Even John and Paul disagree with the God of the OT

reply to post by WarminIndy

Then what are we disagreeing about? I don't think of God as a monster, but when those scriptures were written God was making the statement that laws have been established for the purpose of helping all of society. I have a brother that is pagan and I have never stoned him. Does that mean I have a Biblical mandate to do so? Well, no. Stoning does not mean just physical, we can stone someone to death just by our words. The power of life and death are in the tongue.

So shall we believe in the tongues of men from millenia ago?

I happen to view evil people as monsters because they have turned away from God and commit horrible acts. I don't blame God for the actions of people. And I don't think I have participated in a thread about eating things.

im sure we've been over Mark 7: 19

perhaps it was someone else?

I have seen with my own eyes people who say "love is the ultimate" and then abuse drugs, get into fights with the police and do all kinds of other crimes, while saying "God is love". Yes, God is love, but also judgment. One time a lady was trying to witness to me about agape love, and was drunk while she was telling me this. I just had to listen to her, bemused. She kept telling me that as a Christian I had to show her agape love and give her a few dollars so she could go buy more alcohol. Agape love does not mean you enable another person.

She got angry with me because I did not give her the money and she stomped away angrily because I was not the true Christian like she was. But in her mind, agape meant loving everyone so much you just enable them, after all, that's what Jesus would do. I don't think Jesus would have enabled a drunk to remain drunk and keep them in a drunken condition. But her definition was based in love.

I view God as a parent and one who may seem harsh, but does things for our benefit. That is what a loving parent does. Love does not imply a permissiveness, that would not make a very good parent. Love includes teaching as to why we should not do certain things and what the cause is if we do such things.

Theres an interesting verse in Thomas...

42 Jesus said, "Be passersby."

He told me one time about a visitation from a dark being that told him all was lost, that God would never love him again.

Why would he believe such rubbish if he knew this was a "dark being" so to speak?

Then his life was full of turmoil and destruction. How do you tell someone who is in that condition? You can't, you just have to show them. He blames God for everything, and yet he was the one who turned away from God.

Eventually he will learn his lessons... or he won't...

All one can do is point in the right direction...

I have lived on this planet for some time now and have seen many kinds of people. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I have seen the destruction that comes from turning away from God, and I have seen destruction brought into the lives of people that believe in God. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. But one thing I have learned is this, love also means doing what is right for the other person, not just saying God is love. If walking away from some people is going to bring peace, then walk away. That also is a part of loving. Jesus didn't just die for our lack of love, He died for our sins.

I don't recall any passage saying "turn your back on your brother"

Little help?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So shall we believe in the tongues of men from millenia ago?

Yes, because those men lived with the same things we have today. There is nothing new under the sun. Their societies had the same issues as we have today.

im sure we've been over Mark 7: 19

perhaps it was someone else?

It was probably someone else. I just don't recall the discussion

Theres an interesting verse in Thomas...

42 Jesus said, "Be passersby."

The book of Thomas is Gnostic. I don't believe the book of Thomas is genuine. The two books mentioned by any Biblical writer is Enoch and Jasher. If Paul mentions a passage from Enoch as though we should know it, then we probably should know it. The book of Jasher is mentioned by Joshua, but that book is lost. But if it is ever found then we should know it. I am sure many other books were lost to history.

Why would he believe such rubbish if he knew this was a "dark being" so to speak?

Because he became so bound by it. He is a slave to it.

Eventually he will learn his lessons... or he won't...

All one can do is point in the right direction...

From your mouth to God's ear.

I don't recall any passage saying "turn your back on your brother"

I have not done that, but just to avoid arguments we don't speak a lot, but we do when he is feeling ok enough to talk to me. He, as a pagan, earned his degree from Indiana Wesleyan and graduated Summa Cum Laude after I helped him four years when having to do religious essays. I didn't get credit....lol. But I took the time to help him because it was a good thing. I remember he called me one time and told me the parameters for a certain essay. He had to describe the leadership characteristics of a Biblical leader. Knowing my brother and what he would be interested in, I suggested Nebuchadnezzar. I explained to him who the man was and what he did and even went through the Bible together. When he wrote the essay, the professor told him that it was expected of him to write about a good person. I disagreed because those were not the parameters set forth. From all the discussions with me, my brother was able to make points that the professor did not agree with, but they were all Biblical what I explained. Even today, my brother will call me about a problem and I tell him what the Bible says about certain things. He chooses to stay pagan, but maybe one day....

And the walking away was not about my brother, it was a generalized statement that sometimes you have to walk away from some people when nothing else works. That is tough love. One thing I remember my pastor saying is this "Walk peaceably with all people as much as it lies within you, but sometimes it doesn't lie in you."

Right now it lies within me to be peaceable with my brother. But it did not lie within me to be peaceable with my ex-spouse who did things wrong to other people. I had to walk away because loving his victims took more precedence. So yes, I do get it about love and conscience. No amount of loving my ex-spouse was going to help his victims. For conscience sake, I had to walk away.

Were you the one who asked me if I should tell you to give up smoking?

reply to post by MamaJ

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Akragon

 

I cant tell you how many times Christians told me I was not a Christian since I didn't believe every word in the Bible was from God himself. lol

Every word in the bible was planned, and thus part of God's ultimate plan for this cycle of time for mankind. Every single word/discrepancy and addition of man's individual thought in these books that is part of what mankind calls canonical scripture was planned. If God wanted these books and letters that are considered canonical scripture to be perfect, it most certainly would have been perfect. Just as the writers of the letters have had their biases so will you. And that's why I personally think Father allowed those "discrepancies" and biases of man so that we could see those discrepancies and biases and gain the ability to eventually divide the light from the dark

Just as Father created light and dark, both are under His control and are tools to help us learn. Without the dark, we wouldn't appreciate the light.

It is this way for specific purposes I believe, what that purpose is, I can only vaguely put my finger on it: the "mistakes" are there for us to go to Father directly and ask what that verse meant, thus nurturing that personal relationship.

Just trying to help you think outside the box

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Akragon

 

I cant tell you how many times Christians told me I was not a Christian since I didn't believe every word in the Bible was from God himself. lol

Every word in the bible was planned, and thus part of God's ultimate plan for this cycle of time for mankind. Every single word/discrepancy and addition of man's individual thought in these books that is part of what mankind calls canonical scripture was planned. If God wanted these books and letters that are considered canonical scripture to be perfect, it most certainly would have been perfect. Just as the writers of the letters have had their biases so will you. And that's why I personally think Father allowed those "discrepancies" and biases of man so that we could see those discrepancies and biases and gain the ability to eventually divide the light from the dark

Just as Father created light and dark, both are under His control and are tools to help us learn. Without the dark, we wouldn't appreciate the light.

It is this way for specific purposes I believe, what that purpose is, I can only vaguely put my finger on it: the "mistakes" are there for us to go to Father directly and ask what that verse meant, thus nurturing that personal relationship.

Just trying to help you think outside the box

edit on 26-9-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)

HAHA! Thanks! The thing is, I already believe all that you stated. I know WHY the Bible is like it is (for me anyway), the Christian just believes differently and that is what separates us, unfortunately. Too many times was I told it was the exact word god all the while my heart denied those "facts".

Like you, my thinking also tells me the Bible was planned to be this way so we would seek him out personally. Thats always my response anyway.

Good and bad.... allows us to appreciate. Spot on!

Thinking out of the box is what I do. I can take you down some rabbit holes, I promise. lol

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MamaJ

 

I tend to look at the bible this way...

Jesus was sent from God... Christians call him the word, so lets work with that... Even he said "its my words that give life"... So his words are the prime source of "spiritual knowledge" within the bible... After which comes those that were closest to him... though they do hold insite into his life... They are not his words so others words will always come secondary to what Jesus said. And on a personal note i do include Thomas in "the gospels" even though it is controversial... Thomas holds a different view of what he said, and can usually only be understood by understanding the Jesus from the gospels. ( just my opinion )

Outside of which there are people that lived around his time such as paul.
.
And i would take other religious texts from other religions before his word...

the OT on the other hand holds little spiritual value outside the Psalms and in some cases proverbs...

I agree, Jesus was sent from God or perhaps we sent him as he was the best one to get the job done. Or.... he was the leader of the fallen in the first place.

In my view... Jesus Is most certainly the Word, and fits the description well. The evidence of the Word is in all "expressions of experience". The vibration can make or break a situation.

Because I personally believe in the incarnations Jesus embodied, I believe there are scriptures Jesus either wrote or helped write which makes it these said scriptures even more "true" in my view.

I love Thomas. Whether or not the Gnostics has anything to do with Thomas or not, they were also around before Christianity became a one God religion and we know the Gnostic thought was coupled into Christianity in its infancy.

A little bit of this and a little bit of that and now we have a controlled Religion named Christianity.

So be it.

God knew this, Jesus knew this and so now we have a controlled division.

For the one who believes in Jesus and his Word. We know there should not be a division among people. Its not natural to set yourself so far apart from your brother and call it "good".

ETA:

I agree with this scholar... en.wikipedia.org...

Biblical scholar Craig A. Evans also ascribes to this view and notes that "Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas... I'm not aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament."

And also this....

Another argument for an early date is what some scholars have suggested is an interplay between the Gospel of John and the logia of Thomas. Parallels between the two have been taken to suggest that Thomas' logia preceded John's work, and that the latter was making a point-by-point riposte to Thomas, either in real or mock conflict.

In my early days of searching and seeking out Jesus. I came across a man (Clement of Alexandria) who lead me down a rabbit hole. lol orthodoxwiki.org...

Here is a quoted text but ask any reader interested to read the rest of the page to get a better idea of early Christianity.

A little bit of this and that and Christianity was born. Seriously.... when one studies other religions it seems as they ALL lead back to philosophy. Whether it be Hermes, Plato, Pythagoras.... and so on. From the Gnostic, Pagan, all Jewish sects, Essenses... you name it. lol

His significance for the Church Clement's most lasting impact was his attempt to unite Greek pagan philosophy with Christianity. He shows exhaustively that the philosophers owe a large part of their knowledge to the writings of the Old Testament and expresses his own personal conviction when he describes philosophy as a direct operation of the divine Logos, working through it as well as through the law and his direct revelation in the Gospel to communicate the truth to men. Clement spend much time defining for Christians the originally pagan philosophical concept of the Logos, the principle of true Christian gnosis, through whom alone God's relation to the world and his revelation is maintained. God he considers transcendentally as unqualified Being, who can not be defined in too abstract a way (see apophatic theology). Though his goodness operated in the creation of the world, yet immutability, self sufficiency, incapability of suffering are the characteristic notes of the divine essence. Thus Clement emphasizes the permanent importance of philosophy for the fullness of Christian knowledge, explains with special predilection the relation between knowledge and faith, and sharply criticizes those who are unwilling to make any use of philosophy. He pronounces definitely against the sophists and against the hedonism of the school of Epicurus. Although he generally expresses himself unfavorably in regard to the Stoic philosophy, he really pays marked deference to that mixture of Stoicism and Platonism which characterized the religious and ethical thought of the educated classes in his day. This explains the value set by Clement on gnosis. To be sure, he constantly opposes the concept of gnosis as defined by the Gnostics. Faith is the foundation of all gnosis, and both are given by Christ. As faith involves a comprehensive knowledge of the essentials, knowledge allows the believer to penetrate deeply into the understanding of what he believes; and this is the making perfect, the completion, of faith. In order to attain this kind of faith, the "faith of knowledge," which is so much higher than the mere "faith of conjecture," or simple reception of a truth on authority, philosophy is permanently necessary. Christianity truly is a philosophy, and the perfect Christian is the true Gnostic—but again only "Gnostic according to the canon of the Church," not as in the heretical sect.

The text goes on to say...

In his ethical expressions he is influenced strongly by Plato and the Stoics, from whom he borrows much of his terminology. He praises Plato for setting forth the greatest possible likeness to God as the aim of life; and his portrait of the perfect Gnostic closely resembles that of the wise man as drawn by the Stoics. Hence he counsels his readers to shake off the chains of the flesh as far as possible, to live already as if out of the body, and thus to rise above earthly things. He is a true Greek in the value which he sets on moderation; but his highest ideal of conduct remains the mortification of all affections which may in any way disturb the soul in its career. The way to union with God (theosis) is for Clement only the Church's way. The simple faith of the baptized Christian contains all the essentials of the highest knowledge; by the Eucharist the believer is united with the Logos and the Spirit, and made partaker of incorruptibility.

Anytime I research the "beginning" of a religion it is always fascinating to see the infancy and what it has grown into. Man can definitely create.. thats for sure.

Clement of Alexandria felt as if Jesus was so divine he didnt feel a thing and really didnt even have to eat he was so pure. He believed all men would reach the point of Jesus..... Becoming Gods.

Maybe one day we will all become Gods and rule over a solar system too. We can then be the Sun/Son that gives life.

reply to post by Akragon


That doesn't answer the question -- if you agree with 100% of the things that Jesus has to say in the Gospels, but you think that God, as depicted in the Old Testament is evil, corrupt and (perhaps) a fantasy, why did Jesus refer to him as his Father in that passage from Mark, and say that the Temple in Jerusalem, where the sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament were being performed, was a sacred place being fouled by merchants and moneychangers?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

That doesn't answer the question -- if you agree with 100% of the things that Jesus has to say in the Gospels, but you think that God, as depicted in the Old Testament is evil, corrupt and (perhaps) a fantasy, why did Jesus refer to him as his Father in that passage from Mark, and say that the Temple in Jerusalem, where the sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament were being performed, was a sacred place being fouled by merchants and moneychangers?

I wanna answer!

Temple of Jerusalem describes within each person. Your temple is within.

Money changes the heart of men.

The Bible speaks in layers, have you noticed this?

reply to post by MamaJ


Herod's temple was a real temple, the large stones are still to this day scattered around the temple mount from when the Romans cast them all down in 70 AD.

reply to post by MamaJ


How can you agree with an argument for the early date and an argument for the late date? By the mid 2nd century Thomas had been dead for 100 years.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Herod's temple was a real temple, the large stones are still to this day scattered around the temple mount from when the Romans cast them all down in 70 AD.

HA! I know about Herods Temple.

Layers? I dont guess you see them either?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

How can you agree with an argument for the early date and an argument for the late date? By the mid 2nd century Thomas had been dead for 100 years.

I never said that I agree with both. Read again, maybe?

So what, Thomas was dead by the 2nd century? And?

reply to post by MamaJ


You should read again, Craig Evans is a great scholar and argues for a late date, I believe his quote comes from the book "The Case for the Real Jesus", by Lee Stobel a book I have read quite a few times. His quote which came from your link is under the subheading "The Late Camp". The other quote is from the subheading "The Early Camp".

So how can you agree with both arguments?

What do you mean and? And would be how did a man who had been dead for 100 years author a "gospel" that carries his name. The "and" would be that generally people who have been dead for 100 years can't write books.

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Herod's temple was a real temple, the large stones are still to this day scattered around the temple mount from when the Romans cast them all down in 70 AD.

HA! I know about Herods Temple.

Layers? I dont guess you see them either?

There is always a homiletical and prophetic application to all passages, but never forget about the literal. Always apply the "golden rule" of Biblical interpretation.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

You should read again, Craig Evans is a great scholar and argues for a late date, I believe his quote comes from the book "The Case for the Real Jesus", by Lee Stobel a book I have read quite a few times. His quote which came from your link is under the subheading "late date". The other quote is from the subheading "early date".

So how can you agree with both arguments?

What do you mean and? And would be how did a man who had been dead author a "gospel" gospel that carries his name. The "and" would be that generally people who have been dead for 100 years can't write books.

edit on 26-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I never said I agreed with both "dates". I will say now.... the early camp.

You can believe Thomas died or wrote whatever.... as can I.

You can deny reincarnation in the Bible, I can't.

Not sure we will ever agree on anything Biblically related, and thats ok.

I agree that Thomas and John intertwine and I believe Thomas writings are that like the New testament writings and are "sayings". Why? Because its the real deal.

My respect is given for all scholars even though they disagree. Thomas was probably pretty popular (a religion back then), in my opinion by 40 AD. Composition appearing like the New Testament, yet not included!!

Thomas, however may give an unorthodox view and for this reason it may not have been included.

There were so many different sects of religion by the time Christianity was born there is no telling what all it took from other view points of Deity at that time.

Also, Thomas says the same as Jesus.... the Kingdom is within. He gets the message as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Herod's temple was a real temple, the large stones are still to this day scattered around the temple mount from when the Romans cast them all down in 70 AD.

HA! I know about Herods Temple.

Layers? I dont guess you see them either?

There is always a homiletical and prophetic application to all passages, but never forget about the literal. Always apply the "golden rule" of Biblical interpretation.

I appreciate your teaching and concern.

Dont forget to not take everything so literal and know who you are being taught by Jesus. He is not some random Joe... He is a metaphysical and spiritual teacher as well. What is literal is also manifested in spirit as well as metaphysical. His teachings are layered and found within the heart of men.

reply to post by MamaJ


What they are saying is that the writer who made Thomas stole verses from the apostolic epistles and gospels and altered them to align with Gnostic doctrines. That's not a good endorsement. And you did agree with both, you said you agreed with Craig Evans, and you said "and this" which was an argument from "the early date" camp.

So how can you agree with arguments from both camps? That's like saying you agree with historical accounts of the holocaust and arguments from holocaust deniers. How do you agree with both camps in the wiki article? Or did you just not realize the Craig Evans quote was an argument from the "late camp" section of the article?

reply to post by MamaJ


Not to take literal? Do you know what the golden rule of Biblical interpretation is? "If the plain sense of the verse makes sense then seek no other sense.". Now, Im not denying the Holy Spirit utilizes metaphors and similes, but 99% of the time those literary devices are preceded by a "like" or "as".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

What they are saying is that the writer who made Thomas stole verses from the apostolic epistles and gospels and altered them to align with Gnostic doctrines. That's not a good endorsement. And you did agree with both, you said you agreed with Craig Evans, and you said "and this" which was an argument from "the early date" camp.

So how can you agree with arguments from both camps? That's like saying you agree with historical accounts of the holocaust and arguments from holocaust deniers. How do you agree with both camps in the wiki article? Or did you just not realize the Craig Evans quote was an argument from the "late camp" section of the article?

Why is it so hard for you to understand. lol

I AGREE that his writings resemble the NT writings. They should be included!!!!!!!!!!

Do ya get it now????????

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Not to take literal? Do you know what the golden rule of Biblical interpretation is? "If the plain sense of the verse makes sense then seek no other sense.". Now, Im not denying the Holy Spirit utilizes metaphors and similes, but 99% of the time those literary devices are preceded by a "like" or "as".

Not "everything so literal". Stop running with assumptions when all you have to go on is text without body language and a two way conversation.

I am saying it comes with LAYERS. Layers with literal. See???

You read your Bible how ya want... ok. Allow others to do the same.