Rational Faith

[Cliffy]

The RCC originally opposed the translation into the common tongue because, they said, in the hands of the uninitiated it would become a dangerous weapon. They knew it would be misused and interpreted as literal truth when the church has always known it was allegorical and metaphorical. Their fears have been manifest in the evangelical, literal and born again movements.

2 questions: a) Who or what organization gave us the bible?
b) if the book says don't remove any part of the book then why does the KJV have 13 books less than the original document?

 

[L Gilbert]

Something just poked my memory banks (what's left of them):
Banned From the Bible I - The History Channel 02 of 12 - YouTubeOppps, meant to post the 1st one but oh well, you all can find it easily enuff

 

[Cliffy]

Something just poked my memory banks (what's left of them):
Banned From the Bible I - The History Channel 02 of 12 - YouTubeOppps, meant to post the 1st one but oh well, you all can find it easily enuff

Exactly, the RCC put together the bible and then the protestants revised it leaving out 13 books. Literalist believe the writings were divinely inspired and yet they also believe the RCC is the Scarlet Who re of revelations. The dichotomy is palatable. Recently, when I asked a Pentecostal minister if they still considered the RCC the Scarlet Who re, he said, well maybe it refers to the Muslim religion. Interesting bit of revisionism, since Islam wasn't around when the John supposedly wrote his book. Was that bishop divinely inspired when he decided what to include and what to reject? And why was there such an all out war declared on anybody who had different views, like the slaughter of the Gnostics and burned all their writings, the burning of the library at Alexandria, etc.

"It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine’s Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles."

more:
A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible

 

[darkbeaver]

"...then you must agree..." Well, No. I do not agree.

Mr. Beavers, Christians do not conclude the bible is an "unnecessary piece of luggage". Jesus certainly did not conclude that.

Jesus died for everyone, but not everyone will be saved.

Please link us to Jesus's commentaries on the bible. There are at least eleven better earlier bibles about Christianity all more comprehensive. The Book of The dead being my favorite just now. The death of Christ in flesh occurs millions of times each day and the resurrection of that divinity buried in flesh is our purpose in life, that souls resurrection from the pit of matter and it's reunification in the lake of fire with God the father of all. Easy to understand, nothing much to everything after all, no stone temples required, batteries always included.

 

[cj44]

What shall we do with the question - "What do you think of the Bible?". This is an outdated question and has no meaning since Jesus was raised from the dead. There is your "confirmation". There is your evidence and your proof. Certainly, you are free to disagree. The only question that really matters is "What do you think of Christ?" You can wait for the answer - upon Christ's return we shall all be in agreement as to who Christ is. "...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..." Or you can seek the answer presently.

The question is not "What do you think about Christianity". The question is "What do you think of Christ/Who do you say that He is?"

 

[darkbeaver]

What shall we do with the question - "What do you think of the Bible?". This is an outdated question and has no meaning since Jesus was raised from the dead. There is your "confirmation". There is your evidence and your proof. Certainly, you are free to disagree. The only question that really matters is "What do you think of Christ?" You can wait for the answer - upon Christ's return we shall all be in agreement as to who Christ is. "...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..." Or you can seek the answer presently.

The question is not "What do you think about Christianity". The question is "What do you think of Christ/Who do you say that He is?"

The dead are the souls cj44 they are sentenced to the underworld, earth, matter, we are all raised from the dead when we cease to breath. You believe your body is you when in fact it's just meat and bone, the temple of the soul you. Christ is the super conscience the creative power of the universe, the big mind, overlord of matter, husband of nature, potter of clay. Rising from the dead is illumination.
Christ is mind.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... since Jesus was raised from the dead. There is your "confirmation". There is your evidence and your proof. Certainly, you are free to disagree.

If we're free to disagree, you can't claim Jesus' resurrection is confirmation, evidence, or proof of anything. The nature of confirmation, evidence, and proof is that everybody can see them and agree on them.

The question is not "What do you think about Christianity". The question is "What do you think of Christ/Who do you say that He is?"

I think there was almost certainly a charismatic apocalyptic Jewish preacher in 1st century Palestine the stories are based on, and I say that he was just an ordinary man and no more likely to be right about the things he reportedly said than Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart. And I think they're foolish beyond description.

 

[darkbeaver]

Exactly, the RCC put together the bible and then the protestants revised it leaving out 13 books. Literalist believe the writings were divinely inspired and yet they also believe the RCC is the Scarlet Who re of revelations. The dichotomy is palatable. Recently, when I asked a Pentecostal minister if they still considered the RCC the Scarlet Who re, he said, well maybe it refers to the Muslim religion. Interesting bit of revisionism, since Islam wasn't around when the John supposedly wrote his book. Was that bishop divinely inspired when he decided what to include and what to reject? And why was there such an all out war declared on anybody who had different views, like the slaughter of the Gnostics and burned all their writings, the burning of the library at Alexandria, etc.

"It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine’s Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles."

more:
A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible

The RCC is the anti-christ, the great worshiper of flesh (matter) (clay), the prime idolator. Pretending faith and adherence from within a great heap of material wealth. Everyone of us born a woman is crucified in our cross with the material worlds. Substitute dimensions for worlds if you like.

 

[Cliffy]

What shall we do with the question - "What do you think of the Bible?". This is an outdated question and has no meaning since Jesus was raised from the dead. There is your "confirmation". There is your evidence and your proof.

Funny that the original christian texts do not mention the resurrection at all. That part was only added 300 years later. Can you explain that?

The question is not "What do you think about Christianity". The question is "What do you think of Christ/Who do you say that He is?"

Christ is a state of consciousness that anybody can achieve. It is a title given to those who are considered to have reached enlightenment. There has been enough evidence presented in this thread alone to dispute all your claims about Jesus, but I'm guessing that you have ignored it all and prefer to continue along your way hell bent for leather. The story is allegory and metaphor. Ask the Catholics, they put it together. Taken literally, the bible is a dark alley leading no where.

 

[petros]

'cause you got personality,
Walk, personality
Talk, Personality
Smile, Personality
Charm, personality
Love, personality
And of Cause youve got
A great big heart

 

[Cliffy]

The RCC is the anti-christ, the great worshiper of flesh (matter) (clay), the prime idolator. Pretending faith and adherence from within a great heap of material wealth. Everyone of us born a woman is crucified in our cross with the material worlds. Substitute dimensions for worlds if you like.

Oh, I'm aware of all that and then some.

 

[darkbeaver]

If we're free to disagree, you can't claim Jesus' resurrection is confirmation, evidence, or proof of anything. The nature of confirmation, evidence, and proof is that everybody can see them and agree on them. I think there was almost certainly a charismatic apocalyptic Jewish preacher in 1st century Palestine the stories are based on, and I say that he was just an ordinary man and no more likely to be right about the things he reportedly said than Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart. And I think they're foolish beyond description.

As for the fleshy Jesus I can't find even one candidate and neither could the early church fathers who to a man refuted the materialized Christ as gross error, only around the second century did the heresy gain ground as the Gnostics were being exterminated and the histories burned simultaneously.

 

[petros]

As for the fleshy Jesus I can't find even one candidate and neither could the early church fathers who to a man refuted the materialized Christ as gross error, only around the second century did the heresy gain ground as the Gnostics were being exterminated and the histories burned simultaneously.

Synagogues and Israelite Temples became the first Churches without any lag.

 

[cj44]

The dead are the souls cj44 they are sentenced to the underworld, earth, matter, we are all raised from the dead when we cease to breath. You believe your body is you when in fact it's just meat and bone, the temple of the soul you. Christ is the super conscience the creative power of the universe, the big mind, overlord of matter, husband of nature, potter of clay. Rising from the dead is illumination.
Christ is mind.

Mr. Beaver - Human = Soul & "Meat" as you put it. So, I think we are somewhere in agreement here.

If we're free to disagree, you can't claim Jesus' resurrection is confirmation, evidence, or proof of anything. The nature of confirmation, evidence, and proof is that everybody can see them and agree on them. I think there was almost certainly a charismatic apocalyptic Jewish preacher in 1st century Palestine the stories are based on, and I say that he was just an ordinary man and no more likely to be right about the things he reportedly said than Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart. And I think they're foolish beyond description.

Dexter, "..The nature of confirmation, evidence, and proof is that everybody can see them and agree on them..." Trust God in that you can know these things for certain now. Eventually Everybody will see them and agree. We haven't reached that part of God's timeline yet.

Seek God as he provided and you will be given the faculty to know.

Gerry, I disagree.

 

[JLM]

'cause you got personality,
Walk, personality
Talk, Personality
Smile, Personality
Charm, personality
Love, personality
And of Cause youve got
A great big heart

Brings back memories of Lloyd Price in the late '50s.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter, "..The nature of confirmation, evidence, and proof is that everybody can see them and agree on them..." Trust God in that you can know these things for certain now. Eventually Everybody will see them and agree. We haven't reached that part of God's timeline yet.

Seek God as he provided and you will be given the faculty to know.

I've tried going down that path, more than once, on the earnest advice of believers like you. I found nothing at the end of it, I don't believe it's good or even meaningful advice. You're asking me to believe that god's hiding himself from us and making salvation contingent on believing in him on bad evidence. My answer is no, I think that's a devious, manipulative, unreasonable offer, even a used car salesman knows better than to make an offer like that. If god's got something to tell me, he knows where to find me.

 

[Motar]

If we're free to disagree, you can't claim Jesus' resurrection is confirmation, evidence, or proof of anything. The nature of confirmation, evidence, and proof is that everybody can see them and agree on them.

The nature of evidence also goes to credibility, Dex.

The Gentile physician/scientist Luke:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4 NIV)

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:1-3 NIV)

The Gentile physican/scientist Francis Collins:

"I believe in the literal rising of the body of Christ. It's the cornerstone of my Christian faith."
I believe in the literal rising of the body of Christ. It's the cornerstone of my... - Francis Collins at BrainyQuote

 

[Dexter Sinister]

"I believe in the literal rising of the body of Christ. It's the cornerstone of my Christian faith."

It's the cornerstone of Christianity generally, if that didn't happen--and it didn't--the rest of it's built on a tissue of fabrication too. And that's one of the major difficulties I have with religion, it allows people by the billions to believe things that only a lunatic could believe on his own. If you think, for instance, that Elvis Presley rose from his grave and is waiting to greet you at Graceland, you've lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about Jesus and heaven, you're just a Christian.

 

[cj44]

I've tried going down that path, more than once, on the earnest advice of believers like you. I found nothing at the end of it, I don't believe it's good or even meaningful advice. You're asking me to believe that god's hiding himself from us and making salvation contingent on believing in him on bad evidence. My answer is no, I think that's a devious, manipulative, unreasonable offer, even a used car salesman knows better than to make an offer like that. If god's got something to tell me, he knows where to find me.

Dexter, I wish I could better communicate. I am fairly sure I have mentioned/suggested before that it is only through grace that we can have knowledge of God. We cannot think ourselves up into believing in Him and we cannot, nor does he want us to find him through philosophy or science. That doesn't mean that he has not supplied a way for us to know Him. You mention, "...if gods got something to tell me, he knows where to find me". One could possibly read into this statement that you may really not even be too concerned about god. Is it accurate to say that "finding God" is not at the top of your priority list? Or are you saying your method of operation requires scientific evidence - not only with god proofs, but with all matters in life.

Are you willing (or able) to suspend this demand for scientifc evidence?

 

[darkbeaver]

Christians worship mud. They were warned against exactly that SIN.

Dexter, I wish I could better communicate. I am fairly sure I have mentioned/suggested before that it is only through grace that we can have knowledge of God. We cannot think ourselves up into believing in Him and we cannot, nor does he want us to find him through philosophy or science. That doesn't mean that he has not supplied a way for us to know Him. You mention, "...if gods got something to tell me, he knows where to find me". One could possibly read into this statement that you may really not even be too concerned about god. Is it accurate to say that "finding God" is not at the top of your priority list? Or are you saying your method of operation requires scientific evidence - not only with god proofs, but with all matters in life.

Are you willing (or able) to suspend this demand for scientifc evidence?

Philosophy, the science of thinking, is the only path to God. cj44 I wonder if you've heard of the narrow path each of us is compelled to tread in the pursuit of god and if you have don't you find it a bit odd to find yourself on a superhighway to heaven by dint of the millions of fellow professed christian travelers beating the same wide avenue.