May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?[/quote]
Sure although it should be clear that I don’t endorse most organized religions as they typiclaly miss the point but was baptized Protestant, “saved” through a Church of Christ, long time reader of the bible.
Don’t believe in any denomination. I have been to churches in quite a few different flavors of Christianity that were pretty cool and had some great folks. Been to a bunch that sucked ass and were full of judgmental people that were clueless about God. I do not need a church or denomination to have a personal relationship with God.
But for the record if there is any denomination that historically is clearly NOT the right one it is Catholicism and I say that with half of my extended family being Catholic. [/quote]
What your beef with Catholicism? What’s the turn off? I certainly hope its not the news media…
May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?[/quote]
Sure although it should be clear that I don’t endorse most organized religions as they typiclaly miss the point but was baptized Protestant, “saved” through a Church of Christ, long time reader of the bible.
Don’t believe in any denomination. I have been to churches in quite a few different flavors of Christianity that were pretty cool and had some great folks. Been to a bunch that sucked ass and were full of judgmental people that were clueless about God. I do not need a church or denomination to have a personal relationship with God.
But for the record if there is any denomination that historically is clearly NOT the right one it is Catholicism and I say that with half of my extended family being Catholic. [/quote]
What your beef with Catholicism? What’s the turn off? I certainly hope its not the news media…[/quote]
It is probably Fox News or something. You know those coocky blondes.
May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?[/quote]
Sure although it should be clear that I don’t endorse most organized religions as they typiclaly miss the point but was baptized Protestant, “saved” through a Church of Christ, long time reader of the bible.
Don’t believe in any denomination. I have been to churches in quite a few different flavors of Christianity that were pretty cool and had some great folks. Been to a bunch that sucked ass and were full of judgmental people that were clueless about God.
I do not need a church or denomination to have a personal relationship with God.
But for the record if there is any denomination that historically is clearly NOT the right one it is Catholicism and I say that with half of my extended family being Catholic. [/quote]
So you are anti-Catholic and do not attend Chruch on a regular basis? I agree with you though that you do not need a denomination to have a relationship with God, but I do think you need a fellowship of beleivers to be with. That is what I like about here at T-Muscle. I get to discuss things with all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I do include Catholics in that statement.[/quote]
I am not anti you choosing the Catholic faith as your vehicle, like I said when you just look at historical facts it’s pretty clear that as a machine the Catholic church has been pretty awash with all kinds of activities both by its leaders and constituents that would make me believe I want no part in that organization as a pathway to higher realization of God.
That is strange to me that you feel you need a fellowship to have a relationship with God but that is your free will. I would agree that a fellowship is great and makes it easier but not necessary.
May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?[/quote]
Sure although it should be clear that I don’t endorse most organized religions as they typiclaly miss the point but was baptized Protestant, “saved” through a Church of Christ, long time reader of the bible.
Don’t believe in any denomination. I have been to churches in quite a few different flavors of Christianity that were pretty cool and had some great folks. Been to a bunch that sucked ass and were full of judgmental people that were clueless about God. I do not need a church or denomination to have a personal relationship with God.
But for the record if there is any denomination that historically is clearly NOT the right one it is Catholicism and I say that with half of my extended family being Catholic. [/quote]
What your beef with Catholicism? What’s the turn off? I certainly hope its not the news media…[/quote]
I kind of answered this in another reply but based on the historical misgivings and entirely too much dogma and ceremony and NO the pope has no more direct link to God than I do, I simply do not feel that if I HAD to choose a denomination this would certainly not be the one. It is the one for my Aunt, my uncle, my 5 cousins, their families, etc. hey that’s their call.
I guess I just don’t see Jesus as God the almighty he was a messenger, an example, a savior…[/quote]
A savior of what? And why?[quote]
He is the son of God but no more a son of God than I am or you are… [/quote]
Then he is also a liar because he said he and his Father were one.
And John is a liar for calling him the Creator in John 1:1-14.
With all this lying going on maybe it’s not us that needs the saving? You have a lying fraud claiming to be a savior…it won’t work, my friend. It simply will not work.
Your theology completely falls apart if you attempt to rip the deity of Christ away from him.
[/quote]
I believe he was sent/enlightened to be an example of a savior to humanity. Someone that people could follow their lead to be more like the divine. Why? because God loves us and wants us to do the right thing and knows that for the most part we are fuck ups and need a good example once in a while (and hopefully you realize Jesus wasn’t the only one of these)—great selling point for you to join my club but he wasn’t the only one.
He and his Father are one, me and God are one, so are you, the divine light is within all of us we are interwoven with the fabric of the universe, so no he isn’t a liar and neither is John.
and thus is the problem with people that so literally hang on and interpret every word of the Bible and what inherently bastardizes religions and causes good people to do horrible things in the name of their religion. You are reading a text that has been translated, re-translated, assembled, edited, and contorted for many, many years.
If you actually think that the original message is not distorted by a man’s perception along the way then you are in for a rough ride. The Bible (like most theological texts) has incredible pearls of insight and wisdom and lessons of how to life a more fruitful life and increase your realization of your union with the divine.
It is not nor should it ever be taken as a verbatim account that is an un-modified “word of God.” Sorry it just shouldn’t be and as long as it is there will be discontent, ignorance and violence in the name of religion.
I kind of answered this in another reply but based on the historical misgivings and entirely too much dogma and ceremony and NO the pope has no more direct link to God than I do, I simply do not feel that if I HAD to choose a denomination this would certainly not be the one. It is the one for my Aunt, my uncle, my 5 cousins, their families, etc. hey that’s their call.[/quote]
Not that your required, but I think careful study would reveal that a lot of what you have been told isn’t true about the church. Given what you said, you really don’t know much about it. I don’t mean this in a bad way, but we have been vilified unjustly through out history.
Besides people only focus on the bad stuff, there has been a hell of a lot of good come out of it too. We’re far from perfect, but we aren’t as bad as we’ve been made out to be by the media and such.
Contrary to popular belief, most priests don’t molest children, we don’t worship marry or the saints, the actual dogma of the church is very small and has changed little in 20 centuries, and the pope doesn’t claim to be any closer to God than anybody else. Just at his service.
There’s a lot to bitch about, but we prefer to keep it in the family.
I am not trying to make you Catholic or anything, not my goal. Just want you to understand we’re not weird and we don’t burn goats and we’re not pharasidic in our dogma…Actually we’re probably looser than most as we believe non-Christians can and will be saved.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 [/quote]
Ahhhhh…you wanna go Mormon on us, do ya? Sorry, bud, the “firstborn” translation as you are presenting it does not work. You are grossly misinterpreting the passage.
Look at it in the New Living Translation:
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we canâ??t seeâ??
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
You have to read the verses after vs. 15. Always read scripture in context.
"The question is regarding the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, a very important passage and one that is attacked continuously by cults and various â??isms.â?? Colossians 1:15. Now, in reference here to Christ, it says, â??Who is the image of the invisible Godâ??â??now, here comes the problem part to some peopleâ??â??the firstborn of all creation.â??
Now, some would say that because Christ is called the â??firstborn of all creation,â?? that He was the first one created; therefore, He is a created being. Therefore, He is less than God, and the cults love to come to this verse to prove that.
Well, letâ??s look at what it says. First of all, it calls Christ â??the image of the invisible God.â?? Notice it doesnâ??t say â??Christ is in the image of the invisible God;â?? it says â??He is the image.â?? He is the image.
If you want a clear understanding of that, all you have to do is go to Colossians 2:9 and Paul makes it very clear what he means: â??for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in a body.â?? When it says He is the image of God, it means He is God in a body.
The word â??imageâ??â??â??eikonâ??â??means â??a precise copy or a replica.â?? Today it would be the equal of a photograph. Jesus is the â??eikonionâ?? (sp.); He is the perfect portrait of God. He is God made visible in a portrait. He is the manifestation of God.
In verse 19, it says, â??It pleased the Father that in him should allâ??â??â??pleromaâ??â??â??all fullness dwell.â?? What fullness? The fullness of the Godhead (2:9). He is the manifestation in a visible picture, in a physical body, of all that God is.
Now, it also says, â??He is the firstborn of all creation.â?? Now, this word â??prototokosâ?? has been so maligned and so misunderstood. What does it mean that He is the firstborn? People, it has nothing to do with time! It has only to do with position.
It has nothing to do with origin! It has only to do with position. The â??prototokosâ?? was the â??primary one.â?? The primary one. If you would rather translate it that way in your Bible, it is proper.
For example, look at verse 18: â??He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginningâ??â??now watchâ??â??the firstborn from the dead.â?? Now, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus, in time, the first person raised from the dead? No. There were some in the Old Testament. There were some previously in the New Testament that Christ himself raised from the dead.
He is not the first â??in timeâ?? from the dead. He is, however, of all of those who have ever been resurrected, the primary one. Do you see? Thatâ??s what it means. So when you go back to chapter 1:15, it is not saying the first one created was Christ; he is saying, of all of Godâ??s total creation, of all that there is in Godâ??s universe, the primary being is Christ.
He is the Son who receives the inheritance rights. His is the place of privilege. His is the honor. He is the Fatherâ??s heir, the head of Godâ??s household.
Now, this also ties in with another scripture in Revelation 3:14: â??And unto the angel of the churchâ??the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,â??â??now watchâ??â??the beginning of the creation of God.â??
Now here again, the word translated â??beginningâ?? is not really a word that can always or must always mean â??beginning.â?? It is the word â??arche.â?? The English here is terribly ambiguous. â??Archeâ?? means â??first cause.â??
It sometimes could be translated â??the authorâ?? or â??the pioneerâ?? or â??the generating power.â?? â??The first causeâ??â??read it that way. He is the first cause of the creation of God.
That is not saying He was created by God; that is saying He is the Creator. When Jesus is seen in his incarnation as the Son, He is the primary one of all of Godâ??s creation. When He is seen here in Revelation 3:14, He is the cause of creation.
John puts it clearly in John 1, â??Without him was not anything made that was made.â?? He is the source of all creation and in his incarnation was the supreme creature God ever made. And that refers, of course, to his physical body."
Regarding Col 1:15 “He is…the firstborn of all creation” is talking about the fact that Jesus was the first person to be born spiritually alive (because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit). Adam was created spiritually alive, but immediately died spiritually when he sinned (and he eventually died physically as a result).
Everyone after Adam is born spiritually dead (not having the indwelling life of God). Jesus tells us we must be “born again” of the Spirit. Jesus came to restore in us the life of God that was lost in Adam.
Also, see Col 1:18 “He is…the firstborn from the dead.” Who are the dead? Everyone not born again of the Spirit. Because of Adam we are all born spiritually dead and need life. Jesus was the firstborn; I don’t know who the second was, but I know there have been many after him born of the Spirit.
Push, I agree with you that Genesis is key because it tells us what the problem is. Without first knowing the problem it does no good to hear “Jesus is the answer”.
…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]
Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.
My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.
With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.
Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]
Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point? [/quote]
You’re right Jesus did speak using parables to help his listeners discern what he was saying but we can’t confirm any where in the Bible that his parables were true story. So they were most likely made up just to help his listeners understand the point he was making.
On the other hand, outside of Genesis Noah is mention at 1 Chronicles 1:4, Isaiah 54:9, Ezekial 14:20, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 3:36, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5. Noah is also listed at Luke 3:36 in the line of descendants that Jesus came from.
So according to the Bible Noah was a real person and if you understand what Jesus’ presence means then you’ll understand that during the days of his presence most people won’t pay attention to the signs and they will end up like the people in Noahs day that took no note until it was too late.[/quote]
Ok, so we have established that Noah was mentioned in the Bible as a real person in several passages and even given a lineage. Therefore, the Bible did not mean for the story of Noah to just merely teach a lesson but that he was an actual person. Now, how do we prove the reliability of that lineage? What if it was fabricated?[/quote]
That’s where 1 Timothy 3:16 and 17 comes in, which states (NWT):
“16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
Notice that verse 16 say ALL scripture is inspired. So if you have faith in the Bible and that God inspired everything in the Bible then you should believe everything in the Bible even the parts that’s you don’t understand or can’t explain.
If you don’t have faith in the Bible or God then there is nothing that anyone could say to you prove that Noah and the Ark is true. Unless that find on a mountain in Turkey turns out to be the actual Ark.[/quote]
But to provide proof for the non believer we cannot simply quote the Bible. We need to do better. So how else can we go about proving the accuracy of the Bible?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Further…if I get rid of Genesis as credible and True I can switch sides in this debate and absolutely destroy Christianity. I can annihilate everything and anything “you Christians” throw at me.
I can make Orion and Makavali and Bodyguard and Planet Cap’n and Ephrem, et al, look like rank amateurs still in diapers falling our of their cribs. [/quote]
I think Genesis is the most important book in the OT…[/quote]
Ok, then here’s another question about Genesis. Genesis means the first (i.e. origins), but does it just refer to the first in related to the lineage of Abraham? We know that when Cain was cast out from where he lived that he went east to marry. Is this evidence that Genesis refers to the “first” but not necessarily “only?”
[quote]mse2us wrote:
The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 [/quote]
Ahhhhh…you wanna go Mormon on us, do ya? Sorry, bud, the “firstborn” translation as you are presenting it does not work. You are grossly misinterpreting the passage.
Look at it in the New Living Translation:
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can�¢??t see�¢??
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
You have to read the verses after vs. 15. Always read scripture in context.
"The question is regarding the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, a very important passage and one that is attacked continuously by cults and various �¢??isms.�¢?? Colossians 1:15. Now, in reference here to Christ, it says, �¢??Who is the image of the invisible God�¢??�¢??now, here comes the problem part to some people�¢??�¢??the firstborn of all creation.�¢??
Now, some would say that because Christ is called the �¢??firstborn of all creation,�¢?? that He was the first one created; therefore, He is a created being. Therefore, He is less than God, and the cults love to come to this verse to prove that.
Well, let�¢??s look at what it says. First of all, it calls Christ �¢??the image of the invisible God.�¢?? Notice it doesn�¢??t say �¢??Christ is in the image of the invisible God;�¢?? it says �¢??He is the image.�¢?? He is the image. If you want a clear understanding of that, all you have to do is go to Colossians 2:9 and Paul makes it very clear what he means: �¢??for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in a body.�¢?? When it says He is the image of God, it means He is God in a body.
The word �¢??image�¢??�¢??�¢??eikon�¢??�¢??means �¢??a precise copy or a replica.�¢?? Today it would be the equal of a photograph. Jesus is the �¢??eikonion�¢?? (sp.); He is the perfect portrait of God. He is God made visible in a portrait. He is the manifestation of God.
In verse 19, it says, �¢??It pleased the Father that in him should all�¢??�¢??�¢??pleroma�¢??�¢??�¢??all fullness dwell.�¢?? What fullness? The fullness of the Godhead (2:9). He is the manifestation in a visible picture, in a physical body, of all that God is.
Now, it also says, �¢??He is the firstborn of all creation.�¢?? Now, this word �¢??prototokos�¢?? has been so maligned and so misunderstood. What does it mean that He is the firstborn? People, it has nothing to do with time! It has only to do with position.
It has nothing to do with origin! It has only to do with position. The �¢??prototokos�¢?? was the �¢??primary one.�¢?? The primary one. If you would rather translate it that way in your Bible, it is proper.
For example, look at verse 18: �¢??He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning�¢??�¢??now watch�¢??�¢??the firstborn from the dead.�¢?? Now, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus, in time, the first person raised from the dead? No. There were some in the Old Testament. There were some previously in the New Testament that Christ himself raised from the dead.
He is not the first �¢??in time�¢?? from the dead. He is, however, of all of those who have ever been resurrected, the primary one. Do you see? That�¢??s what it means. So when you go back to chapter 1:15, it is not saying the first one created was Christ; he is saying, of all of God�¢??s total creation, of all that there is in God�¢??s universe, the primary being is Christ.
He is the Son who receives the inheritance rights. His is the place of privilege. His is the honor. He is the Father�¢??s heir, the head of God�¢??s household.
Now, this also ties in with another scripture in Revelation 3:14: �¢??And unto the angel of the church�¢??the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,�¢??�¢??now watch�¢??�¢??the beginning of the creation of God.�¢??
Now here again, the word translated �¢??beginning�¢?? is not really a word that can always or must always mean �¢??beginning.�¢?? It is the word �¢??arche.�¢?? The English here is terribly ambiguous. �¢??Arche�¢?? means �¢??first cause.�¢?? It sometimes could be translated �¢??the author�¢?? or �¢??the pioneer�¢?? or �¢??the generating power.�¢?? �¢??The first cause�¢??�¢??read it that way. He is the first cause of the creation of God.
That is not saying He was created by God; that is saying He is the Creator. When Jesus is seen in his incarnation as the Son, He is the primary one of all of God�¢??s creation. When He is seen here in Revelation 3:14, He is the cause of creation.
John puts it clearly in John 1, �¢??Without him was not anything made that was made.�¢?? He is the source of all creation and in his incarnation was the supreme creature God ever made. And that refers, of course, to his physical body."
and Revelation 3:14 clearly states this so at one time Jesus did not exist…[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It says He is the Creator: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness, the Origin and Beginning and Author of God’s creation.
Push my man it’s actually kind of hard to read what you copied and pasted above. But from what I gathered you’re saying that because Jesus created everything that he must be God Almighty. Now I’m going to use other scriptures to try to clarify this for you.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 states:
“For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him .”
Push, can you see the distinction:
One God the Father OUT OF WHOM ALL THINGS ARE.
One Lord Jesus THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS ARE.
Clearly separate and clearly two different roles.
Hebrews 1:1-3:
"God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3
He is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places."
Push, again can you see the distinction? This verse is clearly referring to God and can you see through whom he used to create the system of things? His son Jesus. Can you see how he can be the image of God as stated in Colossians 1:15? Verse 3 states he is the reflection of his Father or the image of his father.
Push have you heard the term splitting image when someone refers to a son that not only looks like is father but acts like him as well? This is what the above verse and Colossians 1:15 is talking about. Jesus is like his father so much so that he could say at John 14:9 that “he who has seen me has seen the father.” Where did Jesus sit when he went back to heaven? Did he sit on God’s throne or did he become God? No.
The verse clearly states Jesus is at God’s RIGHT HAND. So yes he can be the image or reflection of God and still be two separate beings as Hebrews 1:3 clearly states because he is at God’s RIGHT HAND two beings. You use photocopy to try to explain Colossians 1:15 and that is a great analogy.
When you take a piece of paper and run it through a copier how many copies are there? There are two: the original and the copy. So good point Push I’m glad you thought of that.
Before I talk about Proverbs chapter 8. Wisdom is personified and this is Jesus in the pre-human existence. Is Jesus identified as Wisdom in the Bible. Absolutely.
1 Corinthians 1:24 and 30 states:
“however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
verse 30:
“But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom.”
So yes Jesus is referred to as Wisdom.
Proverbs 8:22-30:
Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25
Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27
When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30
then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men."
Push can you see how the above verses harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 and Hebrews 1:1-3?
The person in Proverbs 8:22-30 who is produced at the beginning of God’s ways is none other than Jesus in his heavenly position. When God started to make plans for creation Jesus in his heavenly position was there and he became God’s MASTER WORKER. Push, can you see the distinction that I pointed out with 1 Corinthians 8:5,6?
God PREPARED everything: the heavens and earth and THROUGH HIS MASTER WORKER HE CREATED EVERYTHING. Again can you see how this harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:5,6? All things are OUT OF GOD because he prepared and made plans for the things created.
All things are THROUGH JESUS because as God’s Master Worker God used him to create all things.
This Master Worker is at God’s side. What did Jesus say about being at God’s side in heaven? John 17:5 states:
“So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”
What did Jesus say about God being fond of him in heaven before the earth was created? John 17:24 states:
“Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.”
Push it’s clear. The Master Worker who is this close to God and is the first thing God created and who he uses as a Master Worker is none other than Jesus in his heavenly position.
I’m going to stop here push because the scriptures I used clearly distinguish between God and Jesus and clearly show that they are two separate beings. Much clearer than what you stated above.
By the way don’t try to use John 10:30 where Jesus said I and the father are one. Because John 17:20-23 clearly explains what Jesus meant by being one. Read it.
Push please don’t ever tell me to read the full context of the scriptures because I know that’s essential and all the scriptures that I quoted don’t lose their meaning if you read the full context. I know you won’t believe me but hopefully people who are following along can see the truth. Ashamed of myself? Hardly.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]
This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.
I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.
Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]
Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments. They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]
This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.
I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.
Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]
Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments. They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.
[/quote]
Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?
…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]
Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.
My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.
With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.
Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]
Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point? [/quote]
You’re right Jesus did speak using parables to help his listeners discern what he was saying but we can’t confirm any where in the Bible that his parables were true story. So they were most likely made up just to help his listeners understand the point he was making.
On the other hand, outside of Genesis Noah is mention at 1 Chronicles 1:4, Isaiah 54:9, Ezekial 14:20, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 3:36, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5. Noah is also listed at Luke 3:36 in the line of descendants that Jesus came from.
So according to the Bible Noah was a real person and if you understand what Jesus’ presence means then you’ll understand that during the days of his presence most people won’t pay attention to the signs and they will end up like the people in Noahs day that took no note until it was too late.[/quote]
Ok, so we have established that Noah was mentioned in the Bible as a real person in several passages and even given a lineage. Therefore, the Bible did not mean for the story of Noah to just merely teach a lesson but that he was an actual person. Now, how do we prove the reliability of that lineage? What if it was fabricated?[/quote]
That’s where 1 Timothy 3:16 and 17 comes in, which states (NWT):
“16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
Notice that verse 16 say ALL scripture is inspired. So if you have faith in the Bible and that God inspired everything in the Bible then you should believe everything in the Bible even the parts that’s you don’t understand or can’t explain.
If you don’t have faith in the Bible or God then there is nothing that anyone could say to you prove that Noah and the Ark is true. Unless that find on a mountain in Turkey turns out to be the actual Ark.[/quote]
But to provide proof for the non believer we cannot simply quote the Bible. We need to do better. So how else can we go about proving the accuracy of the Bible?[/quote]
You are correct. Quoting the Bible to a non-believer is useless. However, before we even get to the Bible we would have to establish that God exists. If you can get them to agree that it’s a least a possibility, then you can discuss scripture.