General Music Chat

OK Craig it makes sense that the Rev 22:18 was directed at the book of Rev specifically. I can't imagine anything else Craig.

I don't doubt that you can't brother.

That's why out of volumes of posts on God, The bible and religious matters, this seems to be the only one that got through.

Good grief Charlie Brown.

The God did promise that the bible was complete though. Which gives the same idea. Don't add to it.

I think you miss the point here. Is the Bible complete? Maybe. Complete how though? As a canonized book of books? For most of us, yes it is. Complete as a guide to living? Of course not. Life changes and so does society and technology. We look to the Bible for "clues" but the bible does not directly address issues that did not exist 2000 years ago. It gives us some clues we can go by to help make our decisions, but complete? Not by a long shot. Humanity will face myriad issues, that will be difficult to judge. And it will be necessary to refer to scriptrue where possible, but also to pray and study on the issues. Is the Bible complete in it's text? Probably not for us it isn't. As users of the English language, we depend on translations of 3 different languages, including Aramaic which is considered in danger of dying out. Modern Aramaic and it's various dialects are still spoken today, but by very few people, proportionally to the world's population. Translation is a tricky issue. Some ideas are not easily translated into other languages. I know this for a fact, because I have learned the basics of several other languages before, and have had many many friends who spoke other languages and we have discussed this fact before. In many ways, English is not varied enough compared with other languages. We know, for example, that "love" can be romantic, or it can be filial in nature, as to children, but we don't say "I filial piety you!" , we still say "I love you" we "love" our spouse, we "love" our children, we "love sex", we "love" music, we "love" certain movies. Most other languages I am aware of, have several if not MANY words for "love" depending on the situation or type of love being expressed, but in English, we generally use "love" for everything and everyone.

Additionally, archaeologists are STILL uncovering writings or facts about civilizations, which CONTINUE to evolve our understanding of ancient languages and colloquialisms. If you are familiar with the Rosetta Stone, then you know that ancient hieroglyphics, were not deciphered very well, before it's discovery in 1799. It contained the same text in 3 different languages including hieroglyphs, and this one discovery GREATLY advanced the understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs, and therefore Egyptian civilization as well, cause now they could understand all the writings left by the Egyptians.

Is the Bible inspired? Surely. Is it perfect? Perfect how? Our English translation of the ancient manuscripts? Probably not. Is it perfect in it's revelation of God? Of course not. How can an omnipotent being with no beginning or end, ever be contained in a book?

It is a divinely inspired guide, nothing more, nothing less. There is no statements to be found about the harnessing of electricity, does that mean that we shouldn't use it? That is a moral judgement that must be made subjectively. Most of us have no problem with modern technology, but as you know, some sects are against it.

I see your banning of instruments, as archaic as the Amish banning electricity and automobiles.

But anyway the descriptions of the false Church are in I Tim 4:1-3
Here is

I Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Sound familiar?

Don't tell me you are about to misuse this verse and apply it to Catholics are you?

Just say Craig that the verses I quoted (and yes I did quote the rev verses) are binding.

As to religious traditions and ceremonial exercises, very little of the Bible is "binding" Paul, which is the point you CONTINUALLY miss. It is about the heart Paul. The Bible is replete with examples of broken rules, and sometimes, there is no condemnation of it, as in the case of David and Jesus and Moses and on and on. As the New Testament makes abundantly clear, the LAW is made for man, NOT man for the law. Yet, you honor a supposed "law of example" that merely because the early church was too poor, and too busy and too unorganized to include instruments in service, that this should ALWAYS remain so. Instruments are merely an aspect of worship, a supporting element of it, as is your use of microphones and speakers, but you will not apply the same logic to both. That is just so hypocritical. But what are you to do? You've got your position and culture and the respect of your community, how could you possibly give that up, or even publicly challenge it, as a result of admitting the truth? You can't. It takes alot of courage to live that way.

Just say that by sharing it with 1000 people. 5 of them search the bible for themselves, do a lot of soul searching and praying, and then make some changes. If that puts them in the right relationship with God then it would definitely be worth it.

Sharing what? Scripture? Or how instruments can be used to praise anything BUT God? Sorry, not sure which "issue" you are enlightening the world with, and which "danger" you are saving them from? Instruments? Does praising God with an instrument have the power of endangering a relationship with a Father?

If you are talking about sharing scripture, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. But misquoting it, or applying it falsely when you are not an adequate enough student of the Bible is not always helpful. It could lead to confusion.

Craig, you speak as if Christianity were the only religion to include miracles. You need to read more world news, my boy. From the Hindus to the Buddhists to the Moslems & the pagans, miracles abound. I, myself, once found Buddha on my taco shell.

Yes, the annointed one is supposed to be from the Davidic line, which brings to mind the pop historical novels suggesting that Christ did indeed marry & produce offspring. This makes sense, in a way. It WOULD have been very unusual for a man in his time to go through life unmarried, which was considered against God's will, since we were supposed to go forth & begat & such. Funny that would be left out of the Bible, or at least give me an explanation as to why he didn't marry.

Your knowledge of Constantine is lacking a bit. He was the one that combined Christianity & his own history of sun worship as well as the beliefs of the followers of Mithra. Mithra, btw, was born on Dec 25, & was resurrected, old bean. ( Miracles abound, eh?) Where do you think the concept of the halo came from? It started with Constantine, who added it to show the holy ppl in pics. Its source? The SUN! He also reestablished the sabbath on Sunday, rather than the traditional Saturday, again, at the influence of his sun-worshiping past. The fact that he didn't actually become baptised, & thus "converted" until he was on his death bed seems to have escaped your attention, too. I think he was merely hedging his bets on this one..."what if it were all true?" In spite of the fact that he himself was instrumental in its new form. Of course, as emperor, before he brought Christianity to the forefront as the new sanctioned religion, he, himself, was considered either a god, or a godson, so his powers in the establishment of a new religion may have held more sway even with his own self.

My "dark other-worldly sense of humor," Craig? I'm just speaking of my own beliefs. I'm not trying to tear down Christianity for you. That would be pointless. I'm saying that I believe differently, & that this religion couldn't possibly fit into my belief structure. Sorry you seem to have such a problem with that. I, however, am quite happy with the state of my soul in this world & the next, as I follow my own path.

Have you never done that little experiment where you have a large circle of ppl, & whisper a sentence in one person's ear, then have it repeated throughout the circle? At the end, the message is invariably distorted.

Now apply that to a 60-100 year period. Oral traditions, indeed. This is your proof of the Bible's divinity? Sorry. It doesn't work for me.

It wasn't until Paul got involved in this entire process of establishing a new religion that there even existed the idea that "Jesus died to accept our sins." It didn't exist in the Old Testament. It wasn't in the Gospels until after Paul put his finger in the pie. He managed to complicate the religion enough that ppl really needed priests to understand it & explain it to the masses. Then came the concept that only through a middleman (priest) could you reach heaven at all. I personally think it was a stroke of genius on his part, & assured the Roman's power base for nearly 2,000 years.

For you to glibbly point out that all other views are ridiculous is rather conceited, Craig. It is not ridiculous for any man to question things, or to come to his own conclusions on things he has pondered.

As I said - I have my way & you have yours, & Paul has his own.

Arguing about it all won't change his beliefs or mine. We both maintain that we are right in our beliefs, just like you. I can sense your frustration, here, & would offer help if I had it for you.

You seem on the one hand to accept your Bible as the end all & be all, while on the other hand you admit that it is not all-inclusive as the human race & its technology evolve. Are there new books to be written?

My beliefs cover a bit more for me.

OK Craig it makes sense that the Rev 22:18 was directed at the book of Rev specifically. I can't imagine anything else Craig.

I don't doubt that you can't brother.

That's why out of volumes of posts on God, The bible and religious matters, this seems to be the only one that got threw.

Good grief Charlie Brown.

You "got through" on that one because you were right... on that one. That just goes to show I am researching. I'm not spewing what I've been told. It also shows I'm willing to admit when I am wrong. See you are trying to get through to me but imagine this I've been trying to get through to you too.

The God did promise that the bible was complete though. Which gives the same idea. Don't add to it.

Is the Bible complete? Maybe. Complete how though? As a canonized book of books? For most of us, yes it is. Complete as a guide to living? Of course not. Life changes and so does society and technology.

That says it all right there. That is the crux of our differences. Of course it is a complete guide to living. First God promised it was. Second there is "nothing new under the sun". Man I can't even believe you said that. Of course God wouldn't leave us hanging. II Pet 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

Is the Bible inspired? Surely. Is it perfect? Perfect how? Our English translation of the ancient manuscripts? Probably not. Is it perfect in it's revelation of God? Of course not. How can an omnipotent being with no beginning or end, ever be contained in a book?

It is perfect in that it contains everything God wanted us to know about him and his will for us. It is perfect in that it contains all we need to know to please him and be with him after this life is over. If we follow it then we will know to research enough to know that like the word wine the word love comes from several words - eros (sexual love) phileo (brotherly love) storge (natural as in parents for their children) agape (God love). It is perfect in that if we follow the biblical qualifications for elders then they in turn will be wise enough and love us enough to pick a preacher that is educated enough to tell us the origins of baptizo which was transliterated to baptize instead of translated to immersed. It's as complete as God wants it to be. It's a simple matter of if he has the power to create the whole universe in it's complexities how hard would it be for him to maintain his will for us in printed form. Luke 11:9 " Seek and Ye shall find"

But anyway the descriptions of the false Church are in I Tim 4:1-3
Here is

I Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Sound familiar?

Don't tell me you are about to misuse this verse and apply it to Catholics are you?

All I did was quote it. I'll let you and anybody else reading figure it out for themselves. It's not like there's a question there.

Just say Craig that the verses I quoted (and yes I did quote the rev verses) are binding.

As to religious traditions and ceremonial exercises, very little of the Bible is "binding" Paul, which is the point you CONTINUALLY miss. It is about the heart Paul.

Again where we differ. The bible is clear that it is about the heart and obedience.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

You've got your position and culture and the respect of your community, how could you possibly give that up, or even publicly challenge it, as a result of admitting the truth? You can't. It takes alot of courage to live that way.

Like I said we did bring up unscriptural practices and change them. At my congregation it's a simple matter of. You bring it up, we research it, if we are found in err we will change the practice. We simply follow the bible. As a matter of fact we had to leave a congregation because when brought up an open bible with scriptures that showed a practice was wrong. They refused to change it the practice to match the bible. We left that congregation. There is your courage. Courage is continuing to quote, not misquote, scriptures to back up my faith when no one else here is of the same mindset.

The following ideas aren't in the bible.
I'm ok you're ok
Join the "church of your choice"
Just pray the "sinners prayer"
Many paths one destination.
God will forgive me even if I continue in a known sin.

Eph 4:4-6 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There is only one way to get to God. That is through Jesus.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Craig, you speak as if Christianity were the only religion to include miracles.

Miracles are about "God" not about religion, so no, I don't. This came up because some of your misinformation, is simply meant to explain away miracles as either lack of understanding of text, or else through a hundred suppositions of "what may have happened really" in order to explain away any possibility of supernatural events.

It WOULD have been very unusual for a man in his time to go through life unmarried, which was considered against God's will, since we were supposed to go forth & begat & such. Funny that would be left out of the Bible, or at least give me an explanation as to why he didn't marry.

Yes, not marrying or having children is unusual. What about being born of a virgin? Is that less unusual? But scripture claims he was. Even Muslims believe this about him. I don't expect you to, because that would be quite miraculous indeed. But it is also highly unusual for a man from a backwater town, whose own countrymen say of it "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" would have begun a religious movement that now includes a quarter of the world's population, and over 2 Billion followers by now. That's pretty unusual too. The fact that something is "unusual" does not make it untrue. Unusual things happen from time to time.

Why didn't he marry? Because...

1) He preached of his death from the earliest times of his ministry. He knew what his path was, and what the ending was to be.

2) His children would have been worshipped as gods.

Your knowledge of Constantine is lacking a bit.

I don't think so.

He was the one that combined Christianity & his own history of sun worship as well as the beliefs of the followers of Mithra.

Constantine had nominal influence over Christian doctrine. He left that to the churches. Where he would step in, is when infighting was not resolved, and to him, possibly threatened an orderly and unified faith, which could have threatened his own rule. So, it was a political decision, where he was involved, not one of faith itself.

Mithra, btw, was born on Dec 25, & was resurrected, old bean. ( Miracles abound, eh?)

What has that got to do with anything? Christ was born in Spring, not December. As the church has often done, they hijack pagan dates, and incorporate them into Christianity. This was their way of getting people to convert, but to not then also celebrate or maintain pagan rituals and beliefs. The solution? People celebrate this date, so we'll turn the date into a Christian holiday.

Where do you think the concept of the halo came from? It started with Constantine, who added it to show the holy ppl in pics. Its source? The SUN!

Phil, your knowledge of history is deficient to say the least. The Halo has been around for thousands of years BEFORE Christ, going as far back as ancient Egypt. Can it be found to have connections to Sun worship? Yes and no. The Halo, as a religious symbol is found in varied and diverse cultures throughout the world, including Asia, India, well, you name it really. In some cultures, it is related to Sun worship and others it is not.

However, it did NOT appear in christian art until the fourth century. Long after Constantine was dead. So much for that theory... old bean, was it?

But you bring up a good issue. My own personal belief is that Halos developed worldwide and independently of one another, not because of the Sun, but because of spiritual insight. I have seen what are called "Auras" on several occassions personally. And it appears as light around a person, almost as if coming from behind them, since it encircles them. If you are looking into their face, it would look in many ways, like a Halo. So I think, much more than the idea of Sun worship, a light eminating from someone, is rendered in art to add to the idea of a person's divinity or power or mystique. Figures like the Buddha are then painted to reflect that "holiness" or "light". But I think ultimately, that a halo os nothing more than an artistic rendition of an "aura".

He also reestablished the sabbath on Sunday, rather than the traditional Saturday, again, at the influence of his sun-worshiping past.

What? Where do you get this crap? Christians began honoring the Sabbath as SUNDAY from the EARLIEST times of gathering together after Christ's death and ressurection. Christ rose on Sunday, and this has been commemorated on sunday as the NEW sabbath ever since. The Bible has references to christians worshipping on "The Lord's Day" which was Sunday. As you yourself pointed out, the New Testament was written in the first century. Well Constantine was born at the end of the SECOND CENTURY. How then did Constantine institute this practice, when he wasn't born when it began?

The fact that he didn't actually become baptised, & thus "converted" until he was on his death bed seems to have escaped your attention, too. I think he was merely hedging his bets on this one..."what if it were all true?"

This is common knowledge. Constantine as an Emperor very likely felt that it was good politics to give Christianity full status, after all, many of his own troops were Christian and even his own mother was Christian. He may have seen the faith, which was growing by leaps and bounds, albeit underground, as a unifying new religion with which to consolidate his power thoroughly. As a new religion, it would not have as much sway, politically speaking, as the older pagan beliefs which had been long held and instituted. Meaning, the older traditions were well established, lending a degree of power to it's priests. He may have felt he had less to fear from this new religon, or could keep better control of it. An Emperor needed religious support to some degree. Christianity may have fit the bill for him best, politically speaking. But there is certainly more to the story than mere politics.

Just because he saw political expediency in all this, does not mean that he did not believe it had truth and was powerful. He saw a sign of a cross in the sky as a vision. When he then won that victory, that was all the proof he needed that Christianity was run by a powerful God. Also, his mother's belief in the religion may have held some sway.

He maintained his title, which involved his being a god himself. But it is possible, that for the pagans, he saw it as a way of maintaining power. In other words, in some ways he was accomodating both. Politics hasn't changed much has it? LOL

Have you never done that little experiment where you have a large circle of ppl, & whisper a sentence in one person's ear, then have it repeated throughout the circle? At the end, the message is invariably distorted.

Now apply that to a 60-100 year period. Oral traditions, indeed. This is your proof of the Bible's divinity? Sorry. It doesn't work for me.

Well, that's because you are unaware of the history of oral traditions. Going back to the earliest of civilization, before there was writing, things had to be remembered. These things were remembered well, very precisely in fact, by using various techniques that entire documentaries in fact, have explored. The stories told of origins and like Judaism of lineages, which were traced back to Adam, had to be recited orally. The ancients were very adept at memorizing huge amounts of information. It was necessary.

Gossip changes, but it is not the same for religious doctrines and beliefs. These things are considered sacred. I don't even have the time to type out for you, all the reasons you are wrong on this issue, but look up the Dead Sea Scrolls, and investigate how the Jews transcribed scripture so precisely, that over thousands of years, it is proven that they remain essentially identical, with very nominal mistakes made on occassion, which were sometimes missed.

As to oral tradition, I saw just how powerful it is, years ago, when I heard my nieces, reciting something I recognized immediately...

"Hello operator, give me number nine...."

And it goes on an on. They recited this little poem word for word, without a single deviation from how I learned it as a kid. They were 15, I was 35 or so. After 20 years, this stupid little poem was still being recited, word for word, by a whole new generation. This was just a kid's thing, and not even found in Mother Goose printed out for us. It was, in effect, an oral recitation, which had been passed down from one generation to the next. If it is that simple a matter, regarding something like a child's poem, then how much more so, for something as important as religious doctrine and history?

It wasn't until Paul got involved in this entire process of establishing a new religion that there even existed the idea that "Jesus died to accept our sins."

Oh really?

Matthew 26:28:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Did Paul write the Gospel of Matthew? Find me one biblical scholar who says that.

Maybe he wrote the Gospel of Mark too? Mark 14:24
I guess he wrote the Gospel of Luke as well? Luke 22:20

It didn't exist in the Old Testament.

Didn't it? Bible scholar Phil? Are you sure?

Isaiah 53:5-12:

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

For you to glibbly point out that all other views are ridiculous is rather conceited, Craig.

I never said such a thing. I said that some of the ideas are ridiculous. I don't think, for example, that it is ridiculous to believe that some of the Bible has pagan origins, considering that in the Gilgamesh Epic among others, we find many stories which parallel some of the bible's, and even predate the bible's accounts. That would be a logical conclusion on the surface. Whether it is or not, is another matter. Maybe some of it is, or maybe there is a collective memory of certain things, like the flood story, that are remembered and passed down in various forms throughout the world. Pagan origins or a collective memory? Either is possible. But my prayer and study tells me, on a personal level, that the Bible is special, that God's hand was upon it.

It is not ridiculous for any man to question things, or to come to his own conclusions on things he has pondered.

Who said it was? I have many beliefs that are not Christian orthodoxy, but sadly, I believe I found the truth on these matters, wheras much of christianity believes instead in misinterpretations handed down by the church fathers throughout history. Hell being a literal place, where unbelievers are tortured eternally is one such example. This is false, and I believe I can support that, not only through logic, but through scripture as well. Are hudreds of denominations of Christianity going to listen to me and accept the truth? Doubtful.

In the immortal words of the Moody Blues "I'm just a singer in a Rock and Roll band!"

As I said - I have my way & you have yours, & Paul has his own.

Arguing about it all won't change his beliefs or mine.

I enjoy debating my beliefs. When someone cannot refute them it strengthens them. When they do refute them with evidence, I get to change my beliefs to what has been shown to me, to be more correct. I find that for decades and decades of this simple little strategy, that I get to be right, more often than I am wrong. But gentlemen, for it to be a successful strategy, you MUST be willing to change what is shown to be wrong. I learned a long time ago, that this was far more preferrable to me, than maintaining a lie for ANY supposed trade-off. Money, position, power, prestige.... none of it is worth my character.

You seem on the one hand to accept your Bible as the end all & be all, while on the other hand you admit that it is not all-inclusive as the human race & its technology evolve.

How do I accept the bible as the "end all & be all"? The Bible is merely a tool, a guide if you will. As such it is very important and useful.

Are there new books to be written?

New books of "The Bible"? It's already been canonized.

New revelation? Yes.

The bible promises that God gives us revelation and prophecies personally. This didn't stop because the Bible was canonized, and Paul himself speaks of such prophecies as ongoing.

My beliefs cover a bit more for me.

Ok, like what?

Okay...had to dig out some of my old books, & yeah, there are some things I got wrong, although I don't think they're in your favor.

It could be said that Constantine "saved" Christianity.

He was certainly tolerant of it. His Edict of Milan stopped persecution of ALL monotheistic religions, not simply Christianity, in 313. His own religion at the time, the Sol Invictus cult (Invincible Sun), was also essentially a monotheistic religion. In Sol Invictus, the sun was supposedly the sum total of all other gods...it could allow ALL other gods, as they were all simply part of the ultimate god of the sun.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 was when he forced all the leaders of the different forms of Christianity to attend, & settle thier differences, which were causing trouble in the realm. It was at this Council that the question of Jesus' divinity was brought to a vote. It was here that it was firmly established as "gospel truth," for at the time, there were many who questioned the divinity of Jesus, including the Nazareans (these were the followers of James, Jesus' own brother, who continued to preach after Jesus' death).

According to a witness in Constantine's army at the time of his supposed "vision" just prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge, his vision was actually of his sun god, not Christ. He had been converted to this sun cult just prior to the battle. After his winning of this battle, the Senate in Rome raised an arch to commemorate his victory. The inscription on the arch says he won "through the prompting of the Deity." It seems that the deity referred to was not Christ, but Sol Invictus, the god he worshipped throughout his reign, & in fact was the chief priest for.

While popular rumor has it that he had converted to Christianity due to his vision, & put crosses on the shields of his army with the two characters "chi" & "rho," this is not what actually happened. The shield with the chi & rho was found in Pompei, & was dated at 2 1/2 centuries before Constantine. Throughout the realm, during his reign, the sign of the sun god was everywhere. At the same time he built a Christian church in one part of his realm, in another, he would erect statues of Sol Invictus (using his own features for the god, of course), & of Cybele, the Mother Goddess of Sol Invictus. Does this sound like he was in fact a Christian? He went for whatever would work to unify his empire.

The official state religion during his reign was actually sun worship, & not Christianity. An edict in 321 decreed Sunday as the day of rest throughout the realm, by law. Christians had no choice but to adopt it into thier own religion, in spite of thier historical Saturday sabbath.

Like the Egyptians, Roman emperors claimed divine right to rule by being descendents of the gods themselves. Constantine had to come up with something to assure his own right to rule. He nominally accepted the Christian god, the father, not the son Jesus, as his god. According to Alistair Kee, in his book "Constantine vs. Christ," the ruler ignored Jesus completely, and acknowledged only the father, which was more or less analagous to Sol Invictus. "Constantine in his day was the fulfillment of the promise of God to send a king like David to save his people. It is this model, so powerful and so pre-Christian, that best describes Constantine's role." Constantine had, in effect, become the Messiah, & succeeded in the temporal realm as Jesus had not. He gave the religion the respectability & acceptance that Jesus could not, as a mere martyr.

It could be argued that Jesus has failed in his every attempt at Messiah-hood, with the possible exception of the "saving of our souls," which is as yet to be determined. He could not rule. He could not shake the yoke of Roman rule. His artistry at manipulating the prophets' predictions to his advantage, while impressive, was not enough to save the religion or the people & thier culture, as they were oppressed for the next 300+ years until Constantine came along.

It could also be argued that Christianity as we know it is a result of Constantine's role much more than even Jesus'. No complete version of the New Testament exists prior to Constantine's rule, & in fact it is a direct result of the Council of Nicaea & other events of the same era.

In 303, the emperor Diocletian had ordered that all Christian writings be destroyed. Nearly all early Christian records, esp in Rome, were lost.

When he commissioned and financed the writing of new copies of the New Testament, in 331, Constantine allowed it to be rewritten as the authors saw fit, since there was so little of the original to go by. He trusted the authors to follow thier religious tenets as they rewrote this historical document. This is where the most alterations to the original message of the New Testament are to be found.

There are no copies of the New Testament that date back prior to Constantine's rule. He had it written. There are about 5,000 "original" copies in existence, today. None are older than the 4th century.

Am I to believe that these scribes all knew the oral histories, & followed them to the letter as they gathered together to rewrite history? Am I to accept that these writings, not merely from 60-100 yrs after Christ's death, but over THREE HUNDRED, are accurate, & divinely influenced?

That takes a bigger leap of faith than I'm willing to take.

Phil,

We'll get into some of this later. The book you are quoting from is "They Never Told Me This In Church" by Greg Deuble, who interestingly enough, is a former pastor of... ta da... The Church of Christ. LOL

Maybe Paul is familiar with him?

I haven't read this book personally, although I have read a dozen or so like it. So, when I get some down time, maybe even later tonight, I will re-read your post and see what I think, or may know differently than what you or the author claims.

I did do a quick search for reviews of the book, which seemed generally positive, mostly for those that aleady hold similar views and like someone confirming them, but I also found criticisms that many of the ideas held in the book, are not general consensus among biblical experts and scholars of church history.

I wouldn't know for sure, until I see what he says more, and what his sources for the information are. One review claims he relies a bit on several other authors whose views are not generally accepted by scholars.

In my own search for accuracy and truth, I have found volumes of such books, which have to be taken with a grain of salt along with personal research and reading available criticisms of the work and it's author, and then draw your best conclusion.

Authors and PHD's espousing almost ANY kind of view on anything you could think of, are out there, and you have to sort through it all.

I suspect though, that you have read only a few negative books, like most do, that merely confirm what you already want to believe, as opposed to seeking a full counsel from various sources.

Where Jesus and Christianity are concerned, aside from the Bible, I have bought and read many dozens of books on the subject, from apologetic works, to clearly anti-christian authors, to historians that claim to have no vested interest one way or the other and approach this from merely an historical perspective. They generally contradict one another, and many of them can seem persuasive on either side at any given time. Which is where the grain of salt and more research comes in. I have also owned Greek and Hebrew dictionaries to better understand the roots of the words which are translated in various ways into English. When I got my fist computer, I bought software for biblical languages and biblical study, cross referenced throughout, which made this work even easier. I have owned history books and books of writings from historians at the time, who mention Jesus, like the complete works of Josephus, for example.

My library seemed to rival ancient Alexandria's.

So, I have put years and years into all relevant issues, and found myself swayed back and forth at times, as I worked out a consensus for myself.

I haven't bought one book, or done a few internet searches to find some information I personally liked. I was buying dozens of books on all this, before there was an internet available to the general public.

One thing I grasped a long time ago, which you may or may not have yet, is that as competent as the information you find may seem, there is just as competent sources available which will refute it. It is not simple work. But much study and research is necessary, and it helps to understand what the general consensus is among scholars, even though, I have watched this change as time passes as well.

Hopefully, the more archaeological work that is done, and the more technology helps advance our understanding, it all will become clearer.

But don't assume that one pastor questioning his faith, is the definitive work and closes the case on the matter. It doesn't.

I'll respond more directly probably later tonight, when I am done with dinner and kids, etc...

P.S.

I'll also share a personal spiritual experience, which probably more than anything, led me to faith in Jesus as literally God in the flesh, and what made him different than other teachers or messiah's or religious leaders.

Actually, the books I'm using are "The Messianic Legacy," "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches - the Riddles of Culture," & "The Hiram Legacy" (which is basically poop, but does have some ideas worthy of mention).

I also have to take into consideration, well, what makes more sense - a man born from a virgin, a son of the only God, who could perform miracles whenever he wanted, yet chose to die on command from his father to save us all from our sins, & the sins of our ANCESTORS - or, a man who was born into the hierarchy of Jewish culture, who was trying to remove the rule of an outsider nation, who has been deified by men in order to hold power over others?

We have many analogous situations in modern times to campare it to, really - our own occupation in Iraq is one. Is Osama actually a devine being? To his contemporaries, he may very well be. That doesn't mean that I'll buy into it for one second.

If indeed Jesus was born of the divine father, he could not have been of the house of David, & had no claim to rule, even though his mother was supposedly of the house of Benjamin. It was Joseph who was of the house of David. Therefore, Jesus' brother James should have been the messiah, while Jesus should have held the role of head priest, perhaps.

Mithra was the son of a virgin birth. Perhaps this was where the Council of Nicaea got the idea. Mithra was born around 600 BC, was tortured & killed & resurrected after 3 days, & was born on Dec 25, & the religion stressed the idea of an immortal soul...hmmm...if they took one idea from the Mithraetes, perhaps they took them all? In Mithraism one can also find the apocalypse, the return of Mithra the deity to wipe out all evil, a day of judgement, & resurrection of the dead. They also have communion, during which they say "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me & I with him, shall not be saved."

There are still practicing sects of Mithraism today.

Yes, I have many questions regarding Christianity. I also have found a very practical religion that works for me. I only decided upon it after a lot of reading on the subject, & thinking about what makes the most sense to me.

If your god IS indeed the one true god, then I would expect him to be leinient in dealing with ppl who have issues with Christianity itself, esp after having so many negative experiences with ppl who call themselves "Christians." According to the Bible, though, he is not. I cannot understand such a jealous individual, or attribute such a petty human emotion to an all-powerful, timeless being. That, too, makes no sense to me.

If indeed Jesus was born of the divine father, he could not have been of the house of David, & had no claim to rule, even though his mother was supposedly of the house of Benjamin. It was Joseph who was of the house of David. Therefore, Jesus' brother James should have been the messiah, while Jesus should have held the role of head priest, perhaps.

Ok dude,

You gotta stop this, or I do. LOL

I'm trying to cook dinner for the kids, and it's already a little late for them!!!

But you may or may not realize that two lineages are traced for Jesus in two different Gospels. This has traditionally been attributed to one lineage of Mary and the other of Joseph.

There is no doubt that Joseph's lineage is direct from King David, but according to Luke's Gospel, so is Mary's. This is not proven, and is contested.

But regardless of Mary's link to King David or lack-thereof, by adoption alone, Jesus shares the lineage of Joseph. The concept of adoption was very strong among Jews, and Jesus would have been called "son of David" by neighbors, even if they had known that he was not blood related to Joseph (which was assumed at the time) merely by adoption as Joseph's son.

Some scholars point to Romans however, where Jesus is said to be "descended from David according to the flesh" as a hint that Mary indeed was directly in the line of King David.

Traditionally, it is only through the male that lineage is traced, but there are exceptions, where the line can be traced through the mother instead, and it is possible that Mary qualified, one being that if a man had no sons, then the line would be traced through the daughter. Mary had a sister, but there is no mention of brothers for her, so it is indeed possible that her father had no sons, and therefore the line would be traced through her.

It's okay. I think I'm about done, here.

Enjoy your dinner & your kids.

I'm outta here.

Peace, love & frisbee, dude!

This has got to be the best guiding light episode ive seen in years.

Actually, the books I'm using are "The Messianic Legacy," "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches - the Riddles of Culture," & "The Hiram Legacy" (which is basically poop, but does have some ideas worthy of mention).

Well, one of the quotes you posted is a direct quote from that book, which is how I found it online. I'm glad to see that you posted from several sources though.

We have many analogous situations in modern times to campare it to, really - our own occupation in Iraq is one. Is Osama actually a devine being? To his contemporaries, he may very well be. That doesn't mean that I'll buy into it for one second.

But he is very "messianic-like" isn't he? I wouldn't be surprised if that culture builds up around him. Well, since most Muslims believe that Jesus was the messiah (just not the son of God) and that he will return again (like Christians) maybe instead he would be considered the Mahdi which precedes Jesus' return?

Mithra was the son of a virgin birth. Perhaps this was where the Council of Nicaea got the idea. Mithra was born around 600 BC, was tortured & killed & resurrected after 3 days, & was born on Dec 25, & the religion stressed the idea of an immortal soul...hmmm...if they took one idea from the Mithraetes, perhaps they took them all? In Mithraism one can also find the apocalypse, the return of Mithra the deity to wipe out all evil, a day of judgement, & resurrection of the dead. They also have communion, during which they say "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me & I with him, shall not be saved."

Mithraism is a secretive mystery religion of which no documents survive and very little is known. Early Christians apparently accussed them of copying their religion (Christianity) and it is quite impossible to know who borrowed from whom. It appears possible that followers of mithraism borrowed from Christian tradition in places, but also that Christians borrowed from Mithraic art scenes, not having any Jewish ones with which to model after.

There are striking similarities. Just as there are between the Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament accounts of the flood. I once had a book on all the similar stories found among various religions and peoples, showing AMAZING similarities in beliefs and even detailed stories. Even among cultures that were so diverse it is unlikely there was any direct contact among them. It was a fascinating book, and seemed to show a unity, that could even be considered a collective memory, among ancient people's of the world.

This doesn't affect my personal belief much though, as I believe that God is Creator God who is God of all and Creator of all. I believe that God has revelaed Himself to all people worldwide, and even through various religions of the world. what has been termed the "Golden Rule" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found among most of the world's great relgions. Does satan inspire this principle or God? I believe it is God.

So, it may very well be possible that throughout the ages, God has given revelation to peoples according to their understanding of it, and filtered through their own cultures and religious histories. Is Mithra real? Is it a legend? What if it was instead a prophecy given by God of the coming messiah?

For me, God has been revealing Himself throughout history. And Christianity, is the clearest and highest form of understanding we have, where religion is concerned. To go from paganism and Pantheism, to the major turning point of Judaism and belief in a one God and adherence to laws, to Christianity and the principle of conscience and loving your enemy and sacrifice of self, and especially God being our father. I see a history of God pulling humanity into a closer and closer relationship with Himself.

If your god IS indeed the one true god, then I would expect him to be leinient in dealing with ppl who have issues with Christianity itself, esp after having so many negative experiences with ppl who call themselves "Christians." According to the Bible, though, he is not. I cannot understand such a jealous individual, or attribute such a petty human emotion to an all-powerful, timeless being. That, too, makes no sense to me.

Well, the God of love, is indeed our Heavenly Father, who created us, and created an entire cosmos for us to dwell in. My personal belief is that God is our father, who desires a loving relationship with us as his children, but that love is conditional upon our acceptance of it. Love requiring freedom of choice to exist, I believe God (being spirit) gave us a physical body to contain our spirit and soul, as a limiting factor. In other words, our souls remain in our body while alive. And as such, it limits us to time and space. If I think an evil or selfish thought, it requires a measure of time for me to complete the act with my body. Let's say I get mad at someone and want to punch them in the face. I must first get the desire and thought, and electrical impulses are then sent to my hands, which ball into fists, and raise up, draw back, and swing through the air at my target. But during this process, I can also "choose" not to hit, and release my balled up fists and NOT complete the act. This, I believe, is a major way that growth occurs, and growth on a spiritual level. It is why I believe that God has inspired ALL great religions with some form of denial of physical pleasure or even just physical desires alone, such as eating, sleeping sex, etc...

Religions have time periods they ask you to abstain from things. No sex before marriage, or sex only with your wife. Fasting and not eating for periods of time. Vows of silence, and many many other examples.

To me, what is in common among all of them, is the denial of physical urges. The control of the body with the mind (or spirit). As Paul mentions in the New Testament, we have sometimes two desires that occur simultaneously. As Paul states "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin"

It is an eternal struggle. And the prophets and religious leaders go to their mountains and isolate themselves and deny themselves sex and food and in that denial and separation, they are able to get in touch with the spiritual, with the divine nature. This is where revelation and clarity comes.

God, I believe, designed our spirits and souls to grow in the soil of our flesh. As I mentioned, we are restricted, in the physical world. But without time and space, without bodies, then when we "feel" or "think" something. It exists. There is no next step. If we felt like hurting someone, without our body, we have effectively done it already. The act is complete right there. Whereas in the body, there is a further step requiring time and space to complete. In restraining ourselves, in choosing NOT to do the evil. We grow. Our hearts grow and strengthen. Through this growth, I believe, the goal is to learn to love as God loves. to become beings of spiritual light and goodness, to come into a relationship of oneness with the Creator God, our Father, through a freely made choice.

People always like to blame God for not making us robots, who acted good automatically, but that robs us of our free will. Without free will, we cannot freely choose whether we will live in love, or live for ourselves. We cannot freely choose to love God, without the choice set before us. Without there being at least two possible choices. Evil exists, because without a world where we can see good and evil side by side, then there is no real choice. A restaurant with one item on the menu, is not a restaurant with a choice of items. So the results of all our choices, are allowed in this physical environment, to play out, side by side. We live and witness all of it, and are presented many, many, choices throughout our lives, for which way, we ourselves will choose to go.

The physical world, is therefore a school of love. And as we all know, some people actually learn in school and try to take advantage of the education, whereas others sleep through class, or fight the instructor (God) or attack those that are trying to learn.

God cannot be blamed for our bad choices. Without the possibility of evil choices being made, and the world suffering for them, neither would there be the possibility of a loving relationship with God, the source of all love and goodness.

Is it worth it?

A journey through a sometimes dark world, where we can be victims of evil, for the reward, if we accept it, of an eternity in light and love?

I think it is.

No matter what hardships a couple can go through, if they truly love one another and stay together, building a life, they would say the struggles were worth a lifetime enjoyed together.

How much more so, would be a lifetime of love with the author of love?

Forgot to mention...

It is easy to understand a suposedly petty and jealous and vengeful God, when you understand that God's revelation to man, is filtered through petty, jealous and vengeful humans. We are not perfect vessels for receiving God's revelation. The understanding of God in the Old Testament in general, was a much more veiled view, than the one revealed in the New Testament. But the revelation, to the degree that it is understood in the past, is a step forward for mankind. As we take those teachings and practice them from generation to generation, then rather than only the prophet benefitting from such revelation, the culture and people in contact with that teaching are raised, and society begins to reflect that. After many generations, man sets himself up to be ready for higher revelation. A clearer view of God and his nature emerges, and hopefully adopted and practiced over more generations.

Interestingly, in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 years before Christ's appearance, various philosophical and religious figures and practices emerge almost worldwide, and almost simultaneously, within a few centuries.

Socrates in Greece, Zoroaster in Persia, Lao‑Tse and Confucius in China and Buddha in India, among others.

Was God preparing the world for a coming enlightenment of truth?

Maybe He was indeed, preparing the world for the message of Christianity?

Craig and Paul, Ive got a question?

Is it ok for a christian to play music in a bar.

I kind of struggle with this in my own life and Im just curious what you guys think.

JW I know you did not ask ME. But I feel I need to have some input here.
If your music is not creating a stumbling block for the humanity around him it does not matter where you play. As well If your musical message is creating a stumbling block for the humanity around you. It still is irrelevent where you play. It is the message that is important, and your intent. Not the venue. Though I play Christian music, I have no problem with secular music, as long as it does not promote the cockroach lifestyle I used to live.

I would fight to the death for your right to believe as you will, & worship as you will.

My question is - would you do the same for me, knowing that I believe differently?

Absolutely. I appreciate our religious freedom. I led the Church in a prayer last night and specifically thanked God for that freedom.

I wonder, Paul. I'd bet you have some very hard & fast rules about what you'll accept, like most of us. I'm not picking on you, understand. Most of us have problems accepting the ways that others choose to live, in many cases.

We Americans brag about our "freedom of religion" all the time, but tell me, seriously;

What if the religion in question includes scarification rites, or condones transvestism or homosexual union or polygamy, or uses possibly dangerous mind-altering substances to achieve a spiritual connection with one's ancestors or to cure ills of the body &/or spirit, or dangerous rite-of-passage tests - would you STILL fight to the death for a person's right to worship/live according to what his/her religion allows &, in some cases, DICTATES? Each of the above are allowed in different religions in different places across the globe, but not here, in America.

Tell me, folks. What are your thoughts on this? Where do you draw the line for a religion, & why?

I suspect that many, if not most of us have trouble accepting these things, & would fight to keep it OUT of America.