the right religion

[Heathen Hammer]

Seems God kind of dissagrees.

Paul speaking, not God. A common man making his opinions. Not divine statements.

 

[1robin]

Paul speaking, not God. A common man making his opinions. Not divine statements.

Not again. Paul said he spoke by the inspiration of God. He was an apostle accepted by all other apostles. He succeded in every dissagreement with the others. He definately knew more about the law and wrote more on grace than all the other apostles put together. There exists no greater source on the subject with the exception of Christ who didn't write anything personally. I don't care if you do not like Paul and do not plan to cover this same tired futile ground again. Religion based on preference is a bad foundation for wagering your soul on but carry on. Ok, Thomas Jefferson just keeping cutting out whatever sections of the bible you do not like, but do not expect me to go along with it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not again. Paul said he spoke by the inspiration of God.

Paul said...

He was an apostle accepted by all other apostles.

Who were also all men.

He succeded in every dissagreement with the others. He definately knew more about the law and wrote more on grace than all the other apostles put together. There exists no greater source on the subject with the exception of Christ who didn't write anything personally.

... Says Paul.

 

[waitasec]

For the love.... You select the same old few verses to try and resurrect a point that died long ago even after I said it would not help.

no it didn't die...not by a long shot.

you keep contradicting yourself that is why i keep bringing it up.

you found god
didn't you?

James is contrasting two different kinds of faith. It is complementary to Paul's hundreds of verses.

oh i see, there are two kinds of faith now...faith with action and faith without action. you of course are championing faith without action, right?
and you conveniently left out what jesus said...
how odd....(pssst, not really)

I just can't justify going through this again with someone who desires the contention at all costs and pathelogically avoids the answers.

funny, you seem to be pathologically avoiding my answers

I do not even think you actually believe half the things you post your self.

i don't think you do either, being that you continually :foot:

 

[waitasec]

Not again. Paul said he spoke by the inspiration of God.

please...

if you can explain how matthew 25:31-46 can support anything that paul says about works, then i'll give you a

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not again. Paul said he spoke by the inspiration of God.

Exactly. Who cares what he admits himself? He's self-appointed. No reason to believe him, and many reasons not to.

It's amusing ow someone making this statement 2000 years ago somehow is so profound, yet you follow none of the modern people who said the exact same thing.

Religion based on preference is a bad foundation for wagering your soul on but carry on.

You do the exact same thing yourself. Derp.

 

[waitasec]

Exactly. Who cares what he admits himself? He's self-appointed.

but it's written, it's ancient...that has to give it some sort of validity!!!
:sarcastic

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The idea that he was somehow the primo apostle while having known nothing personal of Jesus is just absurd. Con men are usually very smart. There are a thousand examples. This isn't some huge surprise. Paul saying it is as valid as David Koresh having said it.

 

[Straw Dog]

Apparently your God is not omnipotent. My God can and did relate to man because he is a personal God.

We all have the same God, right? I also believe that God relates to man, but in a transpersonal way beyond the personal/ impersonal duality.

The fact that he did can be shown many ways but the only one necessary is prophecy. There is no other explenation for prophecy other than God.

Perhaps, but how do you explain the claim of confirmation via prophecy from other faiths? How do you explain the same sense of divine inspiration and guidance that many other people have around the world who's views differ from yours? There's no other explanation other than that all people are able to commune with the Divine directly regardless of beliefs, myths, or doctrine. It is a universal experience that doesn't depend upon any single interpretation or holy book. The Logos is written on the hearts of humanity and can be accessed through different cultural and mythological languages. We all have a different view of Reality and are dependent upon one another to make the most sense of it.

What you said sounded very metaphysical and new ageish but is some what self contradicting.

Quite the opposite. It's inspired by ancient wisdom traditions that predate Christianity.

If absolute knowledge can't be known then how do you know what you said is correct?

Because it's practical knowledge rooted in an understanding of the relative human condition and experience. It is tentatively universal, but not absolute in the dogmatic sense. Also, keep in mind I did say beliefs and concepts are still useful for pointing the mind in the right direction, but they cannot be perfect representations of the Absolute. Why do you think so many different people have different conceptions of the "Absolute Truth"?

If God is that impersonal how did he let you know that he is that impersonal?

God is transpersonal. It forms the foundation of my being and yet it ultimately transcends my very comprehension to contain the totality of existence. It is transcendent and immanent. This is why I don't understand the relationship dynamics described in your interpretation.

 

[1robin]

The idea that he was somehow the primo apostle while having known nothing personal of Jesus is just absurd. Con men are usually very smart. There are a thousand examples. This isn't some huge surprise. Paul saying it is as valid as David Koresh having said it.

I am not going down this road with you again. There is no end to it.

 

[1robin]

We all have the same God, right? I also believe that God relates to man, but in a transpersonal way beyond the personal/ impersonal duality.

The language you use is really out there. Almost new ageish. Well the bible says we either belong to Christ or Satan is our father. That's quite harsh. However I do not reject things based of preference and believe it to be true but I resist decideing who is who as much as possible. The God you described is only a concept from my perspective. It sounded deistic and I do not believe in that kind of a God (Mine is personal), however I won't know for sure until I die.

Perhaps, but how do you explain the claim of confirmation via prophecy from other faiths?

Based on the indidividual claims. I was looking at Baha'i last and they actually had a prophecy for an event that happened prior to the prophecy as well as other problems. It is a case by case basis.

How do you explain the same sense of divine inspiration and guidance that many other people have around the world who's views differ from yours?

Christianity is the only faith that requires and demands contact between God and man. Others may offer it based on condition but I have found very very few other religous adherents that claim an experience with a supernatural force. THere is no comparison.

There's no other explanation other than that all people are able to commune with the Divine directly regardless of beliefs, myths, or doctrine. It is a universal experience that doesn't depend upon any single interpretation or holy book.

How do you know that? Christ stated something quite differently. I am sticking with the guy who ressurected the dead and healed the sick.

The Logos is written on the hearts of humanity and can be accessed through different cultural and mythological languages. We all have a different view of Reality and are dependent upon one another to make the most sense of it.

Again what justifies this claim? Again I am sticking with the guy who had 350 prophecies about him and died for me and caused me to be born again and provided the way to heaven. I am backed up by the Logos contained in the most cherished and sudied book in the world. I see no reason to give credability to what seems like new age philosophy unless you can provide it.

Quite the opposite. It's inspired by ancient wisdom traditions that predate Christianity.

How do you know this as there was no writing predateing the oral traditions of Christianity. Exactly what books do you use for this (does what you believe have a name?)?

Because it's practical knowledge rooted in an understanding of the relative human condition and experience. It is tentatively universal, but not absolute in the dogmatic sense. Also, keep in mind I did say beliefs and concepts are still useful for pointing the mind in the right direction, but they cannot be perfect representations of the Absolute. Why do you think so many different people have different conceptions of the "Absolute Truth"?

Where does all this flowery metaphilosophy find root? What gives these statements credability. I need some kind of real texts or evidence before I could give these strange statements credence.

God is transpersonal

.What does that mean?

It forms the foundation of my being and yet it ultimately transcends my very comprehension to contain the totality of existence. It is transcendent and immanent. This is why I don't understand the relationship dynamics described in your interpretation.

My faith is far more practicle, relevant, and meaningful than any thing I have read in these strange statements. Does your faith have a more practicle, simple, or applicable explenation. I may be wrong but this sounds like the stuff a philosophy professor would try to say to convince a girl he was spiritual. Make it relevant and practicle and I will get more out of it. Spiritual language without very strong roots in reality is worse than meaningless, it is actually potentially very harmful. Do you have prophecy, verified historical corroberation, the greatest textual tradition of any ancient work by far, philisophic consistancy, explanitory power, and the most brutally scritinised text in history that has withstood the tests of time and is in very reliable form. Anyway Peace.

 

[1robin]

Paul said...


Who were also all men.


... Says Paul.

If Paul's out for some arbitrary reason that allows a prefered view point to remain intact, then they are all out and we are wasting our time in this Forum.

 

[1robin]

So you don't see any contradictions between the following gospels accounts?

Matthew 28 - dawn, earthquake, one angel moves stone, guards stunned, women instructed to tell disciples, women meet Jesus, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee
Mark 16 - after sunrise, no earthquake, stone already moved, no guards, one angel, women instructed to tell disciples to go to Galilee, [Jesus appears to Mary, Jesus appears to disciples while they are eating (Jerusalem?)]
Luke 24 - early morning, no earthquake, stone already moved, no guards, two angels, women tell disciples, only Peter visits tomb, Jesus appears to disciples in the city (Jerusalem?)
John 20 - dark, no earthquake, stone already moved, no angels, Mary tells disciples, disciples visit tomb, two angels and Jesus appear to Mary, Jesus appears to disciples (Jerusalem?)

By the way, Mark 16:9-20 don't appear in the earliest manuscripts contradicting your previous claim that the Bible is unchanged from the beginning.

This is going to take forever but I will honor my word. It might be in stages. First I have never said nor have I thought that the bible is unchanged. In fact I have said the opposite in every single case the subject comes up. I even use Ehrman's critical numbers and conclude the bible has approx 5% error. That includes Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous women and is notated in every modern bible I am aware of and so is not an issue of anykind since I and every semi aware Christian concurs.

You have condensed about 50,000 words into maybe a hundred without much in the way of descriptives or qualifiers. I would have to guess to what Dawn, dark, after sunrise, and early morning refer to. I imagine you are referring to the arrival at the tomb but am bound to assume incorrectly at some point. Is there any way you can group these under headings or some type of clarifying attempt. There is a good chance I would be 90% concurrent with the intent but this is just too much stuff to gamble on. I will assume I am right on the arrival issue and cover that one but will not go further until some clarification is given.


Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and at least one other woman (Lk 24:10) left before sunrise, heading for Jesus' tomb with the spices they had prepared. While they were en route, there was an earthquake at the tomb. An angel appeared; he rolled away the stone in front of the tomb and sat on it, frightening the guards. (The second angel may have appeared at this time also, or not appeared until the women reached the tomb.)
The women approached the tomb just after sunrise. As they approached, they asked each other who would roll away the stone blocking the entrance; but then they reached the tomb, looked up, and saw that it had been moved. Mary Magdalene looked inside and saw the tomb was empty (probably she bent down and saw the strips of linen, as Peter would later) and ran to get the disciples.
The other women entered the tomb and saw that it was in fact empty. They wondered about this, and then saw two angels sitting there. Frightened, they bowed down to the ground, but the angels said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." The women fled from the tomb, not speaking to anyone on their way back out of fear.
Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene found Peter and John and told them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" Peter and John then ran to the tomb, John reaching it first. They saw the linen that had been used to wrap Jesus' body lying there, then entered the tomb and saw the burial cloth folded up as well. They went home, but Mary, who had followed them back to the tomb, stood outside the tomb crying. Looking inside the tomb, she saw the two angels, one seated where Jesus' head had been and the other seated at the foot. Then follows her interaction with the angels and Jesus in John 20:13-17. Perhaps she clung fiercely to Jesus, which prompted him to say, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." After this took place, the other women were still on their way to find the disciples; perhaps they were headed to a known meeting-place that was further away than where Peter and John lived, or perhaps they first tried to look for Peter and/or John but of course didn't find them. Jesus then appeared to them, saying, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." The women found the other disciples and told them what had happened. Mary Magdalene arrived and also shared her story with everyone.
Harmonization of the visit to Jesus' tomb
I found this consistent with other accounts I have read. This is just phase one and I encourage any challenges as the subject deserves them, and I need to know what the specific contention is. There will be and should be expected some areas where an educated guess is appropriate. A detailed account that left no questions would have been impossible and impracticle. The bible would have been a hundred thousand pages of boring detail. All that is required and expected is no unresolvable contradiction. So let me know the things I requested and we can go as deep as needed or possible. If not too long I will post some relevant info:

Every Gospel is meant to be complementary to the others. They are also meant to stress different facts and focus on different aspects. They were meant for various audiences and had different points of view as far as what was intended for those differing readers. If they all said the same facts they would no doubt be accused of copying one source and not be as rich and as suffecient as desired. They are more than what is needed to justify faith. These issues will resurface often.

Some of the greatest legal mids in human history (one may have been the greatest legal mind on evidence presentation) have concluded and empatically stated that the evidence contained in the Gospels meets every modern standard of jurice prudence. Quotes available on request.
Selah,

 

[Astravalon]

Christianity is the only faith that requires and demands contact between God and man.

Are you sure about that?

Others may offer it based on condition but I have found very very few other religous adherents that claim an experience with a supernatural force.

Seriously? How hard have you looked?

THere is no comparison.

That’s difficult to determine definitively, due to too many variables, not to mention the subjectivity factor.

 

[1robin]

Are you sure about that?

Pretty sure. I did not invent that claim. I have heard it from many experts on comparative religions including Ravi Zacharias, Dr White and others. Do you dissagree? What other religious texts require and offers this to every believer? Gimmme verses not books please.

Seriously? How hard have you looked?

Not that hard but I have debated these issues for years and watched debates from most major religions. I have never heard another religion claim that their religion offers and demands a spiritual experience from every believer. The only person I have heard make a significant claim to supernatural experiences was based on a philosophy. Taoism I believe and not too convincing. Keep in mind I do believe that the experiences are promised by other religions but only in rare cases, also I do not consider enlightenment or the like to be supernatural or probbably even real.

That’s difficult to determine definitively, due to too many variables, not to mention the subjectivity factor.

I agree in principle, I was more concerned with the claims of religions more so than subjective individual accounts. It seems being secularly "spiritual" whatever that means has become a fad.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It sounded deistic and I do not believe that God exists, however I won't know for sure until I die.

This is a good statement, but I hope you raise from dead before you die.
(just joking)

Based on the indidividual claims. I was looking at Baha'i last and they actually had a prophecy for an event that happened prior to the prophecy as well as other problems. It is a case by case basis.

Would you like to share what is this about?

Christianity is the only faith that requires and demands contact between God and man.

Baha'i Faith does too.

 

[1robin]

This is a good statement, but I hope you raise from dead before you die.
(just joking)

Well where you been IT? My statement was badly worded. I meant I did not believe that that particular God existed, not that my God does not exist. I am not sure if that is why you responded but it needed clearing up.

Would you like to share what is this about?

How did you hunt down one sentence I said about Bahai in this whole forum? It was either you or the other Baha'i guy that I was discussing this with and I find it hard to believe you don't remeber all those "prophecies" I addressed. The one I mentioned in particular was one about the Germans and their two wars. It was a Baha'i site that said the first prediction was about the German/Russo war which took place two years before the "prophecy" was made. I need a break from Baha'i for a bit and so I will not get into it again right now.

Baha'i Faith does too.

I am not debateing Baha'i now but I would like whatever verses you claim guarantee and demand a spritual born again experience in Baha'i to every follower.

 

[camanintx]

You have condensed about 50,000 words into maybe a hundred without much in the way of descriptives or qualifiers. I would have to guess to what Dawn, dark, after sunrise, and early morning refer to. I imagine you are referring to the arrival at the tomb but am bound to assume incorrectly at some point. Is there any way you can group these under headings or some type of clarifying attempt. There is a good chance I would be 90% concurrent with the intent but this is just too much stuff to gamble on. I will assume I am right on the arrival issue and cover that one but will not go further until some clarification is given.

My intent was to highlight the differences, not to cut & paste the original text. Looks like there are at least two web sites attempting to reconcile the gospels. Both take very different approaches I might add. Let's see if this one fares any better than Mr. Pyles.

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and at least one other woman (Lk 24:10) left before sunrise, heading for Jesus' tomb with the spices they had prepared.

All four gospels relate the time they reached the sepulcher, not when they leave for it. Mark says the sun was rising and John says it was still dark. Both can't be right.

While they were en route, there was an earthquake at the tomb.

A great earthquake and only Matthew saw fit to mention it?

An angel appeared; he rolled away the stone in front of the tomb and sat on it, frightening the guards. (The second angel may have appeared at this time also, or not appeared until the women reached the tomb.)

Again, something as significant as an angel frightening the guards away and only Matthew sees fit to mention it?

The women approached the tomb just after sunrise.

Not according to John.

As they approached, they asked each other who would roll away the stone blocking the entrance; but then they reached the tomb, looked up, and saw that it had been moved.

According to Matthew, the angel was sitting on the stone and none of the women see it? Is Matthew relating the same story here?

Mary Magdalene looked inside and saw the tomb was empty (probably she bent down and saw the strips of linen, as Peter would later) and ran to get the disciples.

According to Luke, all of them told the disciples. Is this saying Luke was wrong?

The other women entered the tomb and saw that it was in fact empty. They wondered about this, and then saw two angels sitting there.

Mark says Mary entered the tomb and like Matthew she saw a single angel. Yet Luke and John say she saw two angels and John puts it after Peter and another disciple visit the tomb. How can they all be right?

Frightened, they bowed down to the ground, but the angels said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

Seems like an important detail for John to ignore, doesn't it?

The women fled from the tomb, not speaking to anyone on their way back out of fear.

Mary says "neither said they any thing to any man" but according to Luke, they "told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest". If it's all or none then one is wrong. If it's some then both are wrong.

Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene found Peter and John and told them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" Peter and John then ran to the tomb, John reaching it first. They saw the linen that had been used to wrap Jesus' body lying there, then entered the tomb and saw the burial cloth folded up as well.

Two disciples visit the tomb and Matthew and Mark don't bother to mention it? Must not have been that important.

They went home, but Mary, who had followed them back to the tomb, stood outside the tomb crying. Looking inside the tomb, she saw the two angels, one seated where Jesus' head had been and the other seated at the foot.

As pointed out before, this directly contradicts Luke who says Mary saw the two angels before returning with the others to tell the disciples.

Then follows her interaction with the angels and Jesus in John 20:13-17. Perhaps she clung fiercely to Jesus, which prompted him to say, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father."

So did Jesus appear to Mary alone as per Mark and John or to all of them as per Matthew?

After this took place, the other women were still on their way to find the disciples; perhaps they were headed to a known meeting-place that was further away than where Peter and John lived, or perhaps they first tried to look for Peter and/or John but of course didn't find them.

Still contradicting Luke. Maybe there are only three gospels.

Jesus then appeared to them, saying, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Read Matthew again. When he says Jesus met them, he was referring to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, not the "others".

The women found the other disciples and told them what had happened. Mary Magdalene arrived and also shared her story with everyone.

Before Peter went to the tomb according to Luke, unless he was wrong.

Like Mr. Pyles, this narrative doesn't even attempt to explain when Jesus appeared to the disciples. Did they follow his directions and meet him in Galilee or did he appear to them in the city?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How did you hunt down one sentence I said about Bahai in this whole forum? It was either you or the other Baha'i guy that I was discussing this with and I find it hard to believe you don't remeber all those "prophecies" I addressed. The one I mentioned in particular was one about the Germans and their two wars. It was a Baha'i site that said the first prediction was about the German/Russo war which took place two years before the "prophecy" was made. I need a break from Baha'i for a bit and so I will not get into it again right now.

I am not sure what you are talking about.

This is the Prophecy Baha'u'llah made regarding fall of Emperor of Germany before it happend:

In the Book of Aqdas, which was begun in Adrianople, and finished in the early years of Bahá’u’lláh’s imprisonment in ‘Akká, He addressed the Emperor of Germany as follows:

O King of Berlin! … Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III) and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them who reflect. …
O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.—Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

During the period of German successes in the Great War of 1914–1918, and especially during the last great German offensive in the spring of 1918, this well-known prophecy was extensively quoted by the opponents of the Bahá’í Faith in Persia, in order to discredit Bahá’u’lláh; but when the forward sweep of the victorious Germans was suddenly transformed into crushing, overwhelming disaster, the efforts of these enemies of the Bahá’í Cause recoiled on themselves, and the notoriety which they had given to the prophecy became a powerful means of enhancing the reputation of Bahá’u’lláh.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 237-242

I am not debateing Baha'i now but I would like whatever verses you claim guarantee and demand a spritual born again experience in Baha'i to every follower.

Then I will not reply to this for now.

 

[Straw Dog]

My faith is far more practicle, relevant, and meaningful than any thing I have read in these strange statements. Does your faith have a more practicle, simple, or applicable explenation. I may be wrong but this sounds like the stuff a philosophy professor would try to say to convince a girl he was spiritual. Make it relevant and practicle and I will get more out of it. Spiritual language without very strong roots in reality is worse than meaningless, it is actually potentially very harmful. Do you have prophecy, verified historical corroberation, the greatest textual tradition of any ancient work by far, philisophic consistancy, explanitory power, and the most brutally scritinised text in history that has withstood the tests of time and is in very reliable form. Anyway Peace.

May peace be upon you as well.