are talking about documents a half-hundred years too late.

Indeed - as Peter van Minnen says "For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125".

This makes a liar of your source. There were gospel sources earlier, which your source ignores - so, what your source has to say about those earliest sources is irrelevent.

(http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html)

Who's defining Him? Me? No, I merely repeat what Scripture says and until someone uses Scripture and Scripture alone to refute me, I will maintain it.

On the contrary - you are merely stating what you think the scripture means. And, I very much doubt you are reading the native tongues... so you are only basing that opinion on earlier translations by other people.

You can 'maintain' your position all you like, but it is worthless if it is based on nothing.