• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For those who do not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God...

Squirt

Well-Known Member
dawny0826 said:
I'm curious. It's been really interesting for me to post here and to encounter people of like faith who interpret the Bible so much differently than I do. I want to learn and understand how others process the Bible.

I'm truly interested for input from those who do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God...when you read scripture...like the scripture below, what do you make of it? What is your personal interpretation? What do you think Jesus is saying to us? Do you read this as something literal or figurative?

In this scripture, Jesus is traveling to Jerusalem, and he's asked "Lord, are there few who are saved?"

And this is his reply...

"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying "Lord, Lord, open for us, and He will answer and say to you, "I do not know you, where you are from." Then you will begin to say, "We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets." But He will say, "I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, and all you workers of iniquity." There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and yourselves thrust out."

Luke 13:24-28 (NKJV)

Edit: Please note, I know I've posted a poll about Bible interpretation...I'm very interested in the Biblical views of others. My intent isn't to attack anyone's beliefs. I'm seeking understanding.
Hi, Dawny.

I don't know how I managed to miss this thread. I want to start contributing to it tomorrow, as it's late now and, as you know, I have yet to figure out how to write a brief post. :D

But, I would like to ask you just a couple of questions before I make any comments. What is your reasoning behind believing that the Bible is "infallible"? What exactly do you mean when you use that word to describe it? Do you also believe it is complete, in other words that it contains everything God ever said to His prophets and everything He wants us to know? If the answer to that question is "yes," would you explain why that is the case. If you can use scriptures to support your beliefs, I would appreciate it because I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it claims to be either inerrant or complete. And if it doesn't, how can you justify your assumptions that it is?
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
NetDoc said:
Super Universe...

I agreed with all but your last statement. :D

Sorry. I guess that one hits pretty hard.

For many people church is a good thing. It gives you a vehicle to profess your faith and makes you feel comfortable because you are with others that feel the same way you do. You are just beginning the path.

Now this is fine for awhile, at first, but years later you should move on because religious doctrine is extremely slow to adapt. It's really taking our species a very long time to get with the program, over the last 2,000 years the Christian religious theory hasn't changed much at all.

Roman Catholic to Orthodox, Lutheran, Protestant, JW/Mormon/Baptist and most people would say those aren't really different. So one sprinkles water during baptism and another submerges you, it's still the same thing.

My point is this, if you only look for God on Sunday's when you are in church then you are missing out on 99% of him.

He created the universe. He's in everything. Children laughing on a playground, people arguing on the street, a beggar with his hand out, a Sequoia tree 100 years old when Jesus was born, a bright star and nebula, the wind that smells like rain, thunder and lightning, a parade...

What could possibly make you think that He is so small that He could be contained in a human structure?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Your definition of "church" differs from mine. The church is the body of Christ: the congregate of all believers. It's not a building, a meeting or a rite. It is a living organism and evolves just as any organism. His magum opus is not the earth, the stars, or even the entire universe in all of it's grandeur: it's the human heart, spirit and pchyche that bears that distinction. Love is grander than a mountain and deeper than the sea. To date, it has defied all logic and scientific attempts to understand it.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Squirt said:
Hi, Dawny.

I don't know how I managed to miss this thread. I want to start contributing to it tomorrow, as it's late now and, as you know, I have yet to figure out how to write a brief post. :D

But, I would like to ask you just a couple of questions before I make any comments. What is your reasoning behind believing that the Bible is "infallible"? What exactly do you mean when you use that word to describe it? Do you also believe it is complete, in other words that it contains everything God ever said to His prophets and everything He wants us to know? If the answer to that question is "yes," would you explain why that is the case. If you can use scriptures to support your beliefs, I would appreciate it because I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it claims to be either inerrant or complete. And if it doesn't, how can you justify your assumptions that it is?

Hey Squirt!

Well...I intrpret the Bible pretty literally.

I believe that men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the books within the Bible and that it is the Living Word of God...an "infallible" guide.

I do believe that the Bible as it is...is complete. I feel very much that the books in the Bible from OT to NT form a beautiful and complete (as possible) picture of God"s plan for our salvation and I think it's a more than sufficient guide...to teach us HOW we should live our lives.

I don't interpet Revelations 22:18-19 as being specific to ONLY the book of Revelations. I believe very deeply that these verses refer to the Bible as a whole.

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add ot him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book fo this prophecy. God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

I believe that God STILL speaks to us on an individual level and through modern day preachers, teachers and evangelists. The Bible says that each believer is an Ambassador for God. And that we're each given a measure of God-like faith when we accept Christ. God speaks to us individually through those that he's called into the ministry and to each and every one us individually as we establish a personal relationshiop with Christ. I believe that the Bible is His LIVING WORD.

The heart of the Bible is CHRIST...and that Christ is the truth, the way and the light. By accepting Christ's sacrifice...we have obtained salvation and from the newbirth forward, need to nurture our spirits by getting into the WORD of God.

I do believe that prophesy still exists but I would be very reluctant to accept it as truth if it altered the Word in any way or added something to the Word.
 

Opethian

Active Member
To me, the bible is nothing but a nice piece of literature, loosely based on some actual events ( but very much exaggerated ), but far from something that could ever be taken literally completely. There's nothing but arguments against taking it literally, none for whatsoever, so I think those that believe in a literal interpretation are just fooling themselves.
 

roli

Born Again,Spirit Filled
[
[
quote=Popeyesays]
I accept that the Bible - Old and New Testament - are the word of God. And God has protected that word so the books contain truth, but I do not consider the Epistles, or the APocalypse to equal to the Gospel for reliability
.

No disrespect intendeed but to say in one breath God has protected the word so the books contain truth,then to recant by stating the Epistles are not equal in reliablility as are the gospel is to say in essence you don't really believethe word.
The word..."but " literally nulifies your latter claims

The Gospels contain the words and thoughts of Christ - the later books are commentary on those words by individuals who may or may not have had any authority to interpret the original words of Jesus.

The whole word is an Inspired book written through men by the Holy Spirit

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

As a matter of fact the gospels are variations of eye witness accounts as well as Jesus's own words.
2/3 of the Epistles are written by Paul who did not witness the accounts personally but had a revealtion of the Christ which when he started to preach the people were amazed the gospel message he preached lined up exactly to what the gospel being preached by the disciples said.
Paul was one minute killing Christians as a co - conspirator with those who actually did the killings , then within hours he's riding on a donkey and knocked off by a supernatural entity that was unidentifiable at first until Jesus identified himself to Paul and spoke to him in a vision as his companions witnessed the voice but saw nothing.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
My point is Paul got a direct reveltaion of Christ,and it happened to Peter as well
Mat 16:16-17And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.



Now what is "infallible"? I do not believe that the Bible is all literally true. Much of the truth of the Bible is metaphorical, not literal. The Parables of Jesus, the Creation story, the morality play which is the Book of Job. I also do not believe that the Christian Old Testament is accurate to the Hebrew Book, because none of the Christian Old Testaments are based on the Hebrew text, but rather the septaguint which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew and much maligned by many Hebrew scholars of the 2nd century Before Christ.


That is how Jesus hit home spiritual truths through natural illustrations or parables
Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you (the believers who trusted and followed Christ)it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

1Cor 10:10 "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."*
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.


You must have the spirit reveal the word to you or it becomes just another book to refute and disect as has been proven through history
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
"1Cor 10:10 "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man

The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."*
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.


You must have the spirit reveal the word to you or it becomes just another book to refute and disect as has been proven through history"

You obviously think I do not accept the Bible. You are wrong. I understand the parameters of how the Bible in our hands came to be, though. I also accept the Qur'an, the TaNakh, the Vedas, the Getas, the Avestas, the Scrolls, the Bayan and the Iqan.

Of all those texts, though only the written Qur'an and the works of the Bab and Baha`u'llah can directly be ascribed to the authors. I believe each contains the words of God not man, recorded by the Divine Soul Who appeared to us and taguht whereof He wrote.

Regards,
Scott
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
dawny0826 said:
I'm curious. It's been really interesting for me to post here and to encounter people of like faith who interpret the Bible so much differently than I do. I want to learn and understand how others process the Bible.

I'm truly interested for input from those who do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God...when you read scripture...like the scripture below, what do you make of it? What is your personal interpretation? What do you think Jesus is saying to us? Do you read this as something literal or figurative?

In this scripture, Jesus is traveling to Jerusalem, and he's asked "Lord, are there few who are saved?"

And this is his reply...

"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying "Lord, Lord, open for us, and He will answer and say to you, "I do not know you, where you are from." Then you will begin to say, "We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets." But He will say, "I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, and all you workers of iniquity." There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and yourselves thrust out."

Luke 13:24-28 (NKJV)

Edit: Please note, I know I've posted a poll about Bible interpretation...I'm very interested in the Biblical views of others. My intent isn't to attack anyone's beliefs. I'm seeking understanding.

I have 2 confessions to make; a) I have such poor concentration (because of my health) that I find it very hard to do any reading. b) This may 'offend' you, and if it does, I am sorry, it is not my intention. I feel far more 'spiritually guided' from meditation than from reading scripture. An example occurred the other day, when I related one of my beliefs (honestly cannot remember the topic), and NetDoc pointed me to the confirmation of my belief in the Bible.

There again, one only has too 'Google' Luke 13:24-28

To come up with loads of interpretations; for example:-
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fa/Bible.show/sVerseID/25543/eVerseID/25547
Luke 13:23-25



The stony ground represents those who hear the gospel and feel titillated by its truth. Though their senses are excited, they have no depth of understanding—no rich soil in which it may take root and grow. While suffering anxiety from sin, they respond to the attractive offer of God's mercy. The truth offers them peace of mind, pardon from sin, and salvation with eternal life. Believing they are forgiven, their anxieties seem to disappear, and temporary peace and happiness fill their lives, but they have no foundation upon which to support permanent joy. Their gladness soon subsides, as does their desire to live righteously. They begin to fade from God's truth because they have no real appreciation for Christ's sacrifice or the conviction to resist temptation or to endure trial and persecution. Because they exhibit no true repentance, it becomes evident that they are not true Christians. Excited, human emotion carries them for a time, but it cannot sustain them through the long process of conversion.

Now, who am I, a mere novice, uneducated, to grapple with interpretations of people who are far more scholarly than I, and decide who is 'more correct' than the other ? It
is a useful tool, but it takes away the ability to 'grow' spiritually.​
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
michel said:
I have 2 confessions to make; a) I have such poor concentration (because of my health) that I find it very hard to do any reading. b) This may 'offend' you, and if it does, I am sorry, it is not my intention. I feel far more 'spiritually guided' from meditation than from reading scripture. An example occurred the other day, when I related one of my beliefs (honestly cannot remember the topic), and NetDoc pointed me to the confirmation of my belief in the Bible.

There again, one only has too 'Google' Luke 13:24-28

To come up with loads of interpretations; for example:-
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fa/Bible.show/sVerseID/25543/eVerseID/25547
Luke 13:23-25



The stony ground represents those who hear the gospel and feel titillated by its truth. Though their senses are excited, they have no depth of understanding—no rich soil in which it may take root and grow. While suffering anxiety from sin, they respond to the attractive offer of God's mercy. The truth offers them peace of mind, pardon from sin, and salvation with eternal life. Believing they are forgiven, their anxieties seem to disappear, and temporary peace and happiness fill their lives, but they have no foundation upon which to support permanent joy. Their gladness soon subsides, as does their desire to live righteously. They begin to fade from God's truth because they have no real appreciation for Christ's sacrifice or the conviction to resist temptation or to endure trial and persecution. Because they exhibit no true repentance, it becomes evident that they are not true Christians. Excited, human emotion carries them for a time, but it cannot sustain them through the long process of conversion.​

Now, who am I, a mere novice, uneducated, to grapple with interpretations of people who are far more scholarly than I, and decide who is 'more correct' than the other ? It

is a useful tool, but it takes away the ability to 'grow' spiritually.​

Well...I think that people grow spiritually in different ways...although I personally, can't imagine my walk without God's Word.

I couldn't say that I'm any more or less spiritual than you...that's between you and God.

And it would take so much more to offend me. I appreciate your thoughts.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Way cool Michel... I am glad that I was able to help!

I was told by a history professor in my first year of college (an avowed athiest) that knowing the Bible is to know what drives man. He was rather disturbed that I was converted to Christianity within the month of our discussion. He and I remained friends until I left Gainesville and he always feels that this statement influenced me more than it should have. He made it a policy to read either the Old or the New Testament every year. It provided both of us with a lot of discussion topics and many thought that I was a History major due to our lengthy conversations during the day. I spent a LOT of time in his office and learned far more from him than he from me.

I find it almost ironic that as I age, I see the Bible in much the same way he did: Man's attempt to describe the indescribable and how he managed that relationship.

We are like children. When we were young, we tended to bite and hit (think wars) and constantly told our siblings that Mom gave us permission. So it was with the Isrealites. Hey... even America is using the Gospel of Peace to wage war!

God has always been a God of Love and Peace. We have attributed so much hatred and violence to him and THAT'S the real tragedy. Eventually the Prince of Peace came down and gave us two laws... JUST TWO LAWS! He hand delivered them to us so we couldn't screw it up: Love God and Love everyone else! People still twist God's words and condemn others needlessly. What a shame!

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. NIV
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
dawny0826 said:
Hey Squirt!

And Hey, Dawny!

Well...I intrpret the Bible pretty literally.
Me too. At least a lot more literally than a lot of people.

I believe that men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the books within the Bible and that it is the Living Word of God...an "infallible" guide.
I believe the writers of the Old and New Testaments were inspired, too. I believe that God directed them to write what He wanted them to write and that if we had their original writings today, we could say they are infallible.

The problem is, we don't. We have copies of copies of copies of copies, handed down for generations. We have had various versions of the Christian canon over the years and even today, we have at least two distinct versions, the earlier of which, in fact, includes the Apocrypha. As a non-Catholic, you probably don't accept the Apocrypha as the Word of God. Have you every asked yourself why it is not considered as legitimate as the books that comprise the Bible you accept as valid? (We Latter-day Saints don't use the Apocrypha ourselves, so I'm not arguing the point from anything put a hypothetical perspective.) Would you also mind telling me which translation you consider to be infallible? As you well know, there are many instances in which the various translations are quite different.

I do believe that the Bible as it is...is complete. I feel very much that the books in the Bible from OT to NT form a beautiful and complete (as possible) picture of God"s plan for our salvation and I think it's a more than sufficient guide...to teach us HOW we should live our lives.
Ah, but the keywords here as "complete (as possible)." What does that mean? As complete as possible, given the fact that it was several hundred years before the canon was firmly established, and many books that had at one time been considered scripture were determined at a later date not to be? As complete as possible, given the fact that the Bible itself mentions by name some twenty books that a missing from its pages? Even in New Testament times, Paul and Jude both wrote additional epistles that have apparently been lost. If they spoke legitimately in writings we do have, is there any good reason at all to assume that their lost writings would not be equally as legitimate? As complete as possible, given the fact that in the gospel of John, we are told that Jesus said and did so many things that all of the books in the world could not contain them? How complete is that, really?

I don't interpet Revelations 22:18-19 as being specific to ONLY the book of Revelations. I believe very deeply that these verses refer to the Bible as a whole.
You're going to have to explain to me why this is. The Bible didn't even exist when John penned the words of Revelation. How could it conceivably have pertained to an entire book which was not to come into existence for hundreds of years? Do you believe that John was saying that God wanted nothing more written following the last word of the last chapter of Revelation? If you do, you might as well just ignore his gospel account because most scholars agree that it was written after he wrote revelation. Finally, let's just assume for a minute that you're right and that the verses you quoted do pertain to the Bible as a whole. Have you ever stopped to consider that this is a directive to men, saying that they shall not add to the words of this book. Can these verses possibly be construed as God telling us that He is from that point forward prohibiting Himself from speaking to us? Is there any reason at all to believe that God would forbid Himself to speak to His Church as a whole at any time in the future?

I believe that God STILL speaks to us on an individual level and through modern day preachers, teachers and evangelists. The Bible says that each believer is an Ambassador for God. And that we're each given a measure of God-like faith when we accept Christ. God speaks to us individually through those that he's called into the ministry and to each and every one us individually as we establish a personal relationshiop with Christ.
I believe He does, too. But why do you suppose there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world today? 30,000 denominations and not one of them exactly identical to any other one. Is this what the scriptures meant when they said, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism?" Is this truly unity?

The heart of the Bible is CHRIST...and that Christ is the truth, the way and the light. By accepting Christ's sacrifice...we have obtained salvation and from the newbirth forward, need to nurture our spirits by getting into the WORD of God.
I couldn't possibly agree more! :162:

I do believe that prophesy still exists but I would be very reluctant to accept it as truth if it altered the Word in any way or added something to the Word.
And so, if some of the many things Christ said and did that weren't included in the Bible were to be restored today, you woudn't want to know what they were?

I do apologize if this post sounded argumentative. It sincerely wasn't meant to be. My only purpose in raising these points and asking these questions is to get people (not just you) to stop for a minute and think about the ramifications of insisting that everything God has ever wanted us to know was (1)flawlessly preserved, (2)correctly copied (who knows how many times), (3)accurately translated by men whose motives were unceasingly pure, and (2)is today understood as God would have it understood by all Christians everywhere.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Have you every asked yourself why it is not considered as legitimate as the books that comprise the Bible you accept as valid? (We Latter-day Saints don't use the Apocrypha ourselves, so I'm not arguing the point from anything put a hypothetical perspective.) Would you also mind telling me which translation you consider to be infallible? As you well know, there are many instances in which the various translations are quite different.

I feel that the Bible is as it should be. I don't think it's possible for God's Word to be missing pages. My God makes no mistakes...especially when it comes to a Holy book which focuses on salvation.

My faith in Christ...the spiritual confirmation that I receive when I open my Bible is enough for me. For me, the Bible is sufficient as it is.

I'm partial to the New King James Version of the Bible.

I also do all of my devotionals out of the New Century Version. I reference the New Living Translation, the New International Version and of course the King James Version.

I often times have more than one Bible open on my bed...when I'm studying and I do go back and forth...comparing verses. I have yet to stumble upon any alarming discrepancies between the versions that I own and refer to.The only version of the Bible that I'm not particularly comfy with is the New World Translation.

Ah, but the keywords here as "complete (as possible)." What does that mean? As complete as possible, given the fact that it was several hundred years before the canon was firmly established, and many books that had at one time been considered scripture were determined at a later date not to be? As complete as possible, given the fact that the Bible itself mentions by name some twenty books that a missing from its pages? Even in New Testament times, Paul and Jude both wrote additional epistles that have apparently been lost. If they spoke legitimately in writings we do have, is there any good reason at all to assume that their lost writings would not be equally as legitimate? As complete as possible, given the fact that in the gospel of John, we are told that Jesus said and did so many things that all of the books in the world could not contain them? How complete is that, really?

When I stated "complete (as possible)"...I was referring to God...and the picture that's created of God within the pages of the Bible. I don't think that any human can completely understand the nature of God. That's all I meant there.

I believe that the Bible is as it needs to be. If these lost books or existing books that haven't been included were meant to be a part of the Bible...I know that my God is great enough...that they would have been included. I trust HIM. He's greater than every man who has ever contributed a word into the Bible.

And I believe that his Word is living Spirit. I only need my Christ and The Word of God. My salvation is in Christ. Through Christ, I establish a relationship with my Father. The Holy Spirit guides and directs me through the Word.

You're going to have to explain to me why this is. The Bible didn't even exist when John penned the words of Revelation. How could it conceivably have pertained to an entire book which was not to come into existence for hundreds of years? Do you believe that John was saying that God wanted nothing more written following the last word of the last chapter of Revelation? If you do, you might as well just ignore his gospel account because most scholars agree that it was written after he wrote revelation. Finally, let's just assume for a minute that you're right and that the verses you quoted do pertain to the Bible as a whole. Have you ever stopped to consider that this is a directive to men, saying that they shall not add to the words of this book. Can these verses possibly be construed as God telling us that He is from that point forward prohibiting Himself from speaking to us? Is there any reason at all to believe that God would forbid Himself to speak to His Church as a whole at any time in the future?

Okay, so you find it unbelievable that John could be referring to a book that didn't exist yet...yet throughout the Book of Revelation...he's referring to many events that have YET to take place? Explain your logic to me, Squirt.

I think God still communicates with us. I've already expressed this.

I don't think that the Bible needed anything else. What more was needed? We were given what we needed...CHRIST.

Any religious book (other than the Bible) that I read...doesn't hold a candle to the word of God. The books that I read...refer me right back to scripture....they reiterate points made throughout the Bible. God is my authority...God speaks to me through His Word.

How much more do you expect to be revealed that isn't on the personal relationship level (you and Christ)?

We already know how to obtain salvation. Jesus Christ.

We're already given a glimpse of the end times.

What more is there to seek?

We already know how to establish a relationship with God...through Jesus Christ.

God continuously dialogues with us...I think mostly for personal edification, so that we can grow spiritually.

I believe He does, too. But why do you suppose there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world today? 30,000 denominations and not one of them exactly identical to any other one. Is this what the scriptures meant when they said, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism?" Is this truly unity?

The only thing that Satan has over us...is the ability to divert our attention away from the truth which is...we're one body...the Body of Christ and who we are in Christ is truly incredible. He doesn't want the Christian to embrace fully what we have in Christ. He doesn't want us to realize that there is no need for 30,000 religious denominations. We've allowed ourselves to fall prey to Satan in this regard. Dissention is quite the diversion.

Think on who Christ is and was and what he did. He layed hands on the sick and they were healed. He raised the dead. He walked on water. He loved the sinner. He sat with the filthy and the sick.

We were told by Christ Jesus that we would not only do his works but GREATER works! This is the message that we miss when our focus is on the church and not on the BODY!

This is all Satan has. He's been defeated. We just have to embrace this...and embrace who we are in Christ. And we can't progress spiritually...if we're not in the Word. And you can't embrace the Word...if you don't trust it.


And so, if some of the many things Christ said and did that weren't included in the Bible were to be restored today, you woudn't want to know what they were?

I don't think there's anything more important, Squirt than the fact that Christ hung in agony for our sins so that we can be saved through him. That's it. That's what we need. Christ.

A history lesson on Christ's travels beyond what's written in the Bible...isn't as important to me as EMBRACING the LIVING CHRIST who is living within me today.

I already have Christ...He's right here in my heart. He's my best friend...my Father...my Saviour...my focus is on where I need to go next...to further HIS Kingdom.

I do apologize if this post sounded argumentative. It sincerely wasn't meant to be. My only purpose in raising these points and asking these questions is to get people (not just you) to stop for a minute and think about the ramifications of insisting that everything God has ever wanted us to know was (1)flawlessly preserved, (2)correctly copied (who knows how many times), (3)accurately translated by men whose motives were unceasingly pure, and (2)is today understood as God would have it understood by all Christians everywhere.

I truly enjoy conversing with you. I don't think you're argumentive at all and I appreciate the opportunity to share. We're both passionate about our beliefs and that's a good thing. We can learn from each other.:hug:

As for the points you've made in your last statement...

We're new creatures in Christ. How awesome is that? I encourage people to stop and think about that. Just by accepting Christ...we are capable of walking on water...healing the sick...raising the dead. He told us we would not only do those things BUT GREATER things. Register that for a moment.

And why aren't we going out into the world and doing these things?

Because we lack faith. And we're not focusing on building our faith in the way that I believe God intended because as humans, we focus so much on our flesh, on our views on the way we think and feel things should be. We poke holes, we obsess over the questions that have no answers and in the process we miss out, we miss out on opportunites to really receive personal revelations from Christ because we're too busy yielding to our flesh.

I'm guilty as hell of doing all of the above and here of late, I've really felt convicted over it.

I will never understand fully the awesomeness that is my God....the mystery and beauty that is my Christ....my strength and courage...which is the Holy Spirit.

And I don't know how I could ever hope to, if I constantly poke holes in His Word and rely on MY OWN understanding.

This is just my take on things.

I don't overanalyze. I trust. I truly adore my Christ. I really do. And I trust Him. And that's enough for me. God knows I'm so far from perfect and so far from where I need to be but I trust that with HIm, I'll get there. He believed in me enough to die for me. So, I place my trust in Him and I believe that what He says to me in His Word is truth.

Sorry for the novel, Squirt. :eek:
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NetDoc said:
Way cool Michel... I am glad that I was able to help!



God has always been a God of Love and Peace. We have attributed so much hatred and violence to him and THAT'S the real tragedy. Eventually the Prince of Peace came down and gave us two laws... JUST TWO LAWS! He hand delivered them to us so we couldn't screw it up: Love God and Love everyone else! People still twist God's words and condemn others needlessly. What a shame!

Amen to that! There's a rather ufly thread doing the rounds now which proves your point to perfection.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NetDoc said:
Way cool Michel... I am glad that I was able to help!



God has always been a God of Love and Peace. We have attributed so much hatred and violence to him and THAT'S the real tragedy. Eventually the Prince of Peace came down and gave us two laws... JUST TWO LAWS! He hand delivered them to us so we couldn't screw it up: Love God and Love everyone else! People still twist God's words and condemn others needlessly. What a shame!

Amen to that! There's a rather ugly thread doing the rounds now which proves your point to perfection.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
dawny0826 said:
Sorry for the novel, Squirt. :eek:
Please don't apologize, Dawny. Your arguments have not convinced me of anything, but I respect your right to believe as you do, and I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. :hug:
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Squirt said:
Please don't apologize, Dawny. Your arguments have not convinced me of anything, but I respect your right to believe as you do, and I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. :hug:

Thanks, Squirt. I respect your views too. It's always a treat to dialogue with you.:D
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Okay, you all probably already know, I believe in the inerrancy, infallibility, and literal truth of the Bible in every detail. Just for the record. Have a nice day today!
Mike
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
joeboonda said:
Okay, you all probably already know, I believe in the inerrancy, infallibility, and literal truth of the Bible in every detail. Just for the record. Have a nice day today!
Mike

Appreciate your two cents. :D
 
Top