It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
jhill76
As I read many threads here on ATS. I being to wonder, what do you do in an instance where you can not find scripture to back up a claim made by another?
Yes, the Bible can be used to base many things of this world off of, but what do you do about some specific? For instance a name of an angel, a message from God, a description of heaven, etc?
I see many people will discount something, because it is not written. But, if Father allowed all to be written, the Bible could never be read from beginning to end.
So, do you discount, or do you try to understand?
jhill76
reply to post by ChesterJohn
The Bible is not a complete book of all things God. What is recorded from Genesis to Revelation is for man and concerning man.
Interesting. I agree with this statement as well. The inner workings of above, etc. are for above, and the Bible is for man to live life down here.
But, what do you do when information is presented that can not be easily found in the bible, but not a contradiction, just extra info?
CosmicDude
reply to post by jhill76
That's an interesting question. Fact is the bible is maybe the major influence for people behaviour now and in the past, so I too wonder how things would be if there was no bible
edit on 23-11-2013 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)
The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from.
RevelationGeneration
reply to post by jhill76
That's kind of a fallacy. In regards to an angel, a message from God, a description of heaven etc.. you have to see if what it is stacks up against scripture. As God or an angel of God will never contradict the Bible. If it does then you can know it is demonic.
sk0rpi0n
op, christian beliefs aren't necessarily rooted in the bible. Christian doctrine and the print in the bible are 2 different things. Christians usually apply unrelated verses to suit a belief system. For example, the use of the royal plural ''we'' in genesis is used to 'prove' the trinity. The truth is that there are several direct verses which contradict the very idea of the trinity.
jhill76
As I read many threads here on ATS. I being to wonder, what do you do in an instance where you can not find scripture to back up a claim made by another?
Yes, the Bible can be used to base many things of this world off of, but what do you do about some specific? For instance a name of an angel, a message from God, a description of heaven, etc?
I see many people will discount something, because it is not written. But, if Father allowed all to be written, the Bible could never be read from beginning to end.
So, do you discount, or do you try to understand?
arpgme
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
Maybe for the same reason he wasn't called father in the bible until Jesus came along?
Muslims admit that God is the Creator of all, though.
By the way ALL Christians are Gods, sons of The Most High (Psalm 82:6) and Jesus references this (John 10:34).
The Lord's Prayer starts off with "OUR" Father in Heaven, not just Father of Jesus but "Our".edit on 24-11-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)
LittleByLittle
CosmicDude
reply to post by jhill76
That's an interesting question. Fact is the bible is maybe the major influence for people behaviour now and in the past, so I too wonder how things would be if there was no bible
edit on 23-11-2013 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)
Lets assume that Jesus never came and preach his message and Paul created a religion based on it helped by Roman Politicians. Rome would still need a culture to spread to gain a more homogenized empire.
Would they have created another religion based on dualistic ideas of being the right culture apposed to others. I am pretty sure they would have since they wanted to be the right team against the wrong. Would they have found other spiritual leaders that they could use as example instead of Jesus.
What about Mithras?
www.near-death.com...
The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from.
The real question would they have hidden the energy system within the body that spiritual people can manipulate or would they have hidden it? I believe they would have hidden it just like they did with Christianity since knowledge is power and subjects with power and knowledge are dangerous to rulers and manipulators.edit on 23-11-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)
arpgme
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
Maybe for the same reason he wasn't called father in the bible until Jesus came along?
Muslims admit that God is the Creator of all, though.
By the way ALL Christians are Gods, sons of The Most High (Psalm 82:6) and Jesus references this (John 10:34).
The Lord's Prayer starts off with "OUR" Father in Heaven, not just Father of Jesus but "Our".edit on 24-11-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)
Well they knew what He was claiming, no question about it. He was claiming to be God. They were right. And as I say, the Jews got the message and a lot of people today who come around trying to tell you that Jesus never claimed to be God just don't really know as much as the blind, unbelieving Jews do. They regarded Jesus as a mere man who committed the terrible sin of claiming to be God. And this was to be punished by death. Isn't it an amazing thing, though, how unbelief disqualifies all the evidence? Isn't that interesting? Have you ever tried to talk to somebody about Christ and you've given them evidence and evidence and prophecy and science and miracles and your experience and what Christ...and they just nothing, zero, zonk, nothing. You know, unbelief eliminates all the possibility of evidence. These Jews never even considered His deeds. They were totally plagued with His blasphemous utterance and they could have cared less about what He did. They didn't even see the deeds in their perspective. They heard what they wanted to hear. He claimed to be God and they're ready to kill Him.
So we see the confrontation, the claim and the charge. Then we see the challenge. And this is really good. Jesus challenges them. He challenges them to be objective. He challenges them with objectivity. Now let me show you what I mean by this. And Jesus really takes the bull by the horns here and gives us a very good passage to use in terms of dealing with people who are considering Christ.
Now there's two different kinds of approaches to any problem. One is the subjective approach, and the other is the objective. The subjective approach means that you have a preconceived conclusion and then you accept the evidence which supports that and throw out all the rest, see. In other words, don't bother me, I have my mind made up, don't confuse me with the facts. That's the kind of attitude it is. And you know what the point is? Here you have this approach to Jesus. The Jews said, "You aren't God. You're a blasphemer therefore all your miracles didn't happen." See. Or, "The devil did them." You see, that's subjective. That's like going to your laboratory as a scientist and saying, "I think all of these ingredients will make Pepsi Cola, I know they will," and just pour it all in there and blow your brains out. That's not how you do research. You don't start with a pre-conceived conclusion and then disregard the facts. That's subjective research. Objective says, "Aha, unbiased, I take the facts and they lead to a conclusion." Jesus says, "Listen, folks, will you be objective about Me?" This is what He's going to say in these verses. "Will you just be objective. Will you get rid of this preconceived idea." This is what people do to Jesus. "Wow, Jesus isn't the Son of God." How do you know? "Well, I know He's not the Son of God." Oh, you've read...I always say to people, "You must have studied the Bible a long time to come to that conclusion." "Well, no, I haven't really studied the Bible, I just know." That...you can't come to any conclusions subjectively, all you're going to do is eliminate all the evidence because it doesn't fit your already conclusion, see.
So Jesus tells them to be objective and He does it from two angles, and I want you to see it in verse 34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law I said you're God?" By the Law He means the Old Testament, here He quotes Psalm 82:6. He says, "Well look here, fellows, you're all really bent out of shape because I claim to be God. God is only a word. I mean, God, of course, is a person, but the term that designates God, G-o-d, or whatever it may be, theos in the Greek, it's only a word, it's only a term. What are you so uptight about just because I claim to be God? I mean, after all...now watch the reasoning here...verse 34, "In your Old Testament, in your Old Testament, is it not written ye are gods?"
Now what does He mean by that? Here it comes, you've got to get this or you won't understand these three verses. In the Old Testament there were certain judges that were set to rule over Israel. They were to effect justice. And these judges had the responsibility of judging the people of Israel. They were like magistrates. They judged in the place of God who was, you know, the supreme judge. Any justice they did was God's justice. Any judgment they gave was God's judgment. Any rebellion against them was rebellion against God. They ruled in the place of God and so they were called in the Old Testament gods. It's just a term that means authority or rule. They were called gods. And so the term referred then to those judges of Israel. They received their office by divine appointment. They were called gods since they ruled in the place of God.
Now, watch verse 35, "If he called them gods, that is human judges, okay? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came...right? Those guys who were already on earth were called gods and to them the word came and the Scripture can't be broken." In other words, He throws that in lest they say, "Well, that was a mistake, didn't mean to call them gods, using the wrong word, probably the writer got mixed up." No, no, Jesus reminds them you can't mess with Scripture, that's what it says. If he called them gods and the Scripture doesn't error, if he called them gods and all they were were human judges...now look at verse 36, "Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemeth cause I said I am the Son of God?" You see what He's saying here?
These guys were on earth to start with and they were called gods. Can't I even be called Son of God when I was up there to start with? In other words, He says if your own Old Testament, fellas, if you're all bugged about this idea of calling somebody God, if your own Old Testament called human judges gods, you think maybe your Messiah might be called the Son of God? Pretty good argument. And He takes them right at the point of their law. Be objective, He says. There are many judges, there is only one Messiah, may I not have the same title that your magistrates had?
-- www.gty.org...
One great example of this is to look at the Muslims and see how they approach Allah. Even if the Muslims acknowledge that God is the Father (in the sense that He created all things and is the Father of all) but they can not come to Allah as a loving Father. There is still a major gap between the Muslims and Allah.
ABBA. Aramaic word for "father," which is a customary title of God in prayer. It was transliterated into Greek and then into English and is found three times in the NT (Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). The corresponding Hebrew word is Ab. The word abba is found in the Babylonian Talmud where it is used as an address of a child to his father and as a type of address to rabbis. It is equivalent to papa. This term conveys a sense of warm intimacy and also respect for the father. Because the Jews found it too presumptuous and nearly blasphemous, they would therefore never address God in this manner.
Jesus called God "Father" and gave that same right to his disciples (Mt 6:5-15). Paul sees this as symbolic of the Christian's adoption as a child of God and of possession of the Spirit (Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).
-- media.zondervan.com...
One of the most well-known statements of the Christian faith is the Lord’s Prayer, which begins with the words “Our Father which art in heaven.” This is part of the universal treasury of Christendom. When I hear Christians in a private gathering praying individually, almost every single person begins their prayer by addressing God as Father. There’s nothing more common among us than to address God as our Father. So central is this to our Christian experience that in the nineteenth century, there were some who said the basic essence of the whole Christian religion can be reduced to two points: the universal brotherhood of man and the universal fatherhood of God. In that context I am afraid we have missed one of the most radical teachings of Jesus. A few years ago, a German scholar was doing research in New Testament literature and discovered that in the entire history of Judaism—in all existing books of the Old Testament and all existing books of extrabiblical Jewish writings dating from the beginning of Judaism until the tenth century A.D. in Italy—there is not a single reference of a Jewish person addressing God directly in the first person as Father. There were appropriate forms of address that were used by Jewish people in the Old Testament, and the children were trained to address God in proper phrases of respect. All these titles were memorized, and the term Father was not among them. The first Jewish rabbi to call God “Father” directly was Jesus of Nazareth. It was a radical departure from tradition, and in fact, in every recorded prayer we have from the lips of Jesus save one, he calls God “Father.” It was for that reason that many of Jesus’ enemies sought to destroy him; he assumed to have this intimate, personal relationship with the sovereign God of heaven and the creator of all things, and he dared to speak in such intimate terms with God. What’s even more radical is that Jesus says to his people, “When you pray, you say, ‘Our Father.’” He has given to us the right and privilege to come into the presence of the majesty of God and address him as Father because indeed he is our Father. He has adopted us into his family and made us coheirs with his only begotten Son (Rom. 8:17). -- www.ligonier.org...
"If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God's child, and having God as his Father. If this is not the thought that prompts and controls his worship and prayers and his whole outlook on life, it means he does not understand Christianity very well at all." -- J.I. Packer
A study of the Bible/person of Christ does NOT tell you about Muslims relationship with God. So your statements about there being a "gap" are just your opinions.
From my study of the Bible and knowing who the true and living God is. I have carefully studied the Person of Christ.
"All-Loving" is not the same as "Is Love" or being called "Abba"
Is Allah your heavenly Father?
Is your relationship with Allah like that of a loving father and a son?
If it is not in the Bible, what would you do?