[figment]

Originally Posted by zenblader

Figment,
Your response to Rios929 makes my case. Symbolism? Imagery? And your last sentence paraphrases my entire argument on why it is reasonable to assume that not everything written in the Bible is a direct representation of what actually happened or was said. A writers ability to comprehend what he is seeing and hearing is also influenced by his own bias and preconception.

)

So at least four different people had the same misconceptions?

[ER]

Rios and Zen - great posts from the both of you. This is an interesting discussion.

I think what you both bring in to it is man's potential to misrepresent the texts, both in his studies and in the translations. This certainly is an obvious point, in that we only know history by what we can read and study, and today's politics should convince anyone that those in power tend to write history to support their agendas. Right?

In reading the Bible, I suppose you can either come to the conclusion that it is the most perfect book ever written or it's flawed by man. There are several things to consider though. First off, all translations today can be graded against the earliest manuscripts still available for accuracy. My NIV has tons and tons of footnotes where a word or a phrase might be represented in more than one way. Very careful detail was kept to ensure that the original meanings where upheld while the text was translated. It really is a work of art. Second, archaeology continues to support the assertations of the Bible. More and more findings are consistent with what has been written. Third, what would men in power have to gain from the Bible? It doesn't benefit anyone but the believer himself. The Bible doesn't tell me to worship Government, money, etc. Rather, it suggests that I put my faith in Christ and become a humble servant of God and only God. Who else benefits from that besides me? Living a Christian life includes charity, self-denial, love, obedience, and service....all in the name of God! Seeking His kingdom requires faith, and nothing else. No money, gifts...nothing. You believe and you seek to find His face in everything you do.

But most importantly and above everything listed above, it takes faith in God and a personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit to truly benefit from the Scriptures.

None of this means that the Bible will read the same to me as it will to anyone else. Most of the denominations today exist because of differences in beliefs of various Scripture. I think that's healthy, as long as the core essentials of the Bible are followed.

Zen, I often wonder how non-Christians live their lives with God. I wonder what they think, how they feel, and what they do to convince themselves that they are doing what God wants them to do. I know how I lived my life before, and how I live mine now. I asked all the same questions I've seen on the board. I've spent a little time studying Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shinto, but I've spent most of my free studies in Islam, trying to learn their beliefs. Is it possible that God would work through different means to reach different people? Absolutely. But if I am to believe that my faith in Christ is my salvation, and that only that faith can allow me to have salvation, then I have to believe that all those who choose not to accept Him are not saved. I don't think you have to have a Bible to be saved, but I believe that you do have to believe that Christ was the Son, that He died for you, and that He lives today...however you come to that belief.

[figment]

great points ER.

Typed this into google
"Biblical authenticity"
This was the first link that popped up...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...henticity.html

There are scads and scads of apologetics on it.

[figment]

I'd like to make a point to answer another off hand comment here earlier about the way Christians respond to the message of Christ. It's plain to see that bad news travels much faster than good. How many untold billions of examples of good deeds go unreported? Partly due to humility...Sure, Christians individually are capable of doing just as bad as any other human. But what other group has a track record for doing the same amount of good?

[Rios929]

Originally Posted by figment

great points ER.

Typed this into google
"Biblical authenticity"
This was the first link that popped up...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...henticity.html

There are scads and scads of apologetics on it.

That's an interesting link. It actually uses scientific principles to examine certain beliefs, instead of just ridiculously discrediting the science like so many other sites do.

[ER]

I agree - it's an excellent site that I've never seen. Read Archaeology and the New Testament under the Archaeology and the Bible section - it's very interesting.

Lost in many of the "I told you so" Christians out there are those who can genuinely support the authenticity of the Bible with scientific, historical, and archaeological facts. When you combine those facts with the proof that prophets in the Old Testament predicted events recorded in the New Testament in books written a thousand years apart then you can start to see how a very thorough investigation of the Bible might be in order.

[figment]

Check out the site forum too

There are lots of other science oriented apologetic sites and publications. I can post some if interested. Very challenging reading in both a spiritual and perceptual manner.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

Rios and Zen - great posts from the both of you. This is an interesting discussion.

I think what you both bring in to it is man's potential to misrepresent the texts, both in his studies and in the translations. This certainly is an obvious point, in that we only know history by what we can read and study, and today's politics should convince anyone that those in power tend to write history to support their agendas. Right?

Third, what would men in power have to gain from the Bible? But if I am to believe that my faith in Christ is my salvation, and that only that faith can allow me to have salvation, then I have to believe that all those who choose not to accept Him are not saved. I don't think you have to have a Bible to be saved, but I believe that you do have to believe that Christ was the Son, that He died for you, and that He lives today...however you come to that belief.

In Spain in the year 1478, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism as a means to control the country. The Spanish Inquisition and its inquisitor-general were empowered to bring Spaniards to trial for acts of heresy and sedition. Citizens turned on each other and offered false testimony for favor and spite. Thousands were killed or wrongly imprisoned until the Inquisition was finally abolished in 1834. It is pretty naive to think that the Bible or the notion that a particular interpretation of the Bible and its Gospels are not used by men in power, in the way allexclusionary interpretations are used to set differences among men. You can believe anything you want, clearly. I just don't see what is even gained by discussing how others will not be saved unless they accept your interpretation.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by ER

But if I am to believe that my faith in Christ is my salvation, and that only that faith can allow me to have salvation, then I have to believe that all those who choose not to accept Him are not saved. I don't think you have to have a Bible to be saved, but I believe that you do have to believe that Christ was the Son, that He died for you, and that He lives today...however you come to that belief.

You and Fig make claims to support the Bible that are not at issue. No one has said the Bible does not at least minimally point to events and nations that existed during those times. At issue is the third person reporting of what Jesus said- word for word. Even our courts know the value between first and third person accounts.

Bottom line is that there are millions, probably billions of people who have in the past and currently maintain a personal relationship with God as they understand him, without having heard of Jesus or accepting the particulars of his life. You believe the word for word recounts in the Bible, and that the fate of souls rests on this account, despite the fact that it is a book written by man over twenty centuries ago. Fine. If you're right, countless Muslims Buddhists and Hindus, etc, etc. will not experience God's gift of eternal life and his promise for peace. I believe you are wrong, as are most who exclude others from rights or future because they do not look the same or act the same or believe the same. I believe that Jesus was not exclusive and that his words were misrepresented by men who wanted him to be the powerful leader of an exclusive sect. I believe that God is not exclusive. I prefer to start my day and go to my death with a prayer that all people accept God in a way that resonates with their spirit. I truly believe that everyone is a child of God and therefore capable of relating to God on that very basic level.

[ER]

Originally Posted by zenblader

In Spain in the year 1478, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism as a means to control the country. The Spanish Inquisition and its inquisitor-general were empowered to bring Spaniards to trial for acts of heresy and sedition. Citizens turned on each other and offered false testimony for favor and spite. Thousands were killed or wrongly imprisoned until the Inquisition was finally abolished in 1834. It is pretty naive to think that the Bible or the notion that a particular interpretation of the Bible and its Gospels are not used by men in power, in the way allexclusionary interpretations are used to set differences among men. You can believe anything you want, clearly. I just don't see what is even gained by discussing how others will not be saved unless they accept your interpretation.

Interestingly enough, I did a quick search in Google to read more on what you've mentioned and I noticed this:

The Council of Inquisition was organized and authorized by papal bull in 1478, and it was given the task of enforcing the uniformity of religious practice. It is important to note that in 1478, Luther and Calvin of the Protestant Reformation were not yet born, and therefore Ferdinand and Isabella would not have thought of destroying the doctrines and adherents of these great reformers. Spain developed its own "Reformation." The Inquisition was originally intended to investigate the sincerity of Conversos, people who converted to Christianity as directed by national law, who had been accused of being Jews and Muslims. During the Inquisition, Jews and Muslims had only three options: to be exiled, to be killed by the Inquisition tribunals, or to convert to Christianity. It is remarkable that only a few men agreed to give up their religion for most preferred to be exiled. In Spain, heresy was more than a religious question; it was also a political and national issue. As a result, the Catholic Monarchs founded an absolute monarchy on the ruins of the ancient institution (Mariejol 1961).

All I should say from what I've quoted above is that A) A reform of the Christian doctrine was made in the early 1500s to fall back to the most important messages of the Bible (i.e. the Bible is the Word alone, without human addition) and B) The so-called "monarchs" forced their beliefs on the people they intended to control through an absolute monarchy.

As I mentioned before, the Bible doesn't benefit anyone but the believer alone. It can't be used to control people without being doctored to stray from its original message of love and worship to the Father through the Son and Holy Spirit, because those who would seek to use it for their own worldly gains would be exposed as such. Where in the Bible would I be justified in demanding riches, fame, fortune, or any other worldly lust that the Bible would have previously warned against?? It wouldn't be possible without rewriting the texts. I'm sure we can both find many examples where Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) was used as a means to control people, but what we would find every time is that the Scriptures were either doctored or their meanings were misrepresented to the people intended to be controlled. The Bible in its entirely simply cannot be used as a weapon of tyranny, since it calls for those who would believe to deny their worldly gains, take up their crosses, and live holy lives in worship of God and God alone.

At any rate, I suppose I'll stop replying to this thread, because my intentions were never to simply discuss who will and won't be saved, but rather to witness my testimony and faith in Christ out of love while enjoying a great discussion. As everyone has pointed out, it's an individual decision to believe whatever you want to believe. As you said in your next post, the prayer to pray would be for all to enjoy in a love-relationship with the Lord.

Thanks for the discussion.

[figment]

Originally Posted by zenblader

You and Fig make claims to support the Bible that are not at issue. No one has said the Bible does not at least minimally point to events and nations that existed during those times. At issue is the third person reporting of what Jesus said- word for word. Even our courts know the value between first and third person accounts....

You are not considering the fact that there was NO time for myths to be developed about Jesus after His followers started preaching the Gospel, or the fact that the Gospel was preached in the same area where Jesus lived to the same people who knew Him. Not very likely that people would lie or embelish a story and not be called to acccount for it and later DIE for what they believed.

I feel completely clear about these facts and my position is that we have explained ourselves to the point that we feel we understand each others postition. Yours is that Jesus did not say the things the Bible says He did. We think it does and I have given you clear rationale to support it. I'm ready to move on, unless you want more

[figment]

Originally Posted by ER

Thanks for the discussion.

I thought you might like this.


Without a doubt

If you want, I can send it to you to read after I am done...

[ER]

Originally Posted by figment

I thought you might like this.


Without a doubt

If you want, I can send it to you to read after I am done...

Thank you for the kind gesture. I'd be happy to read it, and I can send you my address when you're ready. If it's a must-have, I'll go out and buy it. If you haven't read A Case for Christ and would like to do so, we can trade.

[figment]

Originally Posted by ER

Thank you for the kind gesture. I'd be happy to read it, and I can send you my address when you're ready. If it's a must-have, I'll go out and buy it. If you haven't read A Case for Christ and would like to do so, we can trade.

I have a huge library with a lot of books still unread. That title sounds like one I have read years ago. Perhaps I should send you a list of my favorite books or better yet, we could have a topic to list Christian apologetics we like
books to read maybe...