the right religion

[Muffled]

So if I am understanding you correctly:

1) You can ask God questions/ Talk to God directly
2) God answers your questions
3) You have also talked to Satan (how else would you know the difference?)

Yes.

I don't talk to him other than to tell him to get lost. He does his best to talk to me but I am not listening to lies.

 

[Muffled]

I don't find them so different. In fact it is pretty easy to mistake one for the other.

I think that would be the case for most people. One of the gifts of the spirit is a discernment of spirits.

 

[Oryonder]

Yes.

I don't talk to him other than to tell him to get lost. He does his best to talk to me but I am not listening to lies.

Wow .. that is very impressive.

Would you mind asking God a few questions for me !?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I think that would be the case for most people. One of the gifts of the spirit is a discernment of spirits.

It's amazing how much God conforms exactly to your image of Him, isn't it?

 

[1robin]

First off it needs to be said that the Johannine gospel bears little resemblence to the others.

The second part is that all Jesus is saying here is that one needs first die and be resurrected to see God.

I have never heard any scholar, preacher or commentary that suggests that Jesus was speaking of a physical death in John. He is speaking of the born again salvation experience.

 

[1robin]

It's amazing how much God conforms exactly to your image of Him, isn't it?

This is a meaningless statement. A Christian when describeing or considering God is restricted to devine revelation. If I made up a description or action of God that is not consistent with recorded devine revelation then it is useless (and not God). A sincere Christian can't construct a Christian God as you put it to conform to our wishes because there is an absolute objective standard that judges our beliefs in the bible.

 

[waitasec]

This is a meaningless statement. A Christian when describeing or considering God is restricted to devine revelation. If I made up a description or action of God that is not consistent with recorded devine revelation then it is useless (and not God). A sincere Christian can't construct a Christian God as you put it to conform to our wishes because there is an absolute objective standard that judges our beliefs in the bible.

and by what criteria do you determined what is divine revelation?

 

[Oryonder]

I have never heard any scholar, preacher or commentary that suggests that Jesus was speaking of a physical death in John. He is speaking of the born again salvation experience.

You have never heard that Jesus talked about resurrection after death ?


As I said earlier Johannine scripture contains some wierd stuff that does not resemble any other of the Gospels and it was not thought to have been written by "John".

John was written a long time after Pauls Gospels 40-60 years. and there is not anyting like this passage anywhere else in the Bible.

What the author was talking about is a bit of a mystery but it really seems to be taking Pauls idea of "salvation by faith" one step further.

As discussed earlier, Pauls ideology conflicts with both the words of Jesus and James . The passage in John is an evolution of a Pauline idea that was ill founded to begin with.

 

[1robin]

and by what criteria do you determined what is divine revelation?

That is really irrelevant to the point I made. If a person has a detailed revelation concerning the deity that he claims whether true or not my point still stands. Since a Christian cannot sincerely claim a characteristic for God that contradicts the revelations in the bible then we are not free to just make up a God that conforms to our desire. The fact that the Christian accepts the bible as God's self description (whether true or not) then we are restricted to what it contains or is consistent with it.

The issue of whether that revelation can be proven to be the correct one is misdirection and a whole other subject and has no bearing on my point. For a sincere Christian it is in effect, even if not substance the absolute truth. I have no problem discussing how we come to believe it is the objective truth but it's not necessary for the point I made.

 

[1robin]

You have never heard that Jesus talked about resurrection after death ?


As I said earlier Johannine scripture contains some wierds stuff that does not resemble any other of the Gospels and it was not thought to have been written by "John".

John was written a long time after Pauls Gospels 40-60 years. and there is not anyting like this passage anywhere else in the Bible.

What the author was talking about is a bit of a mystery but it really seems to be taking Pauls idea of "salvation by faith" one step further.

As discussed earlier, Pauls ideology conflicts with both the words of Jesus and James . The passage in John is an evolution of a Pauline idea that was ill founded to begin with.

I didn't make a point about everything that Christ said just that one event with Nicodemus. It is very likely that all the gospels were written before 70AD because they do not mention the temples destruction plus about a thousand other reasons and what order they were written in has no effect on whether it is true or not. The oldest frangment known of the Gospels is from John.
You are wrong about that passage being the only one that speaks of new birth. The bible is full of references and statements to that effect. Even if it was the only one your biased interpretation of it would still be wrong. It's only a mystery to someone who has not been born again. To me it's perfectly clear. The bible says that wothout the Spirit in the heart of the believer then spiritual things will be mysteries to them.

 

[waitasec]

That is really irrelevant to the point I made.

your point is moot unless you can explain by what criteria do you determine if a description or action of your god is consistent with recorded devine revelation and you have yet to explain by what criteria do you determine how recorded devine revelation is useful or not...

otherwise your just really ******* in the wind...

iow, you haven't explained a thing


do you care to or not?

 

[1robin]

your point is moot unless you can explain by what criteria do you determine if a description or action of your god is consistent with the criteria you have yet to explain that makes recorded devine revelation useful or not...

otherwise your just really ******* in the wind...

iow, you haven't explained a thing


do you care to or not?

Wrong, the relevance and suffeciency of biblical relevation to the sincere Christian is all that is necessary to validate my point. You are introduceing a related but seperate topic. I explained that a Christian cannot make up a meaningful description of God that is inconsistent with biblical revelation. He can make up a different God but he can't legitimately claim it is the Christian God. If I made a small pile of dirt and then claimed it was a supercomputer then that claim has nothing to do with anything and is meangless and doesn't suggest that supercomputers can be defined as anything someone chooses. I do not have to give a dissertation on how I know what a computer is for that point to be true.

 

[waitasec]

Wrong, the relevance and suffeciency of biblical relevation to the sincere Christian is all that is necessary to validate my point. .

:spit:
so the criteria is sincerity?

the implications of that is astoundingly ridiculous you know...

 

[Oryonder]

I didn't make a point about everything that Christ said just that one event with Nicodemus. It is very likely that all the gospels were written before 70AD because they do not mention the temples destruction

Tell that to the Biblical Scholars .. They disagree with you.

Look at Matt for example:

"It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70) " Gospel of Matthew

The dating of Matt is specifically because of references in Matt to events after the destruction of the Temple as you can read in the link provided.

The oldest frangment known of the Gospels is from John.

Ya .. dating from 125 or later.

You are wrong about that passage being the only one that speaks of new birth. The bible is full of references and statements to that effect.

Well then give some ..

 

[1robin]

:spit:
so the criteria is sincerity?

the implications of that is astoundingly ridiculous you know...

If you can not understand that there is a universally accepted definition of God's character that exists in writeing and that to make a statement about a characteristic claimed for a Christian God that is contrary to the accepted revelation says nothing about that God then I give up. If someone said they love you and then cut both your arms off then his statement about their love is a meaningless statement that had nothing to do with love. Your response has been (oh yeah prove love exists, what evidence do you have) that is just argument for argument sake and wrong anyway.

 

[waitasec]

If you can not understand that there is a universally accepted definition of God's character that exists in writeing and that to make a statement about a characteristic claimed for a Christian God that is contrary to the accepted revelation says nothing about that God then I give up. If someone said they love you and then cut both your arms off then his statement about their love is a meaningless statement that had nothing to do with love. Your response has been (oh yeah prove love exists, what evidence do you have) that is just argument for argument sake and wrong anyway.

well the description means diddly squat if there is nothing to back it up and especially if there is no criteria to determine it is the word of god

i mean do you normally confuse water with fire
the understanding of god is readily being confused with many contradictory interpretations.

did hitler convince an entire country through his words...?

 

[1robin]

Tell that to the Biblical Scholars .. They disagree with you.

Apparently not quite all:

Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.
Fr. William Saunders



Dating the Gospels: When were they written ?

• The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles (i.e., those that reject Christianity) is:
  • Mark was written around 70 AD
  • Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD
  • John was written around 90 AD
• There are evidence that all gospels were written before 70 AD, but even with such a liberal dating, all gospels are wriiten within the lifetime of various EYEWITTNESSES of the life of Jesus INCLUDING hostile ones
• This fact is important - human nature being what it is - if false teaching about Jesus were going around (e.g., that Jesus' resurection was false), these hostile witnesses would make sure any false teaching were corrected

Look at Matt for example:

"It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70) " Gospel of Matthew

The dating of Matt is specifically because of references in Matt to events after the destruction of the Temple as you can read in the link provided.

I disagree and have posted scholars who do as well. But in oreder to shorten this discussion, when Mathew was written is unrelated to our discussion anyway. If dates determine whos right and whos wrong then Paul wins. My point was that John is reliable despite your assertion it was written last. I do not agree with your dates but when they were written has nothing to do with their being true or not. It sounds like you dislike a claim that Paul and John make and so have tried very hard to invent reasons to dismiss them even though they have been a part of the canon for over 1500yrs and were written by people Christ himself chose even though he knew what they would write. If Christ accepted them then who are you to reject them?

Ya .. dating from 125 or later.

I wansn't saying that fragment means John was written earlier. IMO scholars don't actually know exactly when and in what order they were written. The one thing we do know is John is the oldest that we have. The rest is speculation.

Well then give some ..

"In his great mercy he (God the Father) has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you ..." (1 Peter 1:3-4, NIV)
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17, NIV)
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
1 John 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Bible Topics: New Birth, The
TheBible.net: Born Again: What Does It Mean? (Part 1)
I could keep listing them indefinately but those two sites are have more if you need them. Without the grace and suffeciency of faith for salvation aquired in the new birth then the entire biblical narrative makes no sence.

 

[1robin]

well the description means diddly squat if there is nothing to back it up and especially if there is no criteria to determine it is the word of god

i mean do you normally confuse water with fire
the understanding of god is readily being confused with many contradictory interpretations.

did hitler convince an entire country through his words...?

I still think you are missing the point I am making. If I claim to be a Christian then that means faith in the bible is necessary even if it's wrong. If I claim charateristics contrary to the revelations from the diety then my claims have nothing to do with that deity. I am not claiming that the bible is true even though I believe the bible is true. If I invent a God that is different from the one in the bible then I cannot claim he is the God of the bible. Think of it this way, the bible is the definition of a Christian God wrong or right. Any other God that has a different definition may or may not exist but isn't the biblical God.

 

[waitasec]

I still think you are missing the point I am making. If I claim to be a Christian then that means faith in the bible is necessary even if it's wrong.

like i said

the implications of that is astoundingly ridiculous AND dangerous.

If I claim charateristics contrary to the revelations from the diety then my claims have nothing to do with that deity.

by what criteria do you determine theses characteristics are accurate or not

i guess when you said

If I claim to be a Christian then that means faith in the bible is necessary even if it's wrong.

you don't have a criteria.

 

[Oryonder]

Apparently not quite all:

Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.
Fr. William Saunders




Dating the Gospels: When were they written ?

• The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles (i.e., those that reject Christianity) is:
  • Mark was written around 70 AD
  • Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD
  • John was written around 90 AD
• There are evidence that all gospels were written before 70 AD, but even with such a liberal dating, all gospels are wriiten within the lifetime of various EYEWITTNESSES of the life of Jesus INCLUDING hostile ones
• This fact is important - human nature being what it is - if false teaching about Jesus were going around (e.g., that Jesus' resurection was false), these hostile witnesses would make sure any false teaching were corrected

I disagree and have posted scholars who do as well. But in oreder to shorten this discussion, when Mathew was written is unrelated to our discussion anyway. If dates determine whos right and whos wrong then Paul wins. My point was that John is reliable despite your assertion it was written last. I do not agree with your dates but when they were written has nothing to do with their being true or not. It sounds like you dislike a claim that Paul and John make and so have tried very hard to invent reasons to dismiss them even though they have been a part of the canon for over 1500yrs and were written by people Christ himself chose even though he knew what they would write. If Christ accepted them then who are you to reject them?


I wansn't saying that fragment means John was written earlier. IMO scholars don't actually know exactly when and in what order they were written. The one thing we do know is John is the oldest that we have. The rest is speculation.



"In his great mercy he (God the Father) has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you ..." (1 Peter 1:3-4, NIV)
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17, NIV)
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
1 John 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Bible Topics: New Birth, The
TheBible.net: Born Again: What Does It Mean? (Part 1)
I could keep listing them indefinately but those two sites are have more if you need them. Without the grace and suffeciency of faith for salvation aquired in the new birth then the entire biblical narrative makes no sence.

To the dating : The general consensus is as given on early Christian writings .. we actually do not know when each was written in most cases exept where .. as in Matt.. we find historical events recorded that are datable.

Having Paul written earlier than the Synoptics does not help your case at all.

If Paul had known anything about the events of the life of Jesus then we would have expected him to have written about it. We have almost nothing from Paul .

If the synoptics had been written such that Paul was aware of the teachings therin then he would have altered his doctrine at least to conform with the words of Jesus.

He also would have referred to some of the stories of Jesus to support his teachings had he known them.

If there were some early versions of Mark and Q (from which Matt and Luke were later written) then Paul was obviously not privy to these which further supports the idea that Paul was not really an accepted member of the Church of Jerusalem.

The discord between Paul and the Church of Jerusalem is recorded by Paul himself and obviously James did not think much of Paul's doctrine.

The problem with Johannine writings is not only were they written later, but that these writings are in a completely different linguistic style (The writer was not a Jew) and the ideas are new.

In your link citing some Jesuit guy .. William (the Author) actually makes the case against this Jesuit fellows dating of (45-65) and no reference/links to this guy is provided .. What up ?

He cites Polycarp, Ireneaus, Clement .. and so forth as giving dates differing from the Jesuit fellow.

Not that this guy is scholarly in any way shape or form ?? He is an associate pastor for goodness sakes ..... Provided Courtesy of:Eternal Word Television Network.

He starts out talking about some course he went to where the gospels were dated 200-300. He was probably confused by the terms 2cnd and 3rd century. The second century starts at 100 and 3rd in 200 so what he means is that the course claimed 100-200.

Try the links I provided for something at least resembling scholarship.

The Passages you gave are not clear on the issue of "born again" in relation to entering the kingdom of Heaven. It is hard to tell what is being spoken about to begin with ... and even when they do come close it is from Johannine stuff which I just do not accept as reliable. (You are welcome to your own opinion of course)

I'm not sure if you are aware but " 1 Peter" was not thought, by the majority, to have been written by Peter. It is a fusion of Paulism and some other tradition.