Ok I was reflecting on what we were talking about and I'm interested to see where this is going. So let's take a different approach here; I want to be taught.

Drich Wrote:Yes we are if you took the time to read the Book chapter and verse i left for you, You would have been able to classify all of the gifts Christ mentioned as "Spiritual gifts." As such not all have the same Spiritual gift as per the same Book Chapter and verse.

So the way I see it, we've got a 'paradox'. Here's the two bits of Bible that I think aren't matching up:

1 Corinthians 12 Wrote:

---

Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Unity and Diversity in the Body
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free —and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

---

Mark 16:15-18 Wrote:

---

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

---

I agree with what you brought up about the spiritual gifts, but then we have Jesus here directly saying that 'those who believe' will be able to do said actions, including healing. Something doesn't add up.

Quote:Nope. Unless God said it was infalliable, then why would we assume so? The bible is not God nor is it to be worshiped as God. (Being perfect or God like in anyway.)

John 1:1-5 Wrote:

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

---

I disagree. The second half of the Bible is the Word alive i.e. Jesus, who was the Son of God i.e. God incarnate.

If the Word is fallible, then so is God OR once again the Bible has got it wrong. But according to you:

Drich Wrote:...God is perfect...

So quite frankly I don't understand how the Bible cannot be perfect while at the same time it represents the Word which is perfect. It must be perfect because as 'John' says, 'the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

(May 14, 2012 at 11:33 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Ok I was reflecting on what we were talking about and I'm interested to see where this is going. So let's take a different approach here; I want to be taught.

I agree with what you brought up about the spiritual gifts, but then we have Jesus here directly saying that 'those who believe' will be able to do said actions, including healing. Something doesn't add up.

"Those who believe" does not mean everyone who believes will exhibit these gifts. "Those who believe" are subdivided by Paul in the letter to the Corinthians.
Meaning not all share the same gifts. Christ did not say that all who believe, but of all who believe, And these signs will follow...

Quote:I disagree. The second half of the Bible is the Word alive i.e. Jesus, who was the Son of God i.e. God incarnate.

The word Here is Logos. Logos is "the Word" or Christ incarnate as you have rightfully discerned. It means the Expressed/verbalized or even actualized will of God.(not as in literal written word as it does in the English) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3056&t=KJV

The recorded/written "word of God" in the Greek is graphe'. As in 2 Tim 3:16. It translates into "scripture." So when you see the word scripture or text it literally means written "word." When you see Word it means verbalized or audible.

Quote:If the Word is fallible,

No the Graphe' is fallible.
We know it is subject to spelling errors grammatical issues and miss translation. This is proved over and over when comparing the original manuscripts with each other.

Quote: then so is God OR once again the Bible has got it wrong. But according to you:

try again.

Quote:So quite frankly I don't understand how the Bible cannot be perfect while at the same time it represents the Word which is perfect.

Because you have confused "Word of God," with the word for "Scripture." English was not the original language of the texts. So to put your whole angry understanding of God on what you know of the English bible (yes even the king James) will always lead to misunderstandings and theological errors.

Next time may I suggest (If you are seriously looking to learn as you indicated at the start of your last post) that you simply ask your questions and hold off on your conclusions until you have all the information you requested.

Drich Wrote:Next time may I suggest (If you are seriously looking to learn as you indicated at the start of your last post) that you simply ask your questions and hold off on your conclusions until you have all the information you requested.

As a Free Thinker my beliefs are backed up by reason. The only way that I can learn is through expressing my reasoning, therefore exposing my belief which can then be corrected as necessary, provided the improvement is logical. So I can't simply ask questions without actually engaging in discussion.

Quote:"Those who believe" does not mean everyone who believes will exhibit these gifts. "Those who believe" are subdivided by Paul in the letter to the Corinthians.
Meaning not all share the same gifts. Christ did not say that all who believe, but of all who believe, And these signs will follow...

Ok, theologically I think this is sound. Now, applying this to reality, can you see how there's a flipside to it? Jesus says (as you have illustrated) 'potentially all believers can do these things'. Right, no worries there. What have I personally observed? No believer in my community has been able to heal anyone. The answer to this? Paul's observation that people don't posses all the gifts. To me this is an easy way out of being able to explain the lack of e.g. healing in this case.

This is my problem with the Bible. There's two parallel worlds, one being the Bible and the other reality, which never intersect. 'Yes, you can potentially heal, but actually no it turns out in reality you don't have the gift'. This is true of everyone I know.

Quote:The word Here is Logos. Logos is "the Word" or Christ incarnate as you have rightfully discerned. It means the Expressed/verbalized or even actualized will of God.(not as in literal written word as it does in the English) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3056&t=KJV

The recorded/written "word of God" in the Greek is graphe'. As in 2 Tim 3:16. It translates into "scripture." So when you see the word scripture or text it literally means written "word." When you see Word it means verbalized or audible.

Ok, that makes more sense.

Quote:No the Graphe' is fallible.
We know it is subject to spelling errors grammatical issues and miss translation. This is proved over and over when comparing the original manuscripts with each other.

So how can you understand that which is infallible through fallible means? An example of this is what Jesus tells us to do in Mark, which happens to be in the part of the manuscript that was added on. You still haven't addressed this.

(May 15, 2012 at 2:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: As a Free Thinker my beliefs are backed up by reason. The only way that I can learn is through expressing my reasoning, therefore exposing my belief which can then be corrected as necessary, provided the improvement is logical. So I can't simply ask questions without actually engaging in discussion.

If you want to throw out ideas for me to shoot down then know I will most happily obliged you, but at the same time do not complain about all the corrections provided.

Quote:Ok, theologically I think this is sound. Now, applying this to reality, can you see how there's a flipside to it? Jesus says (as you have illustrated) 'potentially all believers can do these things'. Right, no worries there. What have I personally observed? No believer in my community has been able to heal anyone. The answer to this? Paul's observation that people don't posses all the gifts. To me this is an easy way out of being able to explain the lack of e.g. healing in this case.

Then perhaps you should look to your understanding of the word "Heal."

The original word is: therapeuō
It's primary meaning is:

1) to serve, do service

2) to heal, cure, restore to health
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2323&t=KJV

With these definitions any care giver who brings a person back to health is a healer. One does not need the flash and magic you are looking for to have and use this gift.

Quote:This is my problem with the Bible. There's two parallel worlds, one being the Bible and the other reality, which never intersect.

This is true, but not for the reasons you think this is true. You have let Hollywood and pop culture dictate to you what the "biblical world" looked like, rather than seeking it out for yourself. You seem all to complacent in using the popular understanding of biblical precepts and principles to set the standard in which you judge God. Rather than earnestly seeking Him out for yourself. In other words you blindly accept the second world that was designed to cast doubt and disprove God as the real one. rather than seek God out for yourself.

Quote:'Yes, you can potentially heal, but actually no it turns out in reality you don't have the gift'. This is true of everyone I know.

Again because you have accepted the popular understanding of the word Heal. You look to this word and demand a flash of magic when in reality healings take place right under your nose, and you will not open your eyes to it.

Quote:So how can you understand that which is infallible through fallible means?

Only God is infallible. We being finite creatures can not ever hope to completely understand an infinate God. All that we are responsible for is what He has left us in the bible. Whether that message be 100% complete, or flawed in some way is His responsibility to either maintain, Change or forgive us for following the only Book He has left us.

Quote:An example of this is what Jesus tells us to do in Mark, which happens to be in the part of the manuscript that was added on. You still haven't addressed this.

I have in the message above which has been posted 3 times in this thread.

So let me rephrase: So what.

So what if it was added on, and so what if Jesus did or did not say these things. It changes nothing for the one who asks, seeks and knocks to worship the God of the Bible. For the God of the Bible is responsible for Maintaining, Changing or forgiving us for following the Only Book He has left for us. Our only charge is to be faithful to what has been given to us. We have been given the Bible and can trace it back to the Greek Texts. So in turn we are responsible for what was given. Nothing more.

Drich Wrote:If you want to throw out ideas for me to shoot down then know I will most happily obliged you, but at the same time do not complain about all the corrections provided.

The reason I'm here is so that I can be shown I'm wrong. It might not seem like it because we're not talking face to face, but I see discussions such as this one as being very invaluable. I sincerely thank you for that.

Quote:Then perhaps you should look to your understanding of the word "Heal."

The original word is: therapeuō
It's primary meaning is:

1) to serve, do service

2) to heal, cure, restore to health
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2323&t=KJV

With these definitions any care giver who brings a person back to health is a healer. One does not need the flash and magic you are looking for to have and use this gift.

Ok, now we're getting places. This actually fits in very well with what my last impressions of Christianity was meant to be like, and that is down to earth with zero supernatural content.

How do you see what Jesus did when he fed the 4000 and/or 5000? I've heard interpretations such as 'he was so nice to everyone that the ones who had food decided to take it out and share it amongst everyone'. I'm just paraphrasing, but something along those lines.

Quote:This is true, but not for the reasons you think this is true. You have let Hollywood and pop culture dictate to you what the "biblical world" looked like, rather than seeking it out for yourself. You seem all to complacent in using the popular understanding of biblical precepts and principles to set the standard in which you judge God. Rather than earnestly seeking Him out for yourself. In other words you blindly accept the second world that was designed to cast doubt and disprove God as the real one. rather than seek God out for yourself.

Hmm no I think you've gone with the clichè Christian response here. For starters you don't know me, and secondly my view of the Christian world was influenced by friends who consider themselves non-denominational. They just do as the Bible says. So I can safely say my mind wasn't polluted with far out ideas of what the Bible meant.

The second part of your paragraph, well, I honestly never know what that means anymore. Do I shut my eyes real tight and whisper 'god is real, god is real, god is real'? I don't mean this in a mocking way, but I don't actually know what a 'god encounter' would/should feel like. My 'encounters' were purely intellectual where it was just me reflecting on some Bible.

Quote:Only God is infallible. We being finite creatures can not ever hope to completely understand an infinate God. All that we are responsible for is what He has left us in the bible. Whether that message be 100% complete, or flawed in some way is His responsibility to either maintain, Change or forgive us for following the only Book He has left us.

Ok, agreed that we don't have the capacity to get the full picture. I don't agree with the notion that he takes care of the Bible, because we know what bits have been added on. Oddly enough, this is your first tangible point about God and to me it seems like no divine being made sure it stayed intact. This again is the two parallel worlds where something Biblical is said but in reality I observe something very different.

Quote:So what if it was added on, and so what if Jesus did or did not say these things. It changes nothing for the one who asks, seeks and knocks to worship the God of the Bible. For the God of the Bible is responsible for Maintaining, Changing or forgiving us for following the Only Book He has left for us. Our only charge is to be faithful to what has been given to us. We have been given the Bible and can trace it back to the Greek Texts. So in turn we are responsible for what was given. Nothing more.

Mark 16 originally ends with an empty tomb, no Jesus and a young man asserting that Jesus has resurrected. The juicy witness accounts are what got added on.

No resurrected Jesus, no Christian God.

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='286587' dateline='1337099446']
[quote]Ok, now we're getting places. This actually fits in very well with what my last impressions of Christianity was meant to be like, and that is down to earth with zero supernatural content. [/quote]
The word does not exclude supernatural content either. What it mean is to bring people back to health. The "how" is of little consequence.

[quote]How do you see what Jesus did when he fed the 4000 and/or 5000? [/quote] Just like the bible says it happens.


[quote]Hmm no I think you've gone with the cliche Christian response here. For starters you don't know me,[/quote]Knowing you is irrelevant as I am only speaking to the ideas and concepts you chose to discuss.

[quote] and secondly my view of the Christian world was influenced by friends who consider themselves non-denominational. They just do as the Bible says. So I can safely say my mind wasn't polluted with far out ideas of what the Bible meant. [/quote]Popular Christianity is just as "polluted" as the atheist version of it. Anything outside of the scope of you Asking, Seeking and Knocking for knowledge of Christ on your own is what I have highlighted here.

[quote]The second part of your paragraph, well, I honestly never know what that means anymore. Do I shut my eyes real tight and whisper 'god is real, god is real, god is real'? [/quote]No, you approach God with all of the intellectual abilities God has seen fit to equip you with. Like with any thing new, educate yourself and define what it is, or Who God is. Read the bible with the sole purpose of identifying God. Note all of the different ways He interacts with people, the reason for it/ the purpose, the end result. Note any offers or promises, pay close attentions to the terms and conditions.

For instance Salvation and forgiveness of sin does not begin and end with John 3:16. There is a very big condition that forgiveness of your sins hinge on. Can you tell me what that is? Hint; it has nothing to do with baptism.

[quote]I don't mean this in a mocking way, but I don't actually know what a 'god encounter' would/should feel like. My 'encounters' were purely intellectual where it was just me reflecting on some Bible.[/quote]It starts there, "If you are faithful with what you have been given, you will be given more. If you are not, what you have will be taken from you and given to someone else." Read your bible. learn to identify God how He acts, when He moves and the reasons for it. Then you can see things happen in your own life. Don't rely on feelings or what pop christianity tells you a God experience is. God is very real and not subject to our hokey interpertations of Him. He has laid out a very specific path with very specific promises to the one who follows that path. If you follow that path He will keep his Word.

[quote]Ok, agreed that we don't have the capacity to get the full picture. I don't agree with the notion that he takes care of the Bible, because we know what bits have been added on. Oddly enough, this is your first tangible point about God and to me it seems like no divine being made sure it stayed intact. This again is the two parallel worlds where something Biblical is said but in reality I observe something very different. [/quote]Do you know of the dead sea scrolls? Do you know why they are important? Do you know when they were written in relation to when they were found? Do you know what they contain?

God has preserved His word, and made some changes to our understanding of it, but overwhelmingly confirmed what we have in our bibles..

[quote]Mark 16 originally ends with an empty tomb, no Jesus and a young man asserting that Jesus has resurrected. The juicy witness accounts are what got added on. [/quote]No. The oldest text we have ends at Mark 16:8 We don't know if the rest was added on or if the oldest text we have is simply incomplete.

[quote]No resurrected Jesus, no Christian God.[/quote]
Then thankfully it is not the only text we have concerning Christ.

(May 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm)Drich Wrote: Then I guess "science" will have to move on to the next "unexplained event" and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next..."

And science has done a pretty good job of explaining the unexplained. Which just makes your god grow smaller and smaller....

Quote:what about a severed ear?

You have a verified instance where a severed ear grew back after someone prayed? Not quite as dramatic as a missing arm or leg, but let's have it.

Quote: Or an instance where a paralyzed person got up and walked after being prayed for.

Quote:These occourances happened all of the time in scripture.

Which means nothing. Do you have anything VERIFIABLE?

Quote: Or an instance where a person with a missing eye was prayed for and the eye regenerated. Ya got anything like that?

Quote:I don't know if the eye was actually missing but there are a few instances where the blind was made to see again.

Are you talking scripture again? See above comment.

Quote:Do you have proof that "prayer" had nothing to do with the remission?

Do you have proof that your cure wasn't caused by a witch doctor shaking a rattle and sticking pins in a doll?

Quote:Even if that person did not admit for praying for themselves do you honestly think someone somewhere did not pray for them?

Even if you didn't shake a rattle and stick pins in a doll yourself, how do you know some witch doctor wasn't doing this for you somewhere?

Quote:Brother, all cry out when faced with death even if they can not admit it to others.

Cry out for what?

Quote:And you know this is true..... how?

Quote:The bible, Tells me so...

Quote:I have no doubt that any of you have ever known God. The question is, do you want to, and what price are you willing to pay to get to know Him?

What price am I willing to pay so I can "get to know" a fictional being? Let me think about this..... ummmm... nothing.

Quote:I have one more question.... You obviously think "God" cured your disease. Why did he cure you and ignore all those children down at the cancer ward of the local hospital? What makes you so special?

Quote:I Don't know,

Yeah, me either.

Quote:but I'll be damned if I don't spend my life or rather the extention of life I have been given, in His service trying to pay back what He has seen fit to give to me.

Since you obviously believe that this deity cures people, do you pray for all the blind people of the world to have their sight restored? Do you pray for all the paralyzed people of the world to have their mobility restored? How about praying for all those kids with cancer?

(May 15, 2012 at 2:49 pm)Drich Wrote: The word does not exclude supernatural content either. What it mean is to bring people back to health. The "how" is of little consequence.

I think it would do you a lot of good to really be able to define what he meant by 'healing'. If we're going to get so vague that saying I was healed of the flu over a week as counting as a miracle, then to me that is mere superstition. A better 'superstition' here is the one where I go to the doctor and I get given pills that do the job in less time.

The difference between the two is that the pill has a direct correlation to the time taken to heal, whereas prayer can be said to be trivial in you getting healed at all; the proof being that atheists get healed anyways.

Quote:How do you see what Jesus did when he fed the 4000 and/or 5000?

Quote:Just like the bible says it happens.

Good on them, but I don't see the same sort of thing happening anymore, especially ever since scientists observe that energy can't be created or destroyed.

I think it's more plausible to say that he made everyone's generous side come out.

Quote:Popular Christianity is just as "polluted" as the atheist version of it. Anything outside of the scope of you Asking, Seeking and Knocking for knowledge of Christ on your own is what I have highlighted here.

Ok.. well I wasn't in some sort of hip Christian movement that seeks to keep up with pop culture. My church is known for having members that go out on the streets to pray for healing. They do the exact opposite of trying to fit in with the world.

Quote:No, you approach God with all of the intellectual abilities God has seen fit to equip you with. Like with any thing new, educate yourself and define what it is, or Who God is. Read the bible with the sole purpose of identifying God. Note all of the different ways He interacts with people, the reason for it/ the purpose, the end result. Note any offers or promises, pay close attentions to the terms and conditions.

Interesting you mention that. This is exactly what destroyed my faith, through seeking the tangible historical Jesus that visited us so many moons ago. I was so certain it was the truth that I began to look for undeniable and tangible proof that I thought lied embedded in human history.

Education is powerful stuff, and not always on your side.

Quote:For instance Salvation and forgiveness of sin does not begin and end with John 3:16. There is a very big condition that forgiveness of your sins hinge on. Can you tell me what that is? Hint; it has nothing to do with baptism.

I beg to differ. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that man becomes one with Christ. The steps that follow are outlined throughout Romans.

Quote:It starts there, "If you are faithful with what you have been given, you will be given more. If you are not, what you have will be taken from you and given to someone else." Read your bible. learn to identify God how He acts, when He moves and the reasons for it. Then you can see things happen in your own life. Don't rely on feelings or what pop christianity tells you a God experience is. God is very real and not subject to our hokey interpertations of Him. He has laid out a very specific path with very specific promises to the one who follows that path. If you follow that path He will keep his Word.

I'm perfectly fine with most of the theological aspects of things, but when you try and use it as the foundation of the universe then it stops making sense. This is especially true of interactions between believers themselves. So often I'll see people using God as a way to channel something negative about someone or something. I don't even have to use Occam's Razor to see through their explanation of their action.

An example is my band's drummer that recently left. The reason he presented to the band was that God was telling him to move on and find a different band. The reason he gave me in private is that his music taste has changed. Going with Occam's Razor here I'm inclined to believe the latter explanation, but to make his reason more acceptable he had to bounce it against God.

Quote:Do you know of the dead sea scrolls? Do you know why they are important? Do you know when they were written in relation to when they were found? Do you know what they contain?

They are solid evidence for the Old Testament. That doesn't make the New Testament be on the same level all of a sudden, because as I said, we already know what has been added on. It's been done, it has passed, the extra verses have been added. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

Quote:God has preserved His word, and made some changes to our understanding of it, but overwhelmingly confirmed what we have in our bibles..

Could you elaborate please?

Quote:Mark 16 originally ends with an empty tomb, no Jesus and a young man asserting that Jesus has resurrected. The juicy witness accounts are what got added on.

Quote:No. The oldest text we have ends at Mark 16:8 We don't know if the rest was added on or if the oldest text we have is simply incomplete.

Given that Mark doesn't have a birth story either, I'm inclined to believe that Matthew and Luke (yes, I know we have our differences about when Luke was written) had to add to their own something to fill the void. I think the resurrection accounts are no different and it would make sense that 16:9 onwards were added on after Matthew and Luke were written because that makes Mark line up better.

Quote:No resurrected Jesus, no Christian God.

Quote:Then thankfully it is not the only text we have concerning Christ.

Secular evidence could have gone a long way though

(May 15, 2012 at 10:50 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I think it would do you a lot of good to really be able to define what he meant by 'healing'.

I left a definition and commentary.
Healing means to make well. The how one is made well is of little consequence. Christ did it miraculously we do it conventionally.

Quote:If we're going to get so vague that saying I was healed of the flu over a week as counting as a miracle, then to me that is mere superstition.

Again Healing is the care for, or service to the sick (by conventional means.) The word therapeuō speaks to the outcome (being made well) and can include but not limited any number of possible ways to make that happen.

Quote:A better 'superstition' here is the one where I go to the doctor and I get given pills that do the job in less time.

Which is still considered a form of therapeuō

Quote:Good on them, but I don't see the same sort of thing happening anymore, especially ever since scientists observe that energy can't be created or destroyed.

This was not something passed on to the disciples. Christ was the only one able to manifest items like loaves and fishes.

Quote:I think it's more plausible to say that he made everyone's generous side come out.

Because apparently you do not want to acknowledge what you can not account for.

Quote:Ok.. Well I wasn't in some sort of hip Christian movement that seeks to keep up with pop culture. My church is known for having members that go out on the streets to pray for healing. They do the exact opposite of trying to fit in with the world.

Pop Christianity does not blend in with the world. It is a subculture that holds certain aspects of Christianity over and above scriptural constraints. For instance you told us that your church tells you that "all who believe Get certain powers of Healing." The Bible contradicts that message. Yet it is taught anyway, even to the despondency and detriment of members who can not "heal" in a way they are told they should be able to heal. In a sense they champion the "power/gift" of Healing over and above of the people who are honest enough not to claim this gift, which again goes against What Paul told us in 1 Cor 12.

This is why I said pop Christianity is much worse than simple disbelief. It gives the illusion of faith and unity with Christ, and follows the bible close enough to substitute the gospel with a more popular easier to accept doctrine. Leading people (no matter how good the intentions of the members of the church) away from Christ and not to Him. Your Screen Name is evidence of that. Worse because you honestly think you gave your all to a sanctioned biblical effort to God and in the end you found nothing. When in reality you gave your all to a toxic faith and found exactly what toxic faiths produce. I am suggesting you put down your current understanding of Church and God and start again by reading and following your bible. When you do you will see promises. Take God up on those promises and you will receive what your earnestly ask, seek and knock for.

Quote:Interesting you mention that. This is exactly what destroyed my faith, through seeking the tangible historical Jesus that visited us so many moons ago. I was so certain it was the truth that I began to look for undeniable and tangible proof that I thought lied embedded in human history.

Do you know how, where, and why all of the information about Christ is stored?

Quote:Education is powerful stuff, and not always on your side.

It depends on who's education you are willing to accept as your own.

Quote:I beg to differ. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that man becomes one with Christ. The steps that follow are outlined throughout Romans.

This is what I am talking about. Christ Himself tells us in at least two different ways how and why your sins will not be forgiven, even if you claim Christianity and get dunked in water. Mat 18 21 through the end of the chapter Christ tells a parable of a servant (In this context a believer who has gone through the rights of belief) who has his status with his master taken away, all because He could not Forgive as He has been forgiven. The other place is in the Lord's Prayer we are told to ask "That our sins be forgiven (only if) we forgive those who have sinned against us." Again a condition of salvation not generally taught in pop Christian doctrine.

My point here is we must strive to look past what is taught by others and learn to read and incorporate the bible as a whole and not just piece verses together to say what we want to hear. The only way to do that is to start over and ask/learn to read everything again with a fresh perspective. Then and only then will you get to see the Hand of God.

Quote:I'm perfectly fine with most of the theological aspects of things,

Apparently not. For your last couple of threads have centered around not being able to understand or see God in your life.

Quote:Could you elaborate please?

This is one example. If you take the King James version and look at the 10 commandments the 7th is thou shalt not Kill. For the longest time our oldest manuscript used the generic term "kill." This was a problem because in the Hebrew there are 4 (if memory serves) different words for different types of Killing, and the word used encapsulated all of them. Upon translating the Dead sea scrolls we know have and verified with other Genesis manuscripts that The word used translates into Murder Changing the 7th command to You shall not murder. Meaning an unauthorized or Passionately angry taking of life. This is an example of God changing His word. Isaha 53 is an example of God preserving His word. For hundreds of years the oldest manuscript of Isaha 53 was only about 1200 years old. Which like with the passage you like to call into question with Mark 16:9 and forward it cause a lot of controversy. Many said it was compiled around the 12th century and was not an original OT book. Then when the scrolls were found the book was verified.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_masorite.html

Quote:Given that Mark doesn't have a birth story either, I'm inclined to believe that Matthew and Luke (yes, I know we have our differences about when Luke was written) had to add to their own something to fill the void. I think the resurrection accounts are no different and it would make sense that 16:9 onwards were added on after Matthew and Luke were written because that makes Mark line up better.

Which you must admit is just empty speculation. Because if there were any evidence one way or another this conversation would be a moot point.

Quote:Secular evidence could have gone a long way though

Again do you know why there isn't any "secular" evidence of Christ?

Do a search on first century record keeping and note who had control of the "scriptorium" needs to preserve and maintain a written record. Then research what those two organizations put into their scriptoriums. Then find out if anything Christ did or say would fall into those categories.

Or you can simply take my word that It wasn't till the late 2nd century that the church began to compile writings of their own. When they did everything that was written about Christ (even if not from a disciple) became a "religious work" simply because the church preserved the work in question. Leaving the secular world with nothing. which wasn't an issue till around the 18th and 19th centuries. Long after everyone seem to have forgotten where and how records were kept and preserved before that point in time.

"No the Graphe' is fallible. We know it is subject to spelling errors grammatical issues and miss translation. This is proved over and over when comparing the original manuscripts with each other."

Oh yes. You proved that mis-translation is a hot commodity in the mess you made with agape and philos elsewhere. These are rubbish arguments which lean this way when you like, and that when you don't.