doctrine

[SpiritualSon]

A doctrine is how the church sees the Word. In my church,which is the New Church we have four doctrines by Swedenborg

1) The Doctrine concerning the Lord
2) The Doctrine concerning the Holy Scripture
3) The Doctrine of Life,which is charity
4) The Doctrine concerning Faith.

Harry

 

[jonjohnrob11]

en018, sounds like u don't trust anyone. there are several translations of the Bible, this may be confusing to u because of your lack of trust. of course u probably trusted your mother, but i don't. ha. as long as u have not trust in people unless they are poor, u have a lot to lack. frankly, the dead sea scrolls prove there was not any altering of the Bible since it was written. the scribes saw to that, but of course which translation? ha. too bad u cant trust anyone. i have many friends and family members whom i can trust and also a church.
as far as free will goes u don't get it. God invented time and we are bound t0 it until we die and go to heaven. if we go to hell we are still bound by it. because everything has happened is happening and will happen at the same time called instants, u have a choice to make right or wrong but due to it's eschatological nature u have already made it. deja vu or already seen is a perfect proof that everything has already happened. God just knows what choices u made are making and will make but it's ure choice not his. so u are free to make whatever choices u are given to decide. that's the freedom part.

 

[jonjohnrob11]

spiritual son, see my post on absolute truth and u can make a better educanted decision as to the true church.

 

[jonjohnrob11]

ferdie, it's true that church means the body of Christ or members of his Body. church also refers to the structure where worship is supposed to take place, it has two different meanings as many other english words do.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hi john,

en018, sounds like u don't trust anyone.

Your hearing is very keen, lol. Actually, I would say that I trust myself and science. Neither lie to me.

there are several translations of the Bible, this may be confusing to u because of your lack of trust.

No, i'm not conused at all. Rather, the fact that you just admitted that there are several translations merely proves my point: the translation is vague and often inaccurate.

You seem to see it as a virtue for one to accept something because they are told to. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but taking things at face value is never a good way to find truth...ever. Whe you do that, you are merely accepting someone else's opinion on an issue. Study up and come to your own conclusions.

as long as u have not trust in people unless they are poor

I never said that. You seem to be missing the point entirely. What I meant, was that the preistly class and the aristocracy during the time the bible was being compiled, were the only ones who had access to it, as well as being the only ones with enough influence to change it, and a reason to make those changes. I lack trust in them because of their motives, not because of their money.

frankly, the dead sea scrolls prove there was not any altering of the Bible since it was written.

Oh lordy! Excuse me, but have you actually read the dead sea scrolls? Because lemme tell you, I have, and can assure you that they were hidden away in a cave for a reason! The amount of contradictory information in them is astonishing!

ha. too bad u cant trust anyone. i have many friends and family members whom i can trust and also a church.

Whoopdy do for you. I guess it would make things that much easier, to have a bunch of people around you to tell you the same lie every day, rather than have to maintain faith in something all by yourself. I mean jeez! What would you do if you didn't have people telling you what to think all the time??

because everything has happened is happening and will happen at the same time called instants

The theory of instants...hmmm...never heard of it.

deja vu or already seen is a perfect proof that everything has already happened.

And my having dreams that unicorns and leprechauns are coming to take me away to rainbowland is perfect proof of that happening! Sweet Jesus...(no pun intended)

God just knows what choices u made are making and will make but it's ure choice not his. so u are free to make whatever choices u are given to decide. that's the freedom part.

Not exactly. You see, free will means that you can change your mind at the very last second, and make a decision totally spur of the moment. If god already knows what you're going to choose, you can't change it, because whether god planned it all out or not, it's already scripted. Think about it this way: cumulitively, all of your choices add up to equal one outcome. That outcome is, in fitting with what you said, not decided by god, merely known by him. Because the outcome of your life is already known, it cannot be changed, and because it cannot be changed, you have no free will.

You say I don't get it, whereas I say you don't get it, but this is not the place to debate free will. There are other threads specifically dedicated to that subject. I hope to see you in them soon!

 

[martha dodge]

How do you know that science does not lie to you? Even Charles Darwin was not absolutely sure about his origin of the species. Check some of his later works. He got absolutely livid when some guys wanted to replace the line about it being a theory. He knew he wasn't around when it all happened and he was a least an honest guy. And what about all the changes that have happened with discovery of DNA. Now science knows that it is very possible ( and I use that term advisadly) that brain activity can be rerouted and a person can live without half of the brain. But I was told in med school that this was impossible. Science lied. Be care who you trust Ceridwen, humans lie and humans write the science books and most do it without Father God's help.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Good point, martha.

Ceridwen, remember even science cannot be 'trusted'--when science stops questioning itself is when it stops being science and starts being religion. Scientific theories must always be open to questioning.

 

[Caleb_Son of Light]

Jonnyjohn, This church you speak of, I am unclear what church you are talking about. Are you speaking of the Catholics or the Very Conservative Christian?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Martha, Spinkles,

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I must say that it is the questioning habits of science which make it so very appealing to me.

However, that is a good rule of thumb for everyone. Not only those who rely on science need to worry about questioning their sources.

 

[martha dodge]

Ceridwen, I have found error in science. My Father God has never never in my life made an error. Everytime He told me to do something and I did it, it was right and true and everytime I didn't do it I got into trouble. When Father God lies to me then I will question Him, until then bring on the questions my Father has all the answers, maybe He will tell me or someone else what you need to know. Come to think of it you could just ask Him yourself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Did father God inspire all of the Old Testament and the gospels? If so, he has been caught lying numerous times.

Does father God speak to you directly? If so, do you know exactly what He says every time, or is it sometimes vague or unclear? Do you ever wonder if it's not God at all, but simply your imagination? Supposing it was always your imagination, would you even be able to realize it?

How would you know the difference between God telling you something and your imagination, especially if all the messages that turn out right are credited to God, and all the ones that turn out to be wrong are chalked up to the imagination after the fact?

 

[martha dodge]

I know what I know that I Know Mr. Spinkle

 

[true blood]

God isn't a liar Mr. Spinkles. What scripture do you have trouble with?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

true blood--In Mark 6:8, Jesus says the disciples may take staffs. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, Jesus says his disciples may not take staffs.

My thinking is that either God sometimes contradicts Himself, or God did not inspire every single detail written in the Bible....in which case we would have to read the book very carefully to discern which details were and which details were not inspired by God. I believe the Catholic Church, along with other Christian sects, agrees with my thinking on this, correct?

martha-- fair enough! :mrgreen:

 

[true blood]

At first glance I see where you are coming from. And yes, one should read carefully and pay attention to the details. A bigger picture would have to recognize that the annual Passover meal requires that they eat this meal with a staff [single] in hand. Therefore one could possibly assume they would need at least one staff for this occasion, right? And if you truely look at the details, Mark 6:8 says they can take a staff. [single] and in Matthew 10 and Luke 9 it says not to take staves [plural]. Then one must consider the context...at that time they were moving around quickly and Jesus desired they traveled with no "extra" baggage for they were spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. Besides a plural of staves may even of included weaponry in the East...but the point was not to carry any extra baggage like for instance extra staves. I know later on in those books Jesus tells them that Israel denied the Kingdom of Heaven he told them to pick up these extra items, even weaponry...so mayhaps in the East they have types of staves used from combat and a staff for walking or for use during the Passover meal?

 

[martha dodge]

As true blood has explained, Mr. Spinkles, one would have to know the time and place and circumstances before one should determine contradictions. For example, to say that Matthews account of the crucifixion and John's account differ so the Bible must have error is to disregard the fact that each man reported as he was reminded by the Holy Spirit and please remember this fact,
John was there and Matthew was not. Please do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I really hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I seriously doubt anyone who does not recognize the fact that the Bible contains some contradictions has undergone a serious study of it.....I studied the New Testament for a year at my Catholic high school, and the Church readily admits that there are contradictions (but like you said martha--the Church does not think the entire Bible should be thrown out just because there are some inconsistencies). The message remains relatively the same, though, and that's what is important....right?

John being at Jesus' crucifixion does not change the fact that there are inconsistencies/contradictions between his gospel and the synoptic gospels....it just helps explain why.

Matthew 10:9 (American Standard Bible) Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; 10:10 no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
Mark 6:8 and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse;

According to the American Standard Bible, in both Matthew and Luke the disciples are to take a staff (singular). In Mark, the disciples are not to take a staff (singular).

 

[true blood]

Considering the scripture is 2000 years old and it hasn't been photo copied through out that time and passed down to us in it's original form one could assume some discrepency. You even show an example with the American Standard Bible vs. the King James Version I was going off of. Most christians in the early part after Jesus was cruicified were hunted down and put to death and what kind of paper did they write on? Goatskin? Clothing? I think in historical circles, learned men wouldn't invalidate the manuscripts based on these facts. Your statement is still taken out of context. Consider the amount of walking they probably did in those days, a single walking staff certainly would of been handy. But honestly, does this contridiction merit calling God a liar? Actually, what if the Bible contained absolutely zero discrepency? Would it be more "believable" or considered more of a "fake" [among historical circles]?

 

[Ceridwen018]

John being at Jesus' crucifixion does not change the fact that there are inconsistencies/contradictions between his gospel and the synoptic gospels....it just helps explain why.

Actually, all of the gospel writers were basically anonymous. Historians have inferred as to who they think they might be, but no definate conclusions have been reached. Therefore, there is no proof that this 'John' character was present during the crucifixion of Jesus.
(We don't take kindly to John :lol: )

true blood,

Considering the scripture is 2000 years old and it hasn't been photo copied through out that time and passed down to us in it's original form one could assume some discrepency.

WHAT!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!!??

"Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, the religious feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject."

All in good fun-- I don't mean to offend!

But honestly, does this contridiction merit calling God a liar?

Well, how would you explain it?

Other Christians have explained it to me as: the holy spirit inspired some of it, but the other parts were filled in by the writers. Such contradictions are such because the writers simply weren't sure. If that be true, how does one know where the writer ends and the holy spirit begins?

I don't think anyone is calling god an out and out liar here, perhaps he is just confused on his facts.

Actually, what if the Bible contained absolutely zero discrepency? Would it be more "believable" or considered more of a "fake" [among historical circles]?

I think it would be considered much more believable. Contradiction doesn't do anything for credibility in any circle.

 

[martha dodge]

Father God is powerful enough to keep His Words sufficient for our salvation. Do not be afraid of discrepancies as much as to be afraid of neglect of His Word. The Holy Spirit knows all the Words of Father God. Submission to His guidance and adherence to His persuasion will lead us to Our Father through Our Lord Jesus. Jesus says" take my yoke upon you for my yoke is easy and my burdens light."