Hello all,
I find it difficult to start threads these days because deep sight has set such a high standard, so I will go with the good old fashioned way.

Welcome viaro,
The purpose of this thread is to try and understand your views on religion as a whole with a close look at Christianity. In this thread you will be answering questions that I dare say has plagued christianity in a bid to show us how you rationalize them. You come across as a calm person but I have seen this website do a lot of things to people and I hope you are always like this.

That said I will kindly wait for you to acknowledge this thread and then we can begin.


Thank you.

Thank you, Chrisbenogor. I'm delighted and quite honoured that anyone would consider discussing with me on any issue at all. I had hoped to have more time in the coming months (Dec - Jan, '09/10) to discuss pending issues. .  but it seems inevitable to have a head start with yours and progress until when time would be luxuriously furnished to my disposal.

However, a few prefatory remarks:

Chrisbenogor:

The purpose of this thread is to try and understand your views on religion as a whole with a close look at Christianity.

I shall try and do so. Yet, it is important to observe that my views and understanding may not satisfy a whole lot of people at any stretch. .  and I'd be first to nod from the onset that there would be problems with some of the comments I'd be sharing. However, whatever you read from me is not definitive or conclusive for the totality of Christianity for anyone, believers and unbelievers alike.

In this thread you will be answering questions that I dare say has plagued christianity in a bid to show us how you rationalize them.

You'd be shocked, Chris. . I always shy away from rationalizing anything. I acknowledge that many of the things we believe in our Christian faith may be curious to non-Christian observers (I prefer 'observers' for now and reserve other terms for later). Indeed, a whole lot of things have plagued nearly all faiths and belief systems that I know of, bar none. Yet, even when we make up any hypothesis or theories to explain anything anywhere and anyhow, no explanation is water-tight as to be finalist on any question. If we keep this in mind, it would not be difficult for my readers to understand why I am still a Christian in spite of the problems that may be highlighted along our discussions.

You come across as a calm person but I have seen this website do a lot of things to people and I hope you are always like this.

I shall do my best, and thank you for the compliment.

That said I will kindly wait for you to acknowledge this thread and then we can begin.

Acknowledged.

Thank you Viaro.
Before we go on I want to make an appeal to all who post on this thread, my aim is to understand how viaro sees things and ask questions, where I am not clear. I will try my very best to make you see that my intentions are that and nothing more.
We will be kicking off next.

1. Can you give us an overview of what it takes to be a christian, in your own words who is a christian?

Alrite: First off, i must say that this person: Viaro, is one of my favourite Nairalanders, calm, honest, patient, deep, thoughtful, and very polite (although once he catches you "yabbing" others, he could deal you a rough blow, as i just discovered in the thread for Davidylan and the deity of Christ).

Viaro, you are most welcome, and most appreciated!

My questions for you are:

 1. What do you make of the sacrifice on the cross. Redemption through that sacrifice.

 2. Are you of the view that non-christians may be saved.

 3. What do you make of the idea of re-incarnation.

4. Are you kind enough to share with us your denomination (if any)

Thanks.

Wow! I like love you guys for inviting a discussion, and I shall try and maintain some decorum! I wish many people can follow these examples from you guys.

Deep Sight, how can I thank you for not taking my rough side personally? I deeply appreciate that happy attitude you demonstrate. This one just blasted me to the floor in all laughter. .

Deep Sight:

(although once he catches you "yabbing" others, he could deal you a rough blow, as i just discovered in the thread for Davidylan and the deity of Christ).

ROFL. .!! Please, Deep Sight, that was silly of me! Please, I'm begging and deeply regret that brashness on my part.

Now we can move on. . one step at a time.

Chris, yours first. . at least I should do you the honour, as you have the credit for having mooted this thread.

Chrisbenogor:

1. Can you give us an overview of what it takes to be a christian, in your own words who is a christian?

In my own view, a Christian is one who has genuinely committed his faith and trust in Jesus Christ on the basis of His claims as we find in the Bible.

What that means to different people may come off differently in their varied contexts; but every other point that may be made is 'appendical' to that basic idea, IMO.

viaro:

Wow! I like love you guys for inviting a discussion, and I shall try and maintain some decorum! I wish many people can follow these examples from you guys.

Deep Sight, how can I thank you for not taking my rough side personally? I deeply appreciate that happy attitude you demonstrate. This one just blasted me to the floor in all laughter. . ROFL. .!! Please, Deep Sight, that was silly of me! Please, I'm begging and deeply regret that brashness on my part.

Now we can move on. . one step at a time.

^^^ No wahala! I felt i deserved it though!

Chris was really right, when he said this site does something to people. When i signed on, i was determined never to have a rough word for anybody - to be the epitome of decorum. In my early posts, you will see me trying to arbitrate disputes, begging people not to be abrasive.

I still keep to it, but i cant deny i have had my terrible moments, losing control and going for the jugular.

I always try to apologize though. I think that's the key.

Fire on, jaare!

Deep Sight:

My questions for you are:

 1. What do you make of the sacrifice on the cross. Redemption through that sacrifice.

A lot. It all depends on what exactly someone might like to enquire particularly in that regard. On basics, redemption is founded on blood; and the sacrifice on the Cross makes that concrete. Many times, people are far too concerned with the gory details and then lose sight of the intrinsic message of redemption in that act.

 2. Are you of the view that non-christians may be saved.

Yes, and No.

Yes, because it seems to me that is what the Bible declares in many places according to the dispensation and divine economy of any group of people.

No, because a deliberate, willful rejection of God's saving grace in Christ does not automatically qualify someone for Biblical salvation. People may be offended at this, but how do they defend the idea of qualifying someone for that salvation who has deliberately and willfully scorned God's offer in that regard?

_{Okay, I should always bear in mind that I'm being questioned and not yet calling any shots!}

 3. What do you make of the idea of re-incarnation.

I don't believe in re-incarnation because I don't have enough to tilt my convictions in that direction.

 4. Are you kind enough to share with us your denomination (if any)

I'm a Baptist.

Thank you. . _{*brashly hijacking the interiew from Chrisbenegor*}

Let us start with reincarnation. Both John the Baptist and Jesus himself were approached with the question if they were Elijah.

Neither said "What?!! How is that possible?!!!" - or rejected the idea being put to them.

Jesus simply answered "no", and John evaded the question entirely by saying " i am the voice of one crying in the desert. . ."

Surely, this shows that both John and Jesus reckoned with the idea of reincarnation?

Wwhat say you?

Good to see y'all fessing up to having 'dark' sides. . . .
Anyway my question for viaro isn't difficult. . .here it is : viaro, are you male or female?

^^^ TUDOR! Where the f*** have YOU been all this while? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Surely, this shows that both John and Jesus reckoned with the idea of reincarnation?

Wwhat say you?

^^^Well, not necessarily.

It is true that neither Jesus nor John baptist categorically rejected the idea of reincarnation when approached. Yet, they did not explicitly endorse it either.

However, even there at that point we encounter a problem. The one question that crosses my mind repeatedly is this: were those who queried Jesus (Matthew 17) and John baptist (John 1:21) asking questions that suggest re-incarnation? In all probability, I deeply doubt that was the case, for the following reasons:

1.  I don't know much about Jewish ideology and way of thinking in context of the 1st century; but rather than the thought of reincarnation, it's my view that they had resurrection in mind.

2.  The fact that it was more a point of resurrection than of reincarnation is supported by some pointers in both the Bible and Jewish documents. A few examples:

            *  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
                some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
                Daniel 12:2

            *  Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
                Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
                and the earth shall cast out the dead
                Isaiah 26:19

3.  Long before the era of the New Testament, we can see from those references that the Jews were at the very least aware of the concept of people rising from the dead. This, for me, does not point to the idea of reincarnation (which, in Hinduism, is the belief that after you die you can be born again as a different person, animal, or thing); rather, those references point to resurrection of some sorts, where the dead are to rise again, fully recognizable for who they were.

4.  To strengthen this view, it was not only in those occasions (Matthew 17 and John 1:21) that the question was broached: there are other times when many in the audience had mistaken Jesus for either Elijah, or Jeremiah, or for one of the prophets (Matt. 16:14). However, this pointing back again and again to people in the past was not understood as reincarnation, but rather as resurrection. Particularly so is what we can understand from Herod's presumptive assertion to his servants in Matthew 14:2 -

       * 'This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead;
           and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.'

Or, as Mark 6:16 has it -

       * 'But when Herod heard thereof, he said,
          It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.'

5.  From the foregoing, we can see that it was not reincarnation that we see in these examples, but rather a resurrection or a rising from the dead.


However, what about the important point you raised, viz -

Deep Sight:

Jesus simply answered "no", and John evaded the question entirely by saying " i am the voice of one crying in the desert. . ."

No, I think it's not precisely so. John did not evade the question, for his answer to that question was categorical in John 1:21 -

       'And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.'

As discussed above, you can see that neither Jesus nor John baptist reckoned with reincarnation, but rather a rising from the dead (strategically a different thing from the reincarnation idea).

Tudór:

Good to see y'all fessing up to having 'dark' sides. . . .
Anyway my question for viaro isn't difficult. . .here it is : viaro, are you male or female?

Hi, Tudór. My answer as earlier.

Back to the questions viaro *Tugging the stubborn deep sight to his seat*
Thanks to deep sight for giving us an insight, I really do not intend to delve into scripture passages as such because I want to make this thread as simple as possible for everyone reading.
2. On the thread about the existence of God I was amazed at mathematics skills you posses, I am pretty sure you do not accept things at face value so tell us,
(a) Have you done a thorough study of christianity, its history and also the history of the bible, if so what were your findings?
(b) How do you view the bible, is it the undiluted word of God?
(c) Are there any parts of the bible you have qualms with as regards your moral standing today?
(d) Are there any parts where you feel the truth must have been stretched?

Lo, Chrisbenogor. .

Continuing -

Chrisbenogor:

Thanks to deep sight for giving us an insight, I really do not intend to delve into scripture passages as such because I want to make this thread as simple as possible for everyone reading.

All manner of questions welcome, and gracias to Deep Sight earlier. Indeed, simplicity would do just fine, although it might be inevitable to cite some references from the Bible if they might be necessary to explicate certain concepts.

2. On the thread about the existence of God I was amazed at mathematics skills you posses, I am pretty sure you do not accept things at face value so tell us,

What can I say but that nobody should be amazed at any presumed mathematical skills in my possession. I just love playing with numbers. . and I make many mistakes as well!

(a) Have you done a thorough study of christianity, its history and also the history of the bible, if so what were your findings?

Unfortunately, I have not done what qualifies as "thorough" in my study of Christianity. However, the little I understand is satisfying enough to draw my faith and commitment in its ideals. Faith, for me, is not so much the academic or mental gymnastics that many find interesting to set their whole energy upon - such would build empires of arguments where nobody lives.

(b) How do you view the bible, is it the undiluted word of God?

I believe the canon of the Bible with 66 books is the Word of God - whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them. The central message is what is of value to me in finding meaning in my life of faith and commitment to Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

(c) Are there any parts of the bible you have qualms with as regards your moral standing today?

Not really, it all depends on what is being implied for application of faith to those who seek a covenant relationship with God. If one excuses this point, then a world of problems opens up to them, where they interpret the message of the Bible in its totality as a joke. That, for me, is not how I derive value from its pages.

(d) Are there any parts where you feel the truth must have been stretched?

I have not yet come to that; and yes, many people have asked me quite pertinent questions in this regard - and where I do not know, my answer has always been that: I do not know.

Allah is One

Viaro -

You are one Christian i truly respect and admire.

^^^ why so? I should rather say that a few people have drawn my deepest respects, and whether you believe it or not, you were the very first!

Deep Sight:

^^^ TUDOR! Where the f*** have YOU been all this while? ? ? ? ?

Mehn I've been real busy. . . 4 SAs got mysteriously ill and I had to suspend my much awaited vacation to cover up for them. Gee, thanks for the bad timing god.
Whats up?

What the hell is this?
Abuzola, aren't you supposed to be in mecca for the hajj?

BTW, is the nigerian government still sponsoring y'all to go kiss some black stone in the desert with tax payers money?

Let us dwell on number 2 a bit.

Unfortunately, I have not done what qualifies as "thorough" in my study of Christianity.

So are we expecting more research from you in the future or you have given up on it and want to just dwell on your faith as you see it now?

I believe the canon of the Bible with 66 books is the Word of God - whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them. The central message is what is of value to me in finding meaning in my life of faith and commitment to Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

Is it not difficult to stand on the fence and not qualify it, let us simplify it further, do you think that here and there people who wrote these books infused both their local beliefs, practices and whatever inspiration they might have gotten for these books? For instance we see the proliferation of the western culture in christianity today, like I asked david the other day, how much confidence do you have that 2500 years is not enough to have seriously distorted the "central message" in the gospel?
Furthermore how much of the gnostic gospels do you know, when making your judgment on the 66 books did you put into consideration what the intention of the people putting them together might have been? Is it remotely possible to you that what we see and have today as christianity is not what it originally was or intended to be?

Not really, it all depends on what is being implied for application of faith to those who seek a covenant relationship with God. If one excuses this point, then a world of problems opens up to them, where they interpret the message of the Bible in its totality as a joke. That, for me, is not how I derive value from its pages.

Ok if you say so, I will give you a run down list just after  we deal with the questions we have above. Let us remind ourselves by saying We still have rundown list A at the beginning of the next series of posts we have. 

I have not yet come to that; and yes, many people have asked me quite pertinent questions in this regard - and where I do not know, my answer has always been that: I do not know.

Hmmmmmm viaro  that came across as a houdini attempt, are you saying there is no part of the bible where you read and went "eish I think this guy add small salt and pepper" 

Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:

Let us dwell on number 2 a bit.So are we expecting more research from you in the future or you have given up on it and want to just dwell on your faith as you see it now?

No, I have not given up studying about faiths and religions in general, and Christianity in particular. I don't know about 'research', for that word has been quite often loosely used in many circles.

Is it not difficult to stand on the fence and not qualify it,

Hehe, my answer wasn't a straddling of fences. Be that as it may, I often leave it in the simple form as given earlier, qualifying it only in terms of its canon of 66 books as distinct from those used by other Christian traditions (eg., the apocrypha of 14 books of an OT era). We encounter numerous problems when we begin to stretch my answer with qualifiers such as 'undiluted', 'authoritative', 'unadulterated', 'absolute', etc., etc., etc., because many people confuse a translation/version with a manuscript.

let us simplify it further, do you think that here and there people who wrote these books infused both their local beliefs, practices and whatever inspiration they might have gotten for these books?

Good question, but I don't have reasons to come to your conclusion as such if we don't qualify your question by a context. Certainly, while in many places the authors gave narratives, instructions and observations that portray their local cultures, that is not to mean that they passed off their own personal ideas for divine imperatives.

For instance we see the proliferation of the western culture in christianity today, like I asked david the other day, how much confidence do you have that 2500 years is not enough to have seriously distorted the "central message" in the gospel?

That's interesting, but the first thing I'd have to ask is this: 'what do you actually know for certainty to be the central message of the Gospel' before assuming it has been 'seriously distorted'? Many people like to pass off such remarks even before they understand anything about what constitutes the central message of the Gospel. However, 2500 years is more than enough to distort anything - if that is the intent of its adherents. IMO, there is no guarantee in the Bible that all Christians in every age and place would hold firm the Biblical message without distorting it - quite the opposite is evidently stated by the Biblical authors.

Furthermore how much of the gnostic gospels do you know, when making your judgment on the 66 books did you put into consideration what the intention of the people putting them together might have been?

Yes, I considered the possible intention of various canonists (not just those involved in canonizing the 66 books of the Bible). But to be honest with you, I don't know much about the Gnostic gospels. I only know of many Gnostic documents and have read them through and through; but that is not to say that I "know" what they really are in terms how their authors intended them to be interpreted.

Is it remotely possible to you that what we see and have today as christianity is not what it originally was or intended to be?

It depends on what you might mean, and there are two ways to look at it:

(a) as far as the Bible is concerned, Christianity was indeed progressive in revelation while its tenets were already established and foundational. For this reason, some of the NT epistles admonish us to not deviate from the established faith as given by the apostles. This we can find to be the collective testimony of the NT.

(b) as far as Christendom is concerned, we find so many traditions each and all vying for recognition as "the only" true identity of Biblical Christianity. In my view, it is hard to find any single tradition, denomination, or individual (mine included) who is absolutely identical to apostolic Christianity as we read today in the Bible.

Ok if you say so, I will give you a run down list just after  we deal with the questions we have above. Let us remind ourselves by saying We still have rundown list A at the beginning of the next series of posts we have. 

Hehe, I'll bear that in mind.

Hmmmmmm viaro  that came across as a houdini attempt, are you saying there is no part of the bible where you read and went "eish I think this guy add small salt and pepper" 

I used to think that way in my early development, but not so any more. That is not to say that I find every statement in the Bible absolutely defensible if mirrored against the conscience of the 21st century; nor would I be saying that such difficult passages are impish in their own contexts.

viaro:


I believe the canon of the Bible with 66 books is the Word of God - whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them. The central message is what is of value to me in[b] finding meaning[/b] in my life of faith and commitment to Christ as my Lord and Saviour.



Not really, it all depends on what is being implied for application of faith to those who seek a covenant relationship with God. If one excuses this point, then a world of problems opens up to them, where they interpret the message of the Bible in its totality as a joke. That, for me, is not how I derive value [/b]from its pages.

Hello Viaro and others.  This is very interesting.  [b]You are very interesting Viaro.  Not least because your style and vocabulary are incredibly like another Nairalander's called Pilgrim yet you deny being Pilgrim and my instincts draw me towards believing you.  The main difference is that you come across as a lot more affable than Pilgrim did. 

But to move on to your responses on this thread there are 2 points that I'd like to take up with you. 

1)  (the red point) - I think what is at stake above is the amount of subtlety you want to take into account in your critical evaluation of the bible as the word of God.  It seems to me that you are saying that broadly speaking you take the bible as the word of God but when you made that evaluation you didn't consider subtle degrees of how diluted it might be or how authoritative it might be. 

Oh dear, I don't think I put that very well.  Let me try again, with an analogy.  In the Yoruba language there is a colour called Pupa.  The leaves of plants are pupa.  Translated into english pupa can be rendered as Green, or Yellow, or Red.  What!?  Are yoruba people blind?  How can you have one word for Green yellow and Red, even Orange, too?   The fact that the language does not make a distinction of these colours and yoruba people have been happy with the language for centuries like that does not mean that the distinction doesn't exist, no matter how subtle it actually is.

Similarly, am I to believe that you have no interest in drawing a distinction between diluted and undiluted parts of the bible, or authoritative and unauthoritative parts.  Like Yoruba have an all encompassing pupa for various colours you too take all the bible as truth without drawing distinctions of degrees of truth or variations on truth. 

In other words  - "whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them" but your broad stroking works sufficiently well for your needs, ie.  in helping you to[b] "finding meaning[/b] in my life of faith".



2) The Purple point. This one is centred on that phrase "derive value from it's pages".

Are you saying that the value you get out of the bible is derivative and not intrinsic to it? In other words, is the bible just what you make of it. This would suggest a creative process kinda like eisegesis when you read the bible.

Thank you bery bery mush.

Hi Pastor AIO. It's great to read your opening lines, and quite refreshing to find that someone is willing to take me for who I am. Little did I realise that my stretch of diction might make some liken me to other NL members, and I've found a lot of people with peculiarly distinct styles as well. No matter.

Now, to your very interesting observations, which will draw me out of my shell. I've been trying to be somewhat reserved (or careful) in some of my expressions, basically for the sake of other Christians and deeply religious people whose sensitivities they protect with all alacrity. Yet, let me tell a bit more -

Pastor AIO:

1)  (the red point) - I think what is at stake above is the amount of subtlety you want to take into account in your critical evaluation of the bible as the word of God.  It seems to me that you are saying that broadly speaking you take the bible as the word of God but when you made that evaluation you didn't consider subtle degrees of how diluted it might be or how authoritative it might be.

The idea of a diluted message only stems from the fact that something went before as its original. If one argues for the sake of translations and versions, then they may see many problems as best they wish. In order to not muddy the waters for the sake of this discussion, I felt it were better for me to leave it in the genial form of my persuasion as that it is the Word of God without adjectival qualifiers.

Stepping out of that simple persuasion, I can argue for many, many discrepancies indeed in almost all versions and translations of the Bible in any language, bar none. These discrepancies from translations and/or versions do not in any jot affect how I see the Bible as the Word of God - bearing in mind what I said in the intro of this page, that what I share are my views and not necessarily rationalizing anything for anyone, believers and unbelievers alike.

To take this even further, depending on what any critic is actually looking for, they might approach their examination and critical analyses in any number of ways that meets their determined objectives. Say, if a critic sets out to belittle the value of the Bible as God's Word, he might do so through literary criticism. But again, what type of literary criticism would he be employing from among the various types available -

* greek literary criticism?

* darwinian literary criticism?

* feminist literary criticism?

* marxist literary criticism?

* archetypal literary criticism?

* adaptationist literary criticism?

* psychoanalytic literary criticism?

After all is said and done, a holistic literary criticism would be embracing a combination of several of the examples given above (and many more). But just there is the problem - because by the time you do so, you will find your own results are contradicting every set of initial conclusions.

Now, when I said my knowledge is little in this area, it should not be taken to mean that I have by no means attempted any serious reading in any context of the Biblical texts, whether critical or composite. . I have done so between times, but that does not amount to what I would qualify as a "research". At the end of the day, it falls either way of seeing no value at all or seeing the persuasion that affirms for the critic that the Bible is God's Word.

In other words  - "whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them" but your broad stroking works sufficiently well for your needs, ie.  in helping you to[b] "finding meaning[/b] in my life of faith".

More or less so. As I haven't the time presently to delve a bit into the philosophy of religion and faith, I'd tersely say that the persuasion I hold was carefully weighed on the scales of meaning, such as -

- what do people mean by 'undiluted'?

- what do people mean by 'authoritative'?

- what do people mean by any other qualifier they use?

- what do people mean by anything they argue in this area?

With each person meaning something quite different from another's, I felt my discussion would be simpler if those qualifiers are left out of my persuasion as regarding the value of the Bible. Yes, I would admit already (as Chris noted earlier) that I do not take things at surface value; and in that vein, I do not accept every single line expressed in all 1,189 chapters of the English canon as "authoritative" - for me to do so, I would have to ask my enquirer just what he means by that word 'authoritative'. I hope you see what I'm trying to say?

Your second question comes up next.

So, your second observation -

Pastor AIO:

2) The Purple point. This one is centred on that phrase "derive value from it's pages".

Are you saying that the value you get out of the bible is derivative and not intrinsic to it? In other words, is the bible just what you make of it. This would suggest a creative process kinda like eisegesis when you read the bible.

Very, very good question. And my answer? Both.

The value I obtain from the Bible as regards my faith is both derivative and intrinsic. For those who might wonder what I'm about, please bear with me and let me explain.

(a) the word 'derivative' as used there implies this meaning to me -

* something which has been developed or obtained from something else

* something which is not new or original but has been developed from something else.

(b) also, 'intrinsic' as used there points me to this inference -

* something that belongs to a thing by its very nature

* anything that is valuable or interesting because of its basic nature or character,
and not because of its connection with other things

Putting both words in that context and as defined above, my answer as regards what value I obtain from the Bible is both derivative and intrinsic. Certainly, I note that many Christians (and even religious* folks) would take exception to that remark, but when we begin to make applications the fog is lifted and we gain a bit more understanding thereto.

Let me use just one example.

I do not think that the knowledge of God is original (or originated) with the Jewish people. Long before the emergence of the Jewish people, there are many, many civilizations which had known and worshipped that same God who later seemed to have been localized to the Jewish Deity. Even then, the concepts of priesthoods, covenants, redemption . . are all not original with Judaism or the Jewish people. And in so far as these things are indicated in the Bible, for me they are examples of what I mean by "derivative" value obtained in my studying the Bible for my faith and commitment.

Using the same examples as above (knowledge of God, priesthoods, covenants), I find intrinsic value as well in many passages of the Bible. This is so, in the sense that the covenants which passed unto the Jewish people are peculiarly their own - even Moses in the Pentateuch loudly acknowledges that the mosaic covenant was not given to any other nation but the Jews!

Not many Christians can easily see this; and they just take it for granted that everything they read in the Bible must be seen either through the spectacles of Judaism or their traditional denominational affiliations. Of course, as a Baptist myself, I may not agree with some of the interpretations which Baptist theologians have published on many issues - but as I said very early in this thread, my thoughts do not constitute authority for anyone else.

I hope this helps contextualises my seeming shyness in giving sound bite answers to the question of what the Bible means to me. Cheers.




<sub>End note:
* 'religious folks' is not used here in any pejorative sense; but rather in recognition of people of other faiths who are not Christians.</sub>

viaro:

Long before the emergence of the Jewish people, there are many, many civilizations which had known and worshipped that same God who later seemed to have been localized to the Jewish Deity.

Hello.

Can u please give us a few examples?

I really don't understand this thread . . .

The title hints that it is likely to be a discussion on "what it takes to be a christian" YET there is ABSOLUTELY NO DEEP DISCUSSION on salvation, faith, the cross, the Holy Spirit, even Jesus Christ Himself. Infact i cant count more than 3-4 bible verses in total!

Rather we are more pre-occupied with "reincarnation"? How is this even an issue that warrants more than 2 lines in response? The bible is categorically clear on what happens to man AFTER death - judgement.

A major problem i find among modern "christians" of today is the tendency to feel the need to sound overly scholarly when they discuss the bible. The gospels as we know it today was handed to us by tanners, fishermen and itinerant travelers who had no better than a few yrs of homeschooling at best. But these were men filled with the Holy Ghost and imbued with power to preach to the salvation of the souls of even kings and princes. No wonder our churches are now mere monuments to man's ego . . .

davidylan:


A major problem i find among modern "christians" of today is the tendency to feel the need to sound overly scholarly when they discuss the bible. The gospels as we know it today was handed to us by tanners, fishermen and itinerant travelers who had no better than a few yrs of homeschooling at best. But these were men filled with the Holy Ghost and imbued with power to preach to the salvation of the souls of even kings and princes. No wonder our churches are now mere monuments to man's ego . . .

I laugh in greek when I read such ridiculous and pathetic lies. . . Where is your evidence for this false assertion? The gospels were not written by people who have ever meet jesus, they were not written by his alleged illiterate disciples but by very intelligent and educated greek speaking christians long after the alleged and resurrection death of jesus. . . .The evidence is all there in the gospels themselves unless if you have never read them. . .

well, there goes the thread . . . Up in smoke. It was only a matter of time.   

Krayola:

well, there goes the thread . . . Up in smoke. It was only a matter of time.   

that's if you assumed it was going anywhere concrete in the first place.

mazaje:

I laugh in greek when I read such ridiculous and pathetic lies. . . Where is your evidence for this false assertion? The gospels were not written by people who have ever meet jesus, they were not written by his alleged illiterate disciples but by very intelligent and educated greek speaking christians long after the alleged and resurrection death of jesus. . . .The evidence is all there in the gospels themselves unless if you have never read them. . .

where is your evidence against?