noetic16:

1. I will like to think that the emphasis of such persecution was on JEWISH SLAVES. implying that Jews were not allowed to persuade their JEWISH slaves to become adherents of judaism . . . , .I believe that judaism is mainly restricted to jews as depicted in the biblical separation of the jews and samaritans in their mode and place of worship.

2. Salves are bound by the whims and will of their masters. I am not aware of jews preaching to non-Jews to practise judaism. lets not forget that even today jews believe that they are the only people of God and consider all other races including whites as gentiles or outcasts.

That is the image of judaism today which is totally wrong.  Even many jews don't know this part of their history.
Think about this.  Why would Jesus make such a statement as this:



“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”  (Matt23 - v15)

Travelling over land and sea would suggest to me that the message was being spread abroad. I think Jesus knows better about the practices of Jews that we do and if he said they proselytised then I'll just have to believe him.

Judaism, and christianity tooo, were most successful amongst slaves and lower end of society.

Pastor AIO:

That is the image of judaism today which is totally wrong.  Even many jews don't know this part of their history.
Think about this.  Why would Jesus make such a statement as this:



“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”  (Matt23 - v15)

Travelling over land and sea would suggest to me that the message was being spread abroad. I think Jesus knows better about the practices of Jews that we do and if he said they proselytised then I'll just have to believe him.

Judaism, and christianity tooo, were most successful amongst slaves and lower end of society.

Pastor, I have a different opinion to ur submission.

1. in John 4, Jesus spoke with a samaritan woman by the well. This woman refused him water because according to her Jews and samaritans have NOTHING in common (verse 9). , . .she would later go on to say in verse 20 that they worship in this mountain, but the jews worship in jerusalem. . . . . .implying that the samaritans cannot worship in jerusalem where the jews worship.

2. if my initial assertion of jews not sharing their beliefs was wrong . . . . .why then did the jews not attempt to convert the samaritans, the gentiles or their other neighbours to judaism?

3. The conversion u depicted above is IMO in relation to jews who are not adherents of judaism and not necessarily non-jews.

Krayola:

haha. thanks for the nice words, my head is swelling big time.  U just avoided another death blow. Jeseoul will be disppointed. . .  She just waste money on top popcorn. Hours don pass nodody throw blow. 

  See these impostors. I was working late last night and was looking forward to getting entertained on this HBO fight special, and you two were practically patting each other on the back, and one post away from holding hands and singing kumbaya 

I demand a refund.

noetic16:

Pastor, I have a different opinion to your submission.

1. in John 4, Jesus spoke with a samaritan woman by the well. This woman refused him water because according to her Jews and samaritans have NOTHING in common (verse 9). , . .she would later go on to say in verse 20 that they worship in this mountain, but the jews worship in jerusalem. . . . . .implying that the samaritans cannot worship in jerusalem where the jews worship.

I don't think that she implied that samaritans couldn't worship where Jew's worshipped. Samaritans were descendants of Jacob too. What was different about them is the religion. They worshipped, by choice, on Mount Gerizim because they believe that that was where the original place of worship of Yahweh is. Their differences was one of doctrine. I have no doubt that there would have been arguments and attempts to convert each other.
Also, I don't think she refused him water. She was just surprised that a jew would ask her for water since jews tended to snob them.

noetic16:


2. if my initial assertion of jews not sharing their beliefs was wrong . . . . .why then did the jews not attempt to convert the samaritans, the gentiles or their other neighbours to judaism?

How do you know that the jews didn't attempt these conversions? It might be worth your while to study the history of the israelites and how they increased and spread around the world.

Here are some facts to get you started:

By the time of the Roman empire half the population of the egyptian city of Alexandria were Jews. 12 per cent of the entire population of Egypt were Jews. That is a million people out of a population of 8 million people.

During this time there was hardly a town in Asia minor that didn't have a sizeable jewish population. In Emperor Augustus' time the Jews made up 15 per cent of Syria. There were Jewish communities in Spain and by 400CE Hieronymus said there were jews in Britain, belgium, and "where the Rhine branches into two arms."

At a certain point Jews made up up to 8 percent of the entire Roman empire!!


they didn't achieve these numbers by reproduction, but by proselytism.


Consider these verses from Isaiah:

Isaiah 49 vs 1

Listen to me, all you in distant lands! Pay attention, you who are far away! The LORD called me before my birth; from within the womb he called me by name.

Isaiah 49 vs 6


He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

noetic16:

3. The conversion u depicted above is IMO in relation to jews who are not adherents of judaism and not necessarily non-jews.

Converting Jews to Judaism? That's a new one for me. Perhaps you mean something different, could you explain what you mean please.

Pastor AIO:

Converting Jews to Judaism?  That's a new one for me.  Perhaps you mean something different, could you explain what you mean please. 

See this:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm

. . . would seem to define our Jewishness as a "religion": we are Jews because we adhere to the beliefs and practices mandated by the Torah. But the Torah itself says that this is not so.

The Torah itself proclaims (Leviticus 16:16) that G-d "dwells amongst them in the midst of their impurities" -- that His relationship with His people remains unaffected regardless of their behavior. In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), "A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew."

According to Torah law, a person's Jewishness is not a matter of life-style or self-perception: one may be totally unaware of one's Jewishness and still be a Jew, or one may consider himself Jewish and observe all the precepts of the Torah and still not be a Jew.

In other words, it is the relationship between the Jew and his Creator that defines his Jewishness -- not his acknowledgment of this relationship or his actualization of it in his daily life. It is not the observance of Torah's mitzvot (Divine "commandments" that makes him a Jew, but the commitment that the mitzvot represent.

@ Jesoul:

Kumbaya my Lorrrrree, kumbaya
kumbaya o lorrr kumbaya
kumbaya krayo kumbayaaaaaaa
krayooooo, kumbayaaaaa
o lorrrreee, kumbaya

someone smoking lorre, kumbaya
someone boozing loore kumbaya
someone spliffing lord kumbaya
Krayoooooo kumbaya
krayoooo kumbaya

Since I've sung for you, you don't get a refund! Just plug in a CD or two to record for posterity and remember to pay me royalties when you sell my all-time single above

Pastor AIO:

I don't think that she implied that samaritans couldn't worship where Jew's worshipped.  Samaritans were descendants of Jacob too.  What was different about them is the religion.  They worshipped, by choice, on Mount Gerizim because they believe that that was where the original place of worship of Yahweh is.  Their differences was one of doctrine.  I have no doubt that there would have been arguments and attempts to convert each other.
Also, I don't think she refused him water.  She was just surprised that a jew would ask her for water since jews tended to snob them.

I beg to differ. There is no biblical injunction that allows non-jews to worship in the synagogue.
how would u a jew react to an UNCIRCUMCISED samaritan worshipping in the same temple with u? . . . . . . a fellow jew who is born as a b.astard person was also not allowed into the temple (deuteronomy 23:2) ,  . . .many other things also come into the mix of it, like eating of unclean animals and observing the sabbath et all.

The story of Jesus and the samaritan woman depicts the case of salvation (by virtue of Judaism) restricted to the jews.

How do you know that the jews didn't attempt these conversions? It might be worth your while to study the history of the israelites and how they increased and spread around the world. 

Here are some facts to get you started:

By the time of the Roman empire half the population of the egyptian city of Alexandria were Jews.  12 per cent of the entire population of Egypt were Jews.  That is a million people out of a population of 8 million people. 

During this time there was hardly a town in Asia minor that didn't have a sizeable jewish population.  In Emperor Augustus' time the Jews made up 15 per cent of Syria.  There were Jewish communities in Spain and by 400CE Hieronymus said there were jews in Britain, belgium, and "where the Rhine branches into two arms."

At a certain point Jews made up up to 8 percent of the entire Roman empire!!


they didn't achieve these numbers by reproduction, but by proselytism. 

1. God promised to increase them from a minority to a majority.

2. All opposition along the way to the promised land were either killed or taken as slaves.

3. God's covenant with them depicts that of massive reproduction of their kind.

4. converting a person to judaism is not as simple as u think it is. . . . .how do u tell a grown up man to get circumcised? do u remember what happened to the residents of Jacob's neighbouring city who wanted to marry Jacob's daughter . . . .and were told to get circumcised?

5. the jews are naturally discriminatory when it comes to religious beliefs. remember the case of apostle Peter. . . .who would not touch unclean meat. . .even after God had cleansed it. Remember the other disciples excluding Paul who would not eat with the first gentile Christian converts.

Consider these verses from Isaiah:

The verses in isaiah is IMO not in any way supporting your assertion.

Converting Jews to Judaism?  That's a new one for me.  Perhaps you mean something different, could you explain what you mean please. 

I meant the same thing, Pastor. Not all jews in the biblical era (new testament era) practised judaism. many were as good as hopelessly atheist. what religion would u associate with the man who sat down at the well for 38 years before Jesus came to heal him? . . . .what religion would u associate who Zaccheus who defrauded people of their taxes and was called a sinner by the pharisees?

InesQor:

See this:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm

Apparently jews are confused people.

noetic16:

I beg to differ. There is no biblical injunction that allows non-jews to worship in the synagogue.
how would u a jew react to an UNCIRCUMCISED samaritan worshipping in the same temple with u?

I'm having difficulty understanding you still. I'm sure that you are aware that the synagogues and the Temple (of which there was only one) are different.

It's not a matter of 'allowing' samaritans to worship in synagogues. Samaritans had their own mode of worship. Samaritans did not want to worship in the temple. They believed that the proper place to worship Yahweh was on mount gerizim.

AND . . . the samaritans were circumcised too. They considered themselves descendents of Abraham and Jacob too and the covenant sealed by circumcision was made with Abraham their ancestor.

Anyway I am not interested in the particulars of who was allowed in the temple or not, I am talking about Jewish missionaries converting people to Judaism. You seem to be going on about some long story story stuff that is not pertinent to the point that I am making.

noetic16:

1. God promised to increase them from a minority to a majority.

2. All opposition along the way to the promised land were either killed or taken as slaves.

3. God's covenant with them depicts that of massive reproduction of their kind.

?? Are you saying that the jewish population explosion was a miracle?

noetic16:

4. converting a person to judaism is not as simple as u think it is. . . . .how do u tell a grown up man to get circumcised? do u remember what happened to the residents of Jacob's neighbouring city who wanted to marry Jacob's daughter . . . .and were told to get circumcised?

5. the jews are naturally discriminatory when it comes to religious beliefs. remember the case of apostle Peter. . . .who would not touch unclean meat. . .even after God had cleansed it. Remember the other disciples excluding Paul who would not eat with the first gentile Christian converts.


The verses in isaiah is IMO not in any way supporting your assertion.

I never said that converting a person to judaism is simple. I don't know where you got that idea from. Getting circumcised is not easy either, but people did it. For example, the city that Jacob's daughter married into for a short while. It wasn't even just the guy that wanted to marry her, it was the entire city that did it. So you've only compromised your own point by bringing that up.
In fact I don't understand your reasoning in bring that up at all. They were then slaughtered later but that does not change the fact that they were willing to undergo circumcision. BEsides many tribes in africa undergo circumcision in adulthood as a rite of passage. The horror or acceptablility of it is mostly cultural.

I would like to draw your attention to Ruth the grandmother of King DAvid who was a convert to judaism and whose descendant went on to beome their king.
If the verse in Isaiah where yahwe talks about bringing his salvation to the ends of the earth is not seen to support my assertion then I don't know what more |I can say to make the point.

THere is probably no point for me to show you verses talking about all the nations of the world coming to worship in mount zion. PErhaps you should just take time out and make a study of JEwish history.

Pastor AIO:


I'm having difficulty understanding you still. I'm sure that you are aware that the synagogues and the Temple (of which there was only one) are different.

It's not a matter of 'allowing' samaritans to worship in synagogues. Samaritans had their own mode of worship. Samaritans did not want to worship in the temple. They believed that the proper place to worship Yahweh was on mount gerizim.

AND . . . the samaritans were circumcised too. They considered themselves descendents of Abraham and Jacob too and the covenant sealed by circumcision was made with Abraham their ancestor.

Anyway I am not interested in the particulars of who was allowed in the temple or not, I am talking about Jewish missionaries converting people to Judaism. You seem to be going on about some long story story stuff that is not pertinent to the point that I am making.

is there anywhere in the bible ur assertions are supported?. . . . are the samaritans the same as the edomites?

Pastor AIO:

?? Are you saying that the jewish population explosion was a miracle?

yes . . , do u have a contrary analogy?

Pastor AIO:

I never said that converting a person to judaism is simple. I don't know where you got that idea from. Getting circumcised is not easy either, but people did it. For example, the city that Jacob's daughter married into for a short while. It wasn't even just the guy that wanted to marry her, it was the entire city that did it. So you've only compromised your own point by bringing that up.
In fact I don't understand your reasoning in bring that up at all. They were then slaughtered later but that does not change the fact that they were willing to undergo circumcision. BEsides many tribes in africa undergo circumcision in adulthood as a rite of passage. The horror or acceptablility of it is mostly cultural.

I brought it up to simply illustrate the fact that people tend to learn from history and will not repeat the foolish mistakes of Jacob's in-laws.
There is no biblical assertion that suggests that Jews ever tried to convert non-Jews to judaism. . . . unless and until u establish biblical notions which state so. . . . . .

I would like to draw your attention to Ruth the grandmother of King DAvid who was a convert to judaism and whose descendant went on to beome their king.

ur assertions here are very wrong and aimed at simply stretching this argument . . . . . .ruth married into a jewish family. she was NOT converted into judaism by evangelism. . . . .custom expects that she follows the tradition of her husband.

If the verse in Isaiah where yahwe talks about bringing his salvation to the ends of the earth is not seen to support my assertion then I don't know what more |I can say to make the point.

how does making them a light to nations imply that they were recruiting people for judaism?

THere is probably no point for me to show you verses talking about all the nations of the world coming to worship in mount zion. PErhaps you should just take time out and make a study of JEwish history.

1. Nations coming to worship at mount zion does NOT imply people accepting judaism.

2. how do u dismiss the xtian beliefs that prophetic mount zion refers to saved believers and not those who practise judaism?

3. the study of jewish history will be helpful, but u dismiss the notion for sentiments in such history. . .I had rather stick to the bible.

noetic16:

is there anywhere in the bible your assertions are supported?. . . . are the samaritans the same as the edomites?

12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”

I take it you are asking whether it is in the bible that the samaritans are considered descendants of abraham and not whether there is only one temple and several synagogues, or whether samaritans had their own mode of worship which was centered on mt. gerizim.

noetic16:

I brought it up to simply illustrate the fact that people tend to learn from history and will not repeat the foolish mistakes of Jacob's in-laws.

But, you see, I don't get what that has to do with the issue on table. And besides that story is a common mythological theme that exists in other cultures around the world.

noetic16:
. . .I had rather stick to the bible.

And I think that I'd rather not have continue this discussion.  It is not making any sense to me.  'Converting jews to judaism'.

Pastor AIO:


I take it you are asking whether it is in the bible that the samaritans are considered descendants of abraham and not whether there is only one temple and several synagogues, or whether samaritans had their own mode of worship which was centered on mt. gerizim.

its quite obvious that they are the descendants of Abraham. . I was not asking u that. . . . .rather I was asking for biblical injunctions that support the following assertions u made. . .

1. That the samaritans had a different mode of worship

2. The samaritans did not want to worship in the temple of the jews

3. that the samaritans were circumcised? . . ,   , dont come with the excuse that they are circumcised cos they are the descendants of Abraham.

Pastor AIO:

And I think that I'd rather not have continue this discussion.  It is not making any sense to me.  'Converting jews to judaism'.

It shouldnt cos. . . I am afraid your assertions are FALSE

1. were all jews in Jesus era practising judaism? what was the religion of the dude by the river who was lame for 38 years?
what was the religion of Zacheus, the tax man who defrauded the people of their taxes and was repeatedly called a sinner?

2. why was there a huge distinction between the saducees, pharisees, scribes and the common people?. . . . .why was every one not just classified as either pharisee or saduccee?

3. attempting to pass ur assertions as factual is simply ridiculous.

Still on Scripture and other writings on paper =>

DISCIPLE: "When will I be Enlightened?"

MASTER: "When you see"

DISCIPLE: "See what"?

MASTER: "Trees and flowers and moon and stars".

DISCIPLE: "But I see these every day".

MASTER: "No. What you see is paper trees, paper [/b]flowers, [b]paper [/b]moons and [b]paper [/b]stars. For you live not in reality but in your words and thoughts. And for good measure, you live a [b]paper life, alas, and will die a paper death. . . "

@Neotic

What was that you said about Monopoly on Knowledge? I was looking for it but it seems that you modified the post and deleted it. What a shame! I was about to write a fitting riposte, but I'll just leave it now.

^^^^

JeSoul:
 I think you may be asking the right question in the wrong manner . . .

 How do we know God inspired the current bible? we as a collective body of people cannot know (or should I rather say prove) to we's satisfaction and beyond all doubt that the bible came from God. It wasn't meant to work that way I don't think.
 How do I/you know God inspired the current bible? by my/your faith - borne and strengthened out of experiences - spiritual or physical - that affirm to only that person that knowledge. And if you arrive at the conclusion that the bible is not inspired by God, that is fine too. The bible does say some will accept Christ as the way, and many will not.

This applies to our apprehension of God who is a transcendental being borne witness to by His creation. The Bible, remember, is just a book. At the most basic level, we can look into its contents, unlike God, whom we can’t see. I take it as a point of disagreement between you and I that a book can be accepted on faith, as my apprehensions where such faith may lead are copiously borne out by events in contemporary human history.

JeSoul:
Simply put, we don't.

For your honesty I salute you.

JeSoul:
In addition lemme highlight a point InesQor made earlier . . . as a general rule, a christian can accept any writing - from this age or those gone, that are not in contradiction to the gospel as revealed by the bible. So in essence if it doesn't stand in opposition to the bible, then I have no problem with it. Whether or not it was of divine inspiration will be besides the point.

If you read this again, you might spot the contradictions in it as the subject at hand goes.

JeSoul:
Yeah I'm aware of a few portions. I recall reading them and thinking - what's the big deal? lol. They don't necessarily take away nor add anything of earth-shattering proportions either way.

I recall reading them and thinking like you did. In my opinion, they confirm what I believe did happen, (which you say may or might not have happened) that people were at various points adding and removing things from that which we are now supposed to accept as coming, in its entirety, from the Holy Spirit and. as asserted by InesQor and highlighted by you, use as a yardstick for accepting or repudiating anything else.

JeSoul:
  This is why I said sometimes we get hung up on the wrong things and clutch onto that signpost Imhotep spoke about.

I agree with that post of Imhotep’s. From the context and going by his known views in these matters, he considers the Bible, all the scriptures in the world, religions, and all that, to be the signposts. My views on the matter are similar.

JeSoul:
But wouldn't that be blaming the text - instead of the people who abused the text for their own sinister purposes?

That would be accepting the obvious reality – that some people abused the text for their own sinister purposes, therefore we need to exercise some care. I am not apportioning blames.

JeSoul:
A text in and of itself is harmless - its what we do with it that counts.

What is the difference? The Bible says I should abstain from blood because the life of the soul is in the blood. Isn’t rejecting the text of that verse the same thing as not doing what it says – “abstain from blood”? Texts, my sister, can be very very, perniciously, insidiously, harmful.

JeSoul:
Shouldn't we blame ourselves for wrongly handling the word?

Sometimes, yes. At other times, the problem is embedded in the text.

JeSoul:
I say picking which parts to accept is even more dicey. I'll go into that a lil more in my next post.

There is no one alive who actually lives by everything in any book, including the Bible. The intellectually inclined will engage in gymnastics to reconcile the text with what his mind says it says or what his sect says it says. Those who don’t and make effort to live by as many of its traditions and injunctions as they can are the ones we call the “literalists”, some of them end up being introverted geeks, others as the bin Ladens of this world. Non-Christians as well as those Christians who love the Bible but reject its inerrancy are simply those who refuse to engage in gymnastics and admit up-front that some verses are not useful.

JeSoul:
We will hafta open an entirely different thread to hash that one out dude .

*Flinch*

JeSoul:
 I think the problem is you're looking at faith as a "community" thing instead of a "personal" thing. As I hinted at in my last post, ones faith is only unto oneself and is not meant to be projected onto others and become truth for them.

 And faith is utterly sufficient - for the christian. 
Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Faith in God is sufficient. How do I put this? You see, I, too, believe things I cannot explain objectively. But you cannot apply this all the way to a book handed to you all. The individual either takes an objective look or he risks being duped. There is nothing community about faith and I could not have conceived that, it is individual. My use of "we" is simply in a manner of speaking.

JeSoul:
But in the truest sense of the phrase, is there such a thing as an "objective observer"? Let him that is without bias, cast the first stone.

The sufficient amount of objectivity required in these matters is decidedly possible. I, for one, do not dismiss all the miracles in the Bible because I do not know enough to assert they never occurred, even though I do not accept the basic tenets of Christianity. And because I do not adhere to a religion and do not defend any worldview (other than belief in God, love and humanism) I have changed my views on several things over recent years.

Krayola:
@ Noetic. u were not entirely wrong, and I was not entirely correct. I did some research and the written form of the gospels were probably written by and, arguably, for communities of believers. Word about Jesus was initially spread orally, and when the generation of first believers were dying out, the "elders" of different communities probably wrote the narratives we have now as a means of preserving his memory. Eventually ( like 1500 years later  after the printing press) they became a means of spreading the word, but that probably wasn't the reason they were written, as most people couldn't even read. So 1 point for u.   

actually 1/2 point.   

It is worth pointing out that the gospel of Luke was written to someone, whom the internal evidence reveals was a non-Christian, to bring him the good news. The Acts of Apostles was written to that person at a time the internal evidence suggests he had become a Christian, meaning that the Gospel of Luke had its desired effect.

nuclearboy:
I've been here all along but its always wisdom to show caution in posting when Krayola and Jesoul are around. Wouldn't do to be found foot in mouth at this age. 

Plus I had to find a way to wrap my tongue around the Ketubim and Nebiim etal. You people want to break my head with Grammar. Wetin I know be say, take the message, not the words or technicality.

Skipping the words to go for the message presupposes that there is, or might be, chaff. My point. Thank you.

nuclearboy:
The Bible is inerrant when you leave the words and pick the message.

This isn’t bad.

nuclearboy:
If we believe God is an understanding that has supreme power, knowledge and capability, then He surely must be capable of arranging events to suit His particular purpose! That is what I personally believe. The credit for choice of what books went into todays Bible is assumed to belong to the RCC. Foul! My statement of God's supremacy negates that rubbish. We say He can do what He please and then believe His Word was designed by humans.

I understand that Biblical inerrancy might mean different things to different Christians. Nuclearboy, here, for instance, considers rubbishy any idea of the possibility of human tampering. He believes God conceived of what he wanted us to have, had it written down and then guided it from pollution through the ages. I may be wrong, but I think you mitigated this point earlier when you admonished us to skip words and focus on the message.

nuclearboy:
haha. it's funny i got caught up in this debate cause I've been making a real effort to avoid debates like this. It's that thread asking people to pray for me because i was hellbound and Noetic's yabs that got me into this.    Maybe I need to pray for the power to resist temptation  

I have learnt a great deal about the Bible here and considered issues I had previously not. Thanks JeSoul, Krayola, InesQor, PastorAIO, chukwudi44, nuclearboy, mazaje, imhotep, and the others.

I am certainly not qualified to question an individual’s faith or any of the assertions about the Holy Spirit inspiring the Bible or helping anyone to understand it. While my personal observation is that talks of Holy Spirit said this Holy Spirit did that are all in your head, I do not know enough to dismiss the possibility, altogether, that there is a Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible and also explains it to you. What I do know is that folks I know who say God speaks to them always relate what it is they wanted to hear, or what those whom God does not speak to, would have figured out in seconds on their own. I am also aware that my level of disagreement on Bible points with Christian A is often about the same as that between Christian B and Christian C. Now, I am one of those the Holy Spirit has never interpreted the Bible to. And I am not here about questioning whether or not all the miracles in the Bible took place, as I have no proof that they did not. It is my view that if the historicity of the Bible is false, it follows that the Bible, or that part of it, is not the inerrant word of God whom nuclearboy has reminded us is all-powerful. If there are interpolations, it does not void the authenticity of the entire Bible but brings “Biblical Inerrancy” under the spotlight.

The above observations made, JeSoul’s position on subjectivity and faith applies perfectly to our apprehension of God, a transcendental being. One is unable to see how it applies to the Bible, a book open to all humanity.

Which is why the assertion combatively made by noetic16 that the Bible is meant for the elect and the unsaved have no business exploring it must be seen for what it is: a fundamentalist brand of neo-Calvinism which will find more resonance among the draftsmen of the discredited apartheid system than in biblical Christianity. While the book of Ezekiel had messages for Oholah and Oholiah (Jerusalem and Samaria) at the height of their “prost[i]i[/i]tution”, Jonah’s message was addressed to the “unsaved” people of Nineveh. (The concept of “saved” and “unsaved” as used here is not biblical, but that is another matter.) Paul, who is credited with the spread of Christianity, along with his companion Silas, used the scriptures extensively in his ministry. The weight placed on the scriptures as authority is demonstrated by their activities among the Beroeans. I have already cited Luke. The Ethiopian Eunuch was helped with the aid of the scriptures to accept Christianity. When rebuking Satan, the Pharisees and other contrarians, Jesus told them “it is written”, not “the Spirit told me”. Those who converted to Christianity in the first century did because they had read of the coming of the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nobody ever went around in their mission to reach the “unsaved” with the good news citing the Holy Spirit. That is why Christians have been spending millions producing copies of the Bible and distributing them to the “unsaved” far and wide.

And like Krayola has pointed out, the opposition to scholarship is often based on the wrong premises. I am questioning the Bible, and not the lost books of eden, because of the value I attach to it. Moreover, there is some hypocrisy involved. There are countless events in the Bible that have been attested to by archaeology and science and many Christians cite these. Many developed their respect for the Bible through examination of some of these. When the converse is shown, the honest thing is to examine them. If there is any book which ought to be questioned, therefore, it is the Bible. That is not to say, God will judge people on whether or not they accept Biblical inerrancy. To be sure, the Bible is a good book. I think its moral values are sound for the most part. To rephrase the undying words of Mohandas Ghandi, if we live by its precepts, we may just have solved half of our problems.

The historicity of the Bible is hard to sort out due to certain factors, including the paucity of information available about the Middle East at the time of the events recorded, and also differences in Biblical records. For example, Joshua 1-12 tells us that the entire nation of Israel marched into Canaan and conquered the land. But Judges 1-2, which is the version supported by some traditions available, tell us the different tribes marched in at different times and effected a gradual takeover. It was once generally thought that Moses wrote Genesis, but scholarship has now shown convincingly that it was compiled from several sources dating from between the 10th century and the 5th century bc. If you read the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient heroic poem written around 2000BC, for instance, it may surprise how much of the stories in Genesis and some other OT books is in it. Indeed, many of the stories in those Books of Moses can be found in mythological stories from various cultures. Do all these tell us that the Bible is a fake book? No. They offer us several possibilities, one of the most obvious of which is that those accounts are not meant to be taken as literal history.

I would love to address InesQor’s dismissal of the possibility that Daniel and Lao Tse got their inspirations from the same source. But that will just prolong matters here.
My opinion is that all the sacred texts in the world were written to all mankind. Thus the most dye-in-the-wool atheist can learn a tremendous lot, if he humbles himself, from the Bible, the Quran, the Verdic scriptures, The Grail Message, Ifa scripture, etc. When we read, we ought to do so without preconceived ideas, without selfish desires, without undue interference from out intellect, and with the knowledge that we are deficient in knowledge. We ought to agree with that which accords with our experiences and is approved of our spirit. Man has a limited viewpoint. That is why there are sincere people in the different faiths holding fast to the different signposts, thinking they have reached the destination. To pick any of the books mentioned above and follow everything it says based on faith is where danger may lurk.

The ability to distinguish the real from the unreal, the eternal from the transient, the good from the pleasant by discrimination and wisdom can be cultivated through prayer, will and hard work, just as scientists require demanding research and severe discipline to experience the marvel of space travel. This is the task of the human soul. In the words of a sage, “Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. Knowledge has a beginning, but no end.” Studying the scriptures available to mankind helps you to understand yourself better (even an atheist will gain here), appreciate your duty towards God and your fellow man, and equip you for the most difficult task in the world: the control of the mind. One who has mastered these scriptures is generous and self-controlled, truthful, and free from anger. She is modest, gentle, constant and luminous. He is kind, bear malice towards none and charity towards all. He is free from the demonic tendencies of greed, deceit and pride, because, as someone here writes on his signature, he has stopped “wanting anything”. He pursues goodness for the sake of goodness, not because judges will jail him or he might be cast into hellfire. She sings the glory of God. This is the duty of the human soul.

The usefulness of the idea that the Bible is inerrant when considered as whole is lost on me. For the whole is made up of the parts. The idea that we should ignore the words and focus on the message was never in question here. What I am questioning is the wisdom of accepting everything any book says. Focusing on the message and leaving out words and technicalities involves picking and choosing. If the message you speak of is “Jesus died to save you”, I am not qualified to refute that. And it is your prerogative to believe it. And the Bible is not being vilified for not being scientifically sound – I think it only becomes open that sort of talk when it is zealously held up as being scientifically sound, which it is in many respects. This forum is about debating religious issues and what I am about here is whether or not the Bible is infallible. And that is talking about everything in the Bible. For to reach that so deliciously meaty message we have to wade the through this wilderness of words. This has led some to employ all that lawless science of scholarship and the tiresome methods of “proof”.

It has been admitted that (1) there may be books out there which were inspired by the Holy Spirit which are not included in the current text we have as the Bible (2) Even if the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, we do not know whether or not insertions were made by men not borne by the Holy Spirit but with impure motives. That is, it is entirely possible, that the Holy Spirit inspired 200 books. When the Council sat, it picked 50 of these and included them in the Bible. Following from which, the Bible would contain 50 inspired books and 16 uninspired ones, while there are 150 inspired books out there (which, on coming across, InesQor will buy on the condition that they agree with the 66 he already has!). It follows from the above that Biblical infallibility or inerrancy is at worse, a myth. And should we work with the assumption that no one knows for certain, it is at best, a speculation to be treated with caution. This is the crux of the matter.

My Joe said:

It has been admitted that (1) there may be books out there which were inspired by the Holy Spirit which are not included in the current text we have as the Bible (2) Even if the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, we do not know whether or not insertions were made by men not borne by the Holy Spirit but with impure motives. That is, it is entirely possible, that the Holy Spirit inspired 200 books. When the Council sat, it picked 50 of these and included them in the Bible. Following from which, the Bible would contain 50 inspired books and 16 uninspired ones, while there are 150 inspired books out there (which, on coming across, InesQor will buy on the condition that they agree with the 66 he already has!). It follows from the above that Biblical infallibility or inerrancy is at worse, a myth. And should we work with the assumption that no one knows for certain, it is at best, a speculation to be treated with caution. This is the crux of the matter.

MyJoe, very interesting views you have there. But did you consider what nuclearboy said about the unlimited nature of God? With respect to your post above, I must say that I believe that God, SINCE he knows the end from the beginning, knew the books that the RCC would include, knew the ones they would discard, knew the ones that will be left in the wild, knew the impurities (if any) that would be added, and would have taken care of his own business.

This assertion of mine is based on the presumptions that
(1) God knows the end from the beginning
(2) He is not an author of confusion, and he will not allow His word to go forward without accomplishing its task (i.e. he declares and monitors the efficacy of his own word)
(3) He puts himself on the line with respect to his Word (magnifies his word above his name) i.e. he is a person of high integrity and would not allow his word to get polluted by miscreants.
etc

FORTUNATELY, all the presumptions above are clearly stated within those 66 books that the RCC approved, and the Holy Spirit also bears witness with these three presumptions WITHIN each believer. Thus, what we have in the Bible is enough, but to the increase of knowledge, there is no end; so any other thing seen in this same light of truth is acceptable. My 2 cents! 

Pastor AIO:

@Neotic

What was that you said about Monopoly on Knowledge? I was looking for it but it seems that you modified the post and deleted it. What a shame! I was about to write a fitting riposte, but I'll just leave it now.

I had the wrong impression u had the knowledge of the subject but was unable to transmit such. . . . .but on a second thought, after re-reading ur post, I realised u were probably too egoic and ignorant to discuss any issue. . . . . to think u have a monopoly of knowledge is to assume that u have knowledge in the first place. . . . .

P.S: I do not want to go on, hence it would seem like a personal attack, a virus I have repented from

MyJoe:

I am certainly not qualified to question an individual’s faith or any of the assertions about the Holy Spirit inspiring the Bible or helping anyone to understand it. [b]While my personal observation [/b]is that talks of Holy Spirit said this Holy Spirit did that are all in your head, I do not know enough to dismiss the possibility, altogether, that there is a Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible and also explains it to you. What I do know is that folks I know who say God speaks to them always relate what it is they wanted to hear, or what those whom God does not speak to, would have figured out in seconds on their own. I am also aware that my level of disagreement on Bible points with Christian A is often about the same as that between Christian B and Christian C. Now, I am one of those the Holy Spirit has never interpreted the Bible to. And I am not here about questioning whether or not all the miracles in the Bible took place, as I have no proof that they did not. It is my view that if the historicity of the Bible is false, it follows that the Bible, or that part of it, is not the inerrant word of God whom nuclearboy has reminded us is all-powerful. If there are interpolations, it does not void the authenticity of the entire Bible but brings “Biblical Inerrancy” under the spotlight.

1. myjoe, there is the utmost need for objectivity if at all u want to be taken seriously. I have never disputed the fact ANYONE can make ANY meaning from ANY book including the bible. but if we agree that the bible is from God, then we must also agree that it takes God to understand what He inspired in the bible. . . . . that God is called the HS.

2. it is IMO very unobjective to dismiss the potency of the HS helping people understand the bible simply based on people wwho have lied in the name of God. . . . .I cannot push this any further, but if u must know. . .this sounds . . . .

Which is why the assertion combatively made by noetic16 that the Bible is meant for the elect and the unsaved have no business exploring it must be seen for what it is: a fundamentalist brand of neo-Calvinism which will find more resonance among the draftsmen of the discredited apartheid system than in biblical Christianity. While the book of Ezekiel had messages for Oholah and Oholiah (Jerusalem and Samaria) at the height of their “prost[i]i[/i]tution”, Jonah’s message was addressed to the “unsaved” people of Nineveh. (The concept of “saved” and “unsaved” as used here is not biblical, but that is another matter.) Paul, who is credited with the spread of Christianity, along with his companion Silas, used the scriptures extensively in his ministry. The weight placed on the scriptures as authority is demonstrated by their activities among the Beroeans. I have already cited Luke. The Ethiopian Eunuch was helped with the aid of the scriptures to accept Christianity. When rebuking Satan, the Pharisees and other contrarians, Jesus told them “it is written”, not “the Spirit told me”. Those who converted to Christianity in the first century did because they had read of the coming of the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nobody ever went around in their mission to reach the “unsaved” with the good news citing the Holy Spirit. That is why Christians have been spending millions producing copies of the Bible and distributing them to the “unsaved” far and wide.

1. Do not let your drive to win a non-existent debate make u loose focus for objectivity. My position on the bible being for the saved is formed from several notions. . . . but let me start from where u started.

a. The book of Ezekiel and the message of Jonah are prophetic messages. prophecies have absolutely no link to salvation. . . . .prophecies show what God plans to do in the future. . .  .to limit prophecies to the saved is to say that God only has jurisdiction in the company of the saved. So quite unlike your assumption, everyone receives prophetic messages (saved or unsaved) and prophecies DO NOT reflect salvation.

b. Jonah's message to the people of Nineveh was a call to salvation. . .a call to repentance. Jonah did NOT refer anyone to the bible or scriptures. . .

c. u need to really read and understudy the ministry of Paul before u make your FALSE submissions. where was Paul always preaching the gospel?. . .  .he did so in the local synagogue of every city he visited. This implies that the people he preached to were aware of the what was written in the scriptures about the coming of the messiah. . .these people served God under the old covenant but were unaware that a new covenant had been established.
When Paul preached to persons who had no synagogue (persons who were unaware of the old covenant), he NEVER searched or taught from the scriptures like u FALSELY asserted. . . . . .he reasoned with them using intellectual arguments inspired by the spirit. . .read Acts 17:23-32

d. When Jesus said "it is written". . .who was Jesus talking to?. . . .He was talking to pharisees and saducees who were knowledgeable of the scriptures. can u show me anywhere else in the bible Jesus cited the scriptures while preaching to common folks?

2. using the scriptures to get God's intended message requires the help of the holy spirit . . . . . .and to get the holy spirit u need to be saved.

Pastor AIO:

@Neotic

What was that you said about Monopoly on Knowledge? I was looking for it but it seems that you modified the post and deleted it. What a shame! I was about to write a fitting riposte, but I'll just leave it now.

I thought u were not interested in this debate anymore? . . . .what a shame u came back to score a cheap point. . . . .what were u ashamed of?. . .the exposure of ur ignorance?

noetic16:

I thought u were not interested in this debate anymore? . . . .what a shame u came back to score a cheap point. . . . .what were u ashamed of?. . .the exposure of your ignorance?

It might have been a cheap point but it would have been a very gratifying point. Just because something is cheap doesn't mean that it can't have it's uses. I'm not interested in 'debating' with you, but I don't mind to mock you from time to time.

Pastor AIO:

It might have been a cheap point but it would have been a very gratifying point. Just because something is cheap doesn't mean that it can't have it's uses. I'm not interested in 'debating' with you, but I don't mind to mock you from time to time.

Thanks for disclosing that . . . . .I could smell such as u rebuffed my polite posers.

So how do u feel now that ur ignorance has been exposed again?