# Rejecting Christ after knowing him



## Madsnooker (Dec 7, 2005)

We got off topic on the thread titled "I don't want to be Christian anymore". If you want to see how it led to this see end of that thread.


Dixie,

Paul writes in Hebrews 6:4-6

"4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened(as you say you have), who have tasted the heavenly gift(as you say you have), who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away(as you say you have), to be brought back to repentance, because[a]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

This does not mean if you do this "turn from Jesus" you can't ever be saved again. Paul is just pointing out that there is no other sacrifice for sins. Paul is speaking to Jewish Christians who are thinking of going back to the old law (sacrificing animals) instead of believing in Jesus Christ.

Basically, if you have decided Jesus is not needed to get to heaven than what sacrifice(path as you say) are you offering?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2005)

*In reply to Bandy's post on other thread *

Hi Bandy!
Thanks for your reply!  

I don't like to assume things, but I am assuming that you believe Jeremiah 31 has already happened.  I don't adhere to that same belief.  The passage also states that no longer will the word of God have to be taught or spread because everyone will know God... that is far from being the current earthly situation.

However, I will agree with you that you are not under the Law.  But I will go one step further and offer that you never were under the law (unless you were Jewish).  The Law is for the House of Israel and the House of Judah, the Jews.  It was a covenant given to them, not to the Gentiles.  The entire bible (Old Testament) was written by Jews, for Jews, about Jews.

One other observation... God never says in Jeremiah that the law is/will be abolished... He says that (instead of on tablets), it will be written in the hearts and minds of the Jews, and everyone will know it and follow it.  Nothing there about changing it.  Only the covenant, the way in which it is known and followed.

As far as different gospels... every denomination has a different belief as to the interpretation of the gospels.  If they didn't, they would all be the same denomination   I'll just throw out one example... speaking in tongues.  You won't get the same answer from a Pentecostal and a Methodist if you ask them about tongues      Another one is baptism... what method should be used, what age should be done, etc.  Different interpretations of the same scriptures.  And then of course you have Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, which I consider in a different catagory all together.... JW's of course believe in Jesus but not that he was God in the flesh... and Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers... among many other different beliefs.

But I do thank you for your post... especially the part where you stated that if I felt I had to earn my way to heaven, then I never was a Christian.  I have to tell you that even though I am no longer a Christian, that statement always gets my feathers ruffled.  I find it interesting that other human beings feel they are qualified to judge the extent of another's "Christian-ness".  The fact is, no one knows what is in another person's heart.  No one knows the relationship of a fellow human being to their Creator.  IMHO, anyone who makes a statement 'he/she never really was/is a Christian', is sinning themselves by judging another.  That is God's job.  That is one reason I dropped the entire religion.  My life revolved around Jesus, church, my family, and doing what I thought was the best I could do to spread the word of the Gospel.  I went to church, sang in the choir, was raising my daughter to be a Christian and to prepare her for what I felt was coming soon, which was a huge war against Christians and was teaching her to hold strong in her faith no matter what.  I prayed daily and acted and lived my life as I felt Jesus had taught me to.  I felt called to minister to the Jewish faith and to lead them to Jesus, which interestingly enough actually became the catalyst for my decision to leave.
I went in to show them that Jesus was the way, and they actually answered the questions I had been asking for so long... although the answers weren't what I was expecting   

Anyway, my point is, if I wasn't a Christian, then I don't know what a Christian would be.  My problem was doubt.  My questions caused me to (rightly) doubt my faith.  And that doubt tortured me, because I WANTED to believe it so badly, to follow the faith to serve Jesus and be grateful of the gift he gave me and spend eternity with him in heaven.   Now, if the God you believe in would take a person like that... someone who tried with all of their being to believe the gospel and to live it to the best of their ability, but had questions about things that didn't make sense or didn't add up, if the God you believe in would take that person and send them to big toebig toebig toebig toe for not getting it right, then I don't want to follow that god anyway.  That is torture and cruel, and the God I believe in is neither of those things.

Incidentally, I'd also like to add that after I 'came out of the closet', so to speak, and admitted that I had so many doubts and questions, I was SHOCKED at how many other people privately told me they had the same questions but were afraid to ask, for fear of being admonished by the church or told they (ironically) weren't 'really' Christians and were therefore going to big toebig toebig toebig toe.  I remember having lunch with my elderly Great Aunt two years ago in Savannah, we were sitting at a nice cafe in the Market and somehow the subject came up, and she asked if I had given up my belief in Jesus.  When I answered her 'Yes', she said she was sorry to hear that because she wouldn't be seeing me in heaven.  I politely smiled and told her not to worry, while my daughter exchanged looks with me across the table.  About 5 minutes later, she apologized to me.  She said she was sorry she had said that because, truth be known, she wasn't so sure she believed all non-Christians were going to big toebig toebig toebig toe either.  She said she never understood that because she had friends that were wonderful people... lived their lives volunteering for charities to make better lives for underprivledged families, donated their time and money, basically were good people, everything a 'real' Christian is, except they were Buddhist.  She said she didn't understand how God would keep them out of heaven just because they didn't believe in a man who said he was God.  She admitted she had doubt.  And I can guarantee that there are scores of others who have the same doubts, they are just afraid to admit it.   

As far as being mislead early on, I feel I was misled entirely, the whole time.  And I can assure you I did not make my decision to leave Christianity lightly... I studied for 3 years and put alot of hours in prayer before I realized the truth was that I didn't believe in Jesus.  And as soon as I admitted that, the weight of the world came off of my shoulders and I was truly free.  Free to develop a relationship with God, one on one.  Man has never needed an intermediary to have a relationship with God.  Sacrifice was never required to be forgiven of sin. In fact, if you purposely sinned, no sacrifice was accepted at all.  From the beginning, God has said what He expected from us:


"Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? *He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good, and what does the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. * (Micah 6:6-6:8)

Is God not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2005)

Dixie,
So what do you believe?  I can not tell what you believe.  How did you get your questions answered?  Who answered them?


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2005)

Sometimes you confuse me more than Jbowers!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2005)

Hi Madsnooker! Thanks for opening a new thread! 

On your post above, the way I read that is not how you seem to take it.  When I read what Paul wrote, it says to me that he is threatening the Jews that if they go back to their Torah and turn away from Jesus, there is no repentance. In fact, that's exactly what he says. 

Now, I'm going to give you just a bit of my spiritual history     In the beginning, when I first started faithfully attending church and trying to live my life as a Christian, I was given a New Testament by the church I was attending.  I was told that everything I needed to know for my salvation was in that book, and that the "old testament" was just alot of history, it was good for casual reading but wasn't imperative to my eternal life.  So that's what I concentrated on for years... only learning the standard verses from the "Old Testament" that I was told supported the belief in the New.  However, when I started reading the "old testament" from Genesis on through, I had so many questions that my pastor finally refused to talk to me about them.  His answer to me was 'don't worry about the 'old testament', it doesn't apply anymore.'  But the problem was that the Old Testament was in direct conflict with many things in the New Testament... so much so that I started to wonder how it got to be in the first place.  The standard verses I had been taught were all taken out of context and twisted to fit the Christian doctrine.  When read in the context of the scripture they were contained in, they had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus.  In fact, I didn't see Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament like I had been taught that he was.  That is one of the questions I always had... if Jesus was talked about all through the Old Testament, if everyone knew he was coming, why didn't the Jews accept him?  I got my answers when I started reading the Old Testament.

For example... and this somewhat ties in to your scripture above about Jewish Christians who were wanting to return to the Law... it is Jewish Law (one of the 613 mizvot, or commandments) that blood not be eaten (drank) under any circumstances.  When Jesus sat at the Passover table and said "this is my blood, drink of it", every Jew would have left dust trails getting out of that room.  There is absolutely no way they would have done that.  It doesn't matter if it wasn't real blood, that it was only a symbol... why would they do something that symbolizes a sin?

As for sacrifices... there have never been sacrifices for intentional sin.  If you do something and then later on you learn it was a sin, or if something happened and by accident you committed a sin, that is what sacrifices were for.  If you intentionally committed a sin, you had to suffer the consequences.  This did not mean eternally. And no one could take away your sin for you, or make restitution for you.  For example, when Moses went up on the mountain to receive the Commandments from God, Aaron and the rest of the Hebrews made the golden calf and started worshipping it.  When Moses returned and saw what they had done,  he basically called them out and said, whoever is for God, come to my side. Those that didn't, were killed.  Then Moses went to God and asked Him to forgive the Hebrews for the sin they had committed by making and worshipping the golden calf, and said that if God would not forgive them, to accept him (Moses) as sacrifice, that he wanted to take on the punishment for their sins.  God said no, each man has to pay for his own sin.  So he struck them with a plague.  That was their punishment.  Not an eternal punishment... God is just and fair.  And He didn't give them the option of offering a sacrifice instead, not even of an animal.  They were punished for the intentional sin they committed.

You asked what sacrifice I offer instead of Jesus? No sacrifice is required.  This is partly answered above in my reply to Bandy about what the Lord requires of us, but I'll add that God knew there would be a long period of time when sacrifices (animal) were not going to be possible (Hosea 3:4).  In fact, God says in Hosea 6:6  "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. "  So what were the people to do when they could not offer sacrifices on an altar? Hosea 14:2 "Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. "   They offered up prayers and repentance and turned from their backsliding.  These were not eternal punishments, and God accepted their prayers and healed them when they returned to Him.

God never wanted sacrifices.  He wanted people to be good and merciful to one another and to love and worship Him.  Sacrifices were given as a way to show one's repentance and basically as an apology for making a mistake, which is why there was never any sacrifice for something done intentionally. 

I believe in God, and I pray to Him as well.  I just don't accept the belief that God came to earth as a man and died for the sins of the world.  Notice that I say I dont' believe he did it... I am not saying He COULDN'T do it, I'm saying he WOULDN'T do it.  When God led the Hebrews throught the desert, He specifically stated that He appeared to them as no form so that they would not make an image of Him and worship it instead of Him.  (Deuteronomy chapter 4)  I think if God had come down as a man, that He would be pretty upset at all the churches who have statues of Jesus in them, or crosses with statues of Jesus hanging on them and how people bow down in front of them and pray. That's exactly what He didn't want to have happen.  There are a number of references in the Old Testament that every man must pay for his own sins.  God doesn't allow intercessors.  And He doesn't expect us to be perfect. Look at David... he had a man killed so that he could take their wife, committed numerous sins and yet God still said that David was a man after His own heart.  

I hope this at least touches a bit on what your question was!  I tend to get a bit carried away at times  

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2005)

Woodswalker said:
			
		

> It is so good that there is Internet media that allows such open discussion and heartfelt expression of belief and understanding!
> 
> to even talk about such on a public forum is very difficult, awkward, and not easy at all.
> 
> Anyone who breaches the subject on these airwaves are probably very committed, or should be committed.



Woodswalker LOL!!!
You're right... probably should be committed!!!  
Seriously, I hope no one thinks or gets the idea that I am putting down anyone's beliefs.  I respect everyone's beliefs and feel they are entitled to them... it is, after all, still a free country, THANK GOD  

I enjoy discussing theology and sharing my experiences in my religious path and what I have learned and now believe.  No one is obligated to agree or to even accept my decisions.  And if anyone has any light to shed on some of my questions, hey, I welcome that too!  I'm always open to new ideas or the possibilities of eye-opening answers!

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Zack attack (Dec 7, 2005)

Dixie Dawg, 
If I understand you correctly you believe in the OT, but do not believe the NT to be inspired, but yet a big falacy.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2005)

Zack attack said:
			
		

> Dixie Dawg,
> If I understand you correctly you believe in the OT, but do not believe the NT to be inspired, but yet a big falacy.




Hi Zack!
Yes, for the most part, I do believe in the OT (although I am not Jewish). However that doesn't mean I don't have questions about it, either.  There are things in the OT that I question as well... for example, why was it Ok for Abraham to have more than one wife but then later down the line, you're only supposed to have one?   

As far as the NT goes... well, I don't believe in the Gospel as it is written... it became even harder when I learned how the NT was created; by a vote of which books to include and exclude. What if there was something in one of the excluded books that should have been included?

I guess the easiest way to explain why I don't accept the NT is by asking a question to you....  do most Christians accept the Book of Mormon to be inspired and a valid part of Christian doctrine? I would say the answer is 'no'.  Why not? Because it doesn't concur with the teachings of the NT.  The NT preceeded the BOM and if it doesn't follow the same teachings, then (most) Christians dismiss it as incorrect doctrine.   This is the same reason why I don't accept the teachings of the NT.  They don't follow the teachings of the predecessor, OT.  Does that sort of explain what I mean?  Hope I'm not confusing too much here.... 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Zack attack (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerri, 
I have studied the canon "the standard or rule" and understand why some apochryphal books were not included. Yeah but that is not what I am getting at. 
If you do not believe in the NT then you do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah or that he ever existed. That would mean that you do not believe that Salvation comes through Jesus. So if you use to be "christian" you had no salvation. Correct. You only thought that you once had salvation, but you did not because you believe that Salvation does not come from Christ. So therefore you did not loose salvation. Salvation lost is salvation never gained. God Bless. ZTT


----------



## Zack attack (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerri, 
I am enjoying your theological conversation. I will try to think on some of these ideas and get back at it tomorrow. God Bless. ZTT


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 8, 2005)

Zack attack said:
			
		

> Kerri,
> I have studied the canon "the standard or rule" and understand why some apochryphal books were not included. Yeah but that is not what I am getting at.
> If you do not believe in the NT then you do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah or that he ever existed. That would mean that you do not believe that Salvation comes through Jesus. So if you use to be "christian" you had no salvation. Correct. You only thought that you once had salvation, but you did not because you believe that Salvation does not come from Christ. So therefore you did not loose salvation. Salvation lost is salvation never gained. God Bless. ZTT



Hmmm.... well, partly correct....

I no longer believe in the NT... I did at one time.  I no longer believe Jesus was 'The' messiah (there have been many 'messiahs'... 'messiah' means 'anointed one' and there have been many... Moses was one, David was one, etc.).  I did believe that at one time.  I don't doubt that Jesus existed, but I believe he was a man like everyone else.  When I was Christian, I did believe that salvation came through Jesus.  I no longer believe that.

I'm a bit confused by your last two sentences... Because I don't believe, I didn't lose salvation because salvation lost is salvation never gained? Could you explain that a bit more?

I am enjoying the conversation as well!

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 8, 2005)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Hi Madsnooker! Thanks for opening a new thread!
> 
> On your post above, the way I read that is not how you seem to take it.  When I read what Paul wrote, it says to me that he is threatening the Jews that if they go back to their Torah and turn away from Jesus, there is no repentance. In fact, that's exactly what he says.



Isn't that exactly what I said. Not sure by what I posted how you could have taken it any other way.

If I'm following you, even though you just gave your interpretation to this scripture(which ironically backs the idea that Jesus is the only way as Paul states, You really don't believe anything Paul states concerning salvation, is that correct?


----------



## PWalls (Dec 8, 2005)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused by your last two sentences... Because I don't believe, I didn't lose salvation because salvation lost is salvation never gained? Could you explain that a bit more?



I think he means that you couldn't "lose" your salvation, because your never had it. I think that is what he is saying.

I realize that we are not to judge people. That is God's responsibility and only he could do that. But, please understand, that as a Christian who believes that the Bible (old and new testaments) is the inspired word of God and that Jesus was and is the Son of God, then I can't see how you are going to Heaven. By accepting Jesus and becoming a Christian (again, that is questionable since you now say you aren't which questions your original repentance and acceptance), and then turning your back on Him and un-deifiying (making God a man) Him, I would consider that to be Blaspehmy of the Holy Spirit which is the unpardonable sin.

And, you say you are not Jewish. So, you turn your back on Christianity, only believe in the Old Testament, yet don't accept the Jewish religion (who the old testament was written for originally) and their beliefs. So, how do you propose that you get to Heaven? Good works (charity and such)? Sounds like you are picking and choosing what you want.

Again, I am just wondering and I have no malice or ill feelings at all towards you. I'm just curious.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 8, 2005)

Oh, one other thing.

Once saved, always saved. If you are truly saved, then nothing you can do will take that away. Once you are a sheep in the flock of God, then Jesus the shepherd will never lose you.

So, if you think you can reject Christ after you "knew" Him, I would question if you truly "knew" Him to begin with.


----------



## LadyRoadkill (Dec 8, 2005)

While I think that theology is fascinating, and has its' place to help us understand "some" of the mind of God, it is not for us to completely understand God's wisdom and knowledge, for His ways are not our own.  The Word of God is very clear on many things, but there are many more that we will have to wait until we get to heaven to be certain of.  When we start questioning God and His Word (to an extent), then it isn't "faith" anymore, it's more of a head knowledge... we want to be in the "know".  God's Word tells us to believe in our _heart_.  (Romans 10:10a - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness  We can have all the theology in the world, but until it permeates our hearts, our entire lives, head knowledge is not going to take us to heaven.
My favorite verses and I have to remind myself of often...
Proverbs 3:5-6 - Trust in the Lord with ALL thine heart; and lean not unto thine OWN understanding. (emphasis mine)  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Jesus is not a Way of Life, He IS my life!


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 8, 2005)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> This is the same reason why I don't accept the teachings of the NT.  They don't follow the teachings of the predecessor, OT.



I'd have to disagree here...  with over 300 verses written about Jesus Christ concerning His birth, death and ressurrection, there is incredible continuity between the OT and the NT.  

Just one example:  "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall concieve, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." -Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23  

Immanuel means: GOD with us.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 8, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> I think he means that you couldn't "lose" your salvation, because your never had it. I think that is what he is saying.



Well that's a scary thought. Or, it would be if I were still a Christian.  Actually, it's a sad thought, to think that I lived my life following Jesus yet with all that I believed and prayed and tried to do, I was never 'really' saved.  See why I have such a hard time believing in this?  How would anyone really know if they were saved or not? If you had asked me back then, I would have undeniably said yes, I am saved.  And believed that I was.  But see here, people say 'nope, you were never really saved'.  I really don't think God made it to be such a tricky thing.  I can't see a loving, just God making eternal salvation basically a crap shoot... you don't know for sure until you're dead.



> I realize that we are not to judge people. That is God's responsibility and only he could do that. But, please understand, that as a Christian who believes that the Bible (old and new testaments) is the inspired word of God and that Jesus was and is the Son of God, then I can't see how you are going to Heaven. By accepting Jesus and becoming a Christian (again, that is questionable since you now say you aren't which questions your original repentance and acceptance), and then turning your back on Him and un-deifiying (making God a man) Him, I would consider that to be Blaspehmy of the Holy Spirit which is the unpardonable sin.



I don't believe there is any unforgiveable sin.  I believe God can forgive any and all sins... but that does not mean they will go unpunished.  Forgiveness does not mean absence of punishment.  Say your child steals money from your wallet... you can forgive him, but I'll bet he still gets punished.[/QUOTE]



> And, you say you are not Jewish. So, you turn your back on Christianity, only believe in the Old Testament, yet don't accept the Jewish religion (who the old testament was written for originally) and their beliefs. So, how do you propose that you get to Heaven? Good works (charity and such)? Sounds like you are picking and choosing what you want.



No, I'm not Jewish.  I do accept the Jewish religion and their beliefs, but I am not Jewish.  Being Jewish is more than just a religion... it is an entire culture.  Just as I did not take my decision to leave Christianity lightly, I also do not take the decision to convert lightly, either.  At this time, I don't feel called by God to convert to Judaism.  Of course, that could change.

How do I propose I'm going to get to heaven? Well, to begin with I think it's important to mention that everywhere in the Old Testament, whenever salvation is talked about, it is a physical salvation, not a spiritual one.  It is an earthly salvation... being saved from a plight one is physically in or in danger of being in.  The general Jewish belief, which I also share, is that everyone will have eternal life, here on earth (changed, of course, but earth nonetheless).   If you read the Old Testament, you will not see any talk about eternal life or 'heaven'. That is because they knew it was more important to concentrate on how you live your life while on this earth, not to worry about what comes afterwards.  

Judaism does have a concept of reward and punishment in the afterlife. However, since words we use bring to mind certain images, particularly “Heaven” and “big toebig toebig toebig toe,” it is better to use the Jewish terminology which comes without the baggage, or preconceived images.

When someone dies, the disembodied soul leaves this sensory world and enters “Gan Eden,” the spiritual Garden of Eden (a.k.a. “Heaven”). In the Garden of Eden, the soul enjoys the “rays of the Divine Presence,” a purely spiritual enjoyment dependent on the Torah learning and good deeds done while in a body. Every year on the yahrtzeit, the day of passing, the soul ascends to another level closer to God. This gives it tremendous pleasure.

Before entering the Garden of Eden, though, every soul must be refined, for it cannot enjoy the Divine Presence to the fullest degree with the pleasures and coarseness of our physical world still engraved on it. These would give the soul poor “reception” of divine radiance, and must be removed.

In order to restore the level of purity the soul had possessed before entering the physical world, it must undergo a degree of refinement commensurate to the degree which the body may have indulged itself. If a person sinned in this lifetime, as most of us do, then, to continue the radio analogy, we have serious interference. This means there is even more cleaning to be done. This cleaning process hurts, but is a spiritual and mental process designed not for retribution, but to allow one to truly enjoy his/her reward in Gan Eden. This cleaning process is called “Gehinom,” or, in the vernacular, “big toebig toebig toebig toe.”  (Much like the Catholic purgatory). 

Now because the written Old Testament does not speak or make reference to 'heaven' or the afterlife, all of these teachings are from the Oral Torah, or basically passed down from generation to generation.  They can be found in other Jewish scriptures such as the Talmud, if you are interested. 



> Again, I am just wondering and I have no malice or ill feelings at all towards you. I'm just curious.



No offense taken at all! I enjoy discussing these topics, as it usually gives me a good reason to go back and make myself familiar with things again! 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 8, 2005)

StriperAddict said:
			
		

> I'd have to disagree here...  with over 300 verses written about Jesus Christ concerning His birth, death and ressurrection, there is incredible continuity between the OT and the NT.
> 
> Just one example:  "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall concieve, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." -Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23
> 
> Immanuel means: GOD with us.


 
Hi Striper!
Thanks for your reply! 
I was wondering if this was going to be brought up, and now that it has been, I'm wondering if there is a limit on how long your post is allowed to be LOL!!!

Before I post my reply, let me just reiterate that this is a prime example of why I don't accept that there is only one way to God.  Man is fallible, and I don't see how God would allow the eternal salvation of every human on earth to rely upon the ability (and honesty) of man to translate scriptures correctly.  One word mistranslated could mean the difference between someone going to heaven or to big toebig toebig toebig toe.  I just don't believe that a fair and just God would allow that to happen.

Ok now on to the reply to your post...  In order to understand the verse you provided in your post, you have to go to the beginning of the chapter and read the verse in context, not just pick the verse out by itself.  The seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah.  Around the year 732 B.C.E., the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom of Israel, led by King Peqah, and the Kingdom of Syria (Aram), led by King Retsin. These two armies had besieged Jerusalem.  Isaiah records that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear.  God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – God would protect him and his kingdom and that their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.

It is clear from the narrative in this chapter, that Isaiah’s declaration (Is 7:14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies from the north.  The verses Isaiah 7:15-16 state that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14) reaches the age of maturity (“… he knows to reject bad and choose good …”), the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact, they will be killed.  Two Biblical passages, 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was contemporaneously fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated.  With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the name of the child in Isaiah 7:14, Immanu'el, is a sign which points to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their otherwise certain demise at the hands of these two enemies.  Clearly, Isaiah 7:14 is a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative, and which was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not some seven-and-a-half centuries in the future.

To further explain this misconception, it also must be noted that there is an error in translation in most Christian bibles.  The passage in the original Hebrew does not read "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel".  Instead, in the original Hebrew, the text reads "Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanuel."  The Hebrew word used here is "almah", which means 'young woman'.  If it were specifically a virgin, the Hebrew word would have been 'betulah'.  

Also, nowhere I have ever read in the New Testament is Jesus called Immanuel.  In fact, in the same passage you posted, Matthew 1:23, it clearly states the child's name shall be Jesus, not Immanuel    

I have read the verses in the Old Testament that I was taught were about Jesus, and when I read them in context of the chapter they were in, nowhere did I see that they were truly a prophecy of Jesus.  If you would like to name another one, I'd love to look at it!

I would also like to comment that I am truly impressed at the civil way in which we are able to discuss these topics... I know that religion can be a very passionate subject and I am glad to see that so far, everyone realizes I am not here trying to change anyone's mind about their religion, only to give the reasons for the decisions I have made about my beliefs.  And I appreciate the courteous discussion!  

One more thing... I don't have all of this information retained in my head that I just pull out at will... I have posted information from notes and studies that I have used in my own spiritual journey 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 8, 2005)

*Matt 1:23*

Thanks, DD,
Note the rest of the Matt Ch 1 passage, until vs23:
21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”(which means, God with us). 


I don't agree with your historical refrence, since here in Matthew the Isaiah passage is shown as a clear reference to the birth of Jesus.

When I have more time, I'll go into this further.


----------



## Vernon Holt (Dec 8, 2005)

*Rejecting Christ*

The Apostle Paul was dealing with this subject when he wrote to his co-worker Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1:

*Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; *
It is sad, but seemingly it happens.


----------



## roadkill (Dec 8, 2005)

I know of an unpardonable sin... DENYING JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOR!


----------



## Mrs. Bucky (Dec 8, 2005)

When I was new in Christ I believed that salvation could be lost and you had to repent.  As I have grown in Christ I believe if you have ever had Christ, then you will never want to leave him.  When you have walked close and personally with God and you get away from him, you long for that peace again in your life.  I don't think you, if you are truely saved, will be happy until you are back in the will of God.  Whay would anyone not want to be a Christian if they have ever had that peace with him.  When the Holy Ghost comes over you and have that high with God, I will tell you that no drug could make you feel as good as been in the will of God and having that peace with him.  yeah God will give you trials to over come, but it worth giving him up? I think God will never give us too much we can not bear!


----------



## Vernon Holt (Dec 8, 2005)

Mrs. Bucky said:
			
		

> *"As I have grown in Christ I believe if you have ever had Christ, then you will never want to leave him. When you have walked close and personally with God and you get away from him, you long for that peace again in your life". *
> 
> 
> > What a wonderful testimony.  May God continue to bless your life!!


----------



## Randy (Dec 9, 2005)

Dixie Dawg,
You are obviously well studied.  This study and your beliefs come from some where. What is you religion?  You are not Christian.  You are not Jewish.  What denomination are you?


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 9, 2005)

*Prophecies that Jesus Christ Fulfilled*

Dixie Dawg, here is a good list of just some of the OT that are fulfilled with Jesus Christ:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/proph.htm

Even so, like Mrs. Bucky said...
"I don't think you, if you are truely saved, will be happy until you are back in the will of God. Why would anyone not want to be a Christian if they have ever had that peace with him."

It's hard to concieve someone leaving Christ, His mercy, presence, peace ("Peace I leave with YOU..not as the world gives..." John's gospel) for... what?  Religion?  Jesus died not to give us "religion", but abundant LIFE.  His blood did the one thing we can never do for ourselves... wash our sins away.  When that truely happens, that "new creation" in Christ begins to live a life of GRATITUDE for God's love and forgiveness, and the peace that comes with His free gift is un-matched by anything or anyone in the world.

"...by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: *it is the gift of God*.  Not of works (our own righteousness) that no one may boast" 
-Ephesians 2:8,9


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2005)

Wow....miss a day on here and all H@!! breaks loose!!  LOL

When I get a second I'll glance through all the replies.   Seems to be interesting from what I can see on this first page of replies.    

 

Bandy


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 9, 2005)

Dixie, you said that you don't believe in the NT because you feel some books were left out.

Do you think every book, scroll, or writing should have been included? Maybe if I were alive in the second century (when most of these books you are referring to were left out) I could have written a book and had it put in the New Testament.   These books you speak of are referred to as Nostic books. Anyone can read these books today. There's no secret. These books do nothing to discredit the NT only confirm most of it. One of the reasons these books were not put in was becuase they had alot of mystical writings. One example is they tell of Jesus and his crucifiction but they say things like Jesus came out of the tomb and was as tall as the clouds and also something about a talking cross. Obviously these were writings of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on accounts of true events by writers that added their own twists. You know, kind of like a story of a big buck. There is a first hand account and then by the time the 3rd person tells it there are some twists to it. But the bottom line was a big buck was shot. You should do an unbiased, in depth study of how the NT was put together and you might see that all the books were held to a specific criteria. They were not left out becuase they would disprove the NT.

Also, were are you getting you info or studies? I just don't believe you were a born again Christian just studying the word and stumbled upon some of your info (a child conceived from a "young woman" versus a virgin) in your last reply and that has led you to where you are today. I'm not trying to imply anything other than I think you are leaving some valuable info out of your reply's that would better help some of us understand how you got to your present idea's of the Bible. Is your family Jewish? 

Lastly, contrary to your belief, there is lots of scripture that ties the New and Old Testaments together. I'm glad that Stripper pointed out the very one you spoke of.


----------



## Randy (Dec 9, 2005)

I will say that I too agree with Dixie Dawg on the books in the Bible thing.  I know my up-bringing says all the books that are in the Bible were "inspired" by God.  Those that were not selected were not.  I think they were all inspired by God.  Every one of them was written based on what that person believe(s)(ed) God told them.  The ones that are in the Bible are the ones some King felt inspired to include.

Just as when I read them I get out of them what God wants me to get.  My belief is that in general they are all an inspiration and a guide to how God would have us live our life.  There may be some fiction, exageration, truth, and down right falsehoods (that shoud get a lot of responses).  I nor any of you can confirm every written word.  But, as I have said before I think Christians get to caught up in the "literal" interpretations and loose sight of the purpose and intent.  If we argue with another person on wheather Jesus could walk on water, we might loose that person to the whole intent and salvation of the Bible.  I am not saying you can not discuss scriptures in the Bible, but when a person has a question and the only answer is "because the bible says so" or "you do not have enough faith," then that person may go elsewhere for those answers and be lost forever to somebody that can provide those answers even if the answer is made up.


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 9, 2005)

Another great read:
"THE HOLY BIBLE: Wholly True"
http://www.lastdaysministries.org/articles/holybible.html


----------



## Vernon Holt (Dec 9, 2005)

I believe that Ephesians 4:14 speaks clearly to this subject:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  (KJV)


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 9, 2005)

And another...
"IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN?"
http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html

Check these articles out if you think there are fallicies in the scriptures  

"Dr Panin says the laws of probability are exceeded into the billions when we try and rationalise the authorship of the Bible as the work of man. He once said: "If human logic is worth anything at all we are simply driven to the conclusion that if my facts I have presented are true, man could never have done this. "


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 9, 2005)

Randy said:
			
		

> I will say that I too agree with Dixie Dawg on the books in the Bible thing.  I know my up-bringing says all the books that are in the Bible were "inspired" by God.  Those that were not selected were not.  I think they were all inspired by God.  Every one of them was written based on what that person believe(s)(ed) God told them.  The ones that are in the Bible are the ones some King felt inspired to include.
> 
> Just as when I read them I get out of them what God wants me to get.  My belief is that in general they are all an inspiration and a guide to how God would have us live our life.  There may be some fiction, exageration, truth, and down right falsehoods (that shoud get a lot of responses).  I nor any of you can confirm every written word.  But, as I have said before I think Christians get to caught up in the "literal" interpretations and loose sight of the purpose and intent.  If we argue with another person on wheather Jesus could walk on water, we might loose that person to the whole intent and salvation of the Bible.  I am not saying you can not discuss scriptures in the Bible, but when a person has a question and the only answer is "because the bible says so" or "you do not have enough faith," then that person may go elsewhere for those answers and be lost forever to somebody that can provide those answers even if the answer is made up.



I understand your thinking and most would probably agree to a point(maybe not on down right falsehoods)  but I don't think you think as Dixie on the Books of the Bible as that is her reason to throw the NT out. I don't believe you believe that.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 9, 2005)

Vernon Holt said:
			
		

> I believe that Ephesians 4:14 speaks clearly to this subject:
> 
> That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  (KJV)




One of many that speak of such things. Good post.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2005)

Let me add something here....

It should be no surprise that people who have come to Christ can fall away.    We are warned about it often in the NT.     Making "shipwreck of their faith" and "trodding under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant....an unholy thing" (Hebrews 10:29) are just a few examples.   Hebrews 6:4 makes it clear that someone could be a "partaker of the Holy Ghost" and still fall away.    

We should each guard our own beliefs....because 'experiences' with God are not enough to keep you from falling.

Bandy


----------



## PWalls (Dec 9, 2005)

Randy said:
			
		

> There may be some fiction, exageration, truth, and down right falsehoods (that shoud get a lot of responses).



Here is a response.

Can't go there. No fiction. All truth. If by exageration you mean flowery speech, then I can go with that. If be exageration you mean you don't believe in a 6 day creation, then no I can't go with that. Down right falsehoods, no way dude.

The bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. That means there are no errors. That means that everything happened as it was written and will happen in the future as it is written.

If you can't believe that, then you have to believe on your own logic/interpretation of how you "think" it might have happened. You have to decide what to believe and what not to believe. To me, that gets on shaky ground. I choose, by faith, to believe that every jot and tittle in that book is the exact words that God wanted there and in the exact order He wanted them to be in and is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2005)

Snooker, 

I think you are correct in stating that the books that were left out of the 'canon' of scripture have no bearing on the books that are part of our current New Testament.   The synoptic gospels lay out the gospel according to the view of 4 men.   They are either true or not.   These men died believing what they wrote, or were martyred knowing it was a lie.  If these gospels agreed in every single point, and every sequence, then everyone would be yelling "Collaboration!!!".     The Gnostic gospels (dated 2nd century by all but the most liberal of critics) do have a 'mythical' tone.    As you stated, were you to write a "Madsnooker's Gospel", IMHO it should not even be considered as canon, as I'm sure most readers here would also agree.    There has to be a criteria for 'canon'.    Were the writers of the gospels/letters eye witnesses of the Lord?   Did their writings get circulated as 'authoritative' early?    We can build the New Testament, as it stands today, from the remnants of letters from the early christian writers who quoted the gospels and Pauline letters.   

Bandy


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

Vernon Holt said:
			
		

> The Apostle Paul was dealing with this subject when he wrote to his co-worker Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1:
> 
> *Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; *
> It is sad, but seemingly it happens.



Hi Vernon!
I'm on a break right now so I don't have time yet to respond to other posts until later this evening... but wanted to ask you about yours real quick.... the only 'doctrines' I have used in my studies are the Old Testament... are you implying that the Old Testament is a 'doctrine of devils'?    

Just wanting to be sure we're talking about the same scriptures!   

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

Randy said:
			
		

> Dixie Dawg,
> You are obviously well studied.  This study and your beliefs come from some where. What is you religion?  You are not Christian.  You are not Jewish.  What denomination are you?




Hey Randy!
I'll be happy to explain more later this evening, but for now I can answer your question... I no longer have a 'religion'.  I believe in God, I believe He created this earth and everything in it, and I do believe in the Old Testament, that it is religiously for the Jews but historically for all mankind.  Hope this answers your question, but if not I'll try to explain better this evening!

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## LadyRoadkill (Dec 9, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> The bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. That means there are no errors. That means that everything happened as it was written and will happen in the future as it is written.
> 
> If you can't believe that, then you have to believe on your own logic/interpretation of how you "think" it might have happened. You have to decide what to believe and what not to believe. To me, that gets on shaky ground. I choose, by faith, to believe that every jot and tittle in that book is the exact words that God wanted there and in the exact order He wanted them to be in and is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


I have to agree with PWalls here.  I admit I used to be a "God said it, I believe it and that settles it" kind of person.  Then, I realized, you know, whether I believe it or not does not make it any less true.  "God said it and THAT settles it!" and if we choose not to believe, then that is our own lack of faith.
We have to remember that Satan is loose on this earth "seeking whom he may devour" and it is he who puts doubts in our minds, makes us question our beliefs.  He wants to do anything he can to keep God's children from spreading truth, including making us doubt.  I for one am SO glad that I have eternal life through Jesus Christ, my Saviour and that when Satan places any doubt in my mind, I can go to the scriptures (yes, the New Testament) and God settle my doubt.  Of course, you have to believe the entire Bible and not just part of it for reassurance.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2005)

I forgot who said....

"My heart will never embrace what my mind continually rejects"

Bandy


----------



## Randy (Dec 9, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> but I don't think you think as Dixie on the Books of the Bible as that is her reason to throw the NT out. I don't believe you believe that.



You're right.  In fact it tink we should add allthose other books to the Bible that the King decided should not be there.  We can learn a lot from those too.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2005)

I didn't know it was a King.....  I thought it was a Council???

Many of those books are still available for everyone to review...

Bandy


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 9, 2005)

The Apostle Paul warned in the strongest possible terms about the attitude of God toward those who would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can understand this, as it cost God his only son, and Jesus a horrible death by crucifixion. He stated:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.   As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8, 9 

My take on this and other verses like it is that God in His wisdom has protected the bible as it stands now.  "Additions" to it are a dangerous thing ("Another gospel")  especially when certain subjects contradict scripture.  Not all books written about the bible do this, but even they do not have the "seal" from God, so-to-speak, like the Old Testament and New Testament does.


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 9, 2005)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> the only 'doctrines' I have used in my studies are the Old Testament... are you implying that the Old Testament is a 'doctrine of devils'?



The Old covenant "Old testament scriptures" were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  Therefore, all the OT is as much inspired from God as is the NT.  

Jesus said to some of the Jews, "Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me" (Jn. 5: 39, ASV). The scriptures are our authority in religious matters and are very important (I Pet. 4: 11, 2 Jn. 9-11). However, the Jews of Jesus' day had a problem, they claimed to cling to the scriptures, but they rejected the essential message of the scriptures, the Messiahship of Jesus.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> Here is a response.
> 
> The bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. That means there are no errors. That means that everything happened as it was written and will happen in the future as it is written.
> 
> If you can't believe that, then you have to believe on your own logic/interpretation of how you "think" it might have happened. You have to decide what to believe and what not to believe. To me, that gets on shaky ground. I choose, by faith, to believe that every jot and tittle in that book is the exact words that God wanted there and in the exact order He wanted them to be in and is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


 
Hey PWall!  Thanks for your response! 

However, in reference to your above quote, I must disagree and say that the bible is not infallible.  In fact there are discrepancies in the New Testament, and quite a few of them.  I'll give you an example of what I am talking about....

What exactly was Jesus' mission and philosophy? It isn't clear... here we have these two verses:

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace...
(Ephesians 2:13-15) 
versus: 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them  but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19) 

Clearly one is left to wonder: which way is it? (And as a side note, I want to point out that even in this statement, it seems Jesus acknowledges that all are going to heaven, only some will have more of a reward than others).  Did Jesus come to abolish the law or didn't he?


Jesus' ancestry ~Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 give two considerably-inconsistent genealogies for Jesus. The most obvious difficulty is Joseph's father -- was Joseph born of Jacob (says Matthew), or Heli (says Luke)? 


Exactly when did Jesus die? According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate a Passover meal, following which Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified (Mt. 26:17-21; Mk. 14: 12-18; Lk. 22:7--15). 

According to the Fourth Gospel, however, Jesus was executed on the day of Preparation for the Passover (Jn. 19:31). 

Some theologians speculate that the author of the Fourth Gospel wanted to portray Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed for the new Passover. Was this merely literary license? 


Jesus' hometown/birthplace ~ Luke describes Joseph and Mary as residents of Nazareth (Lk 1:26). He recounts the familiar story of their journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and their eventual return to Nazareth (Lk 2:1-39). 

Matthew, on the other hand, presents us with a hair-raising tale of danger and narrow escapes. He is silent about Joseph and Mary's hometown, saying only that Jesus was born in Bethelem of Judea (Mt. 2:1). But then he has Joseph fleeing with the Holy Family to Egypt, to escape from Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents (Mt. 2:13-18). After Herod dies, according to Matthew, Joseph "went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Mt. 2:19-23). Matthew thus implies that the Holy Family settled in Nazareth for the first time after the return from Egypt, directly contradicting the Lucan account.

Who is right here, Matthew or Luke?  There is yet another twist on this subject... the prophecy of the messiah being from Nazareth.  
 Matthew 2:23(KJV) -  And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

 A thorough search of the Old Testament for such a verse allegedly "spoken by the prophets" will turn up nothing.  There is/are no such verse(s) nor prophecy(ies) to be found among the writings of the prophets or, for that matter, anywhere else in the Old Testament.  The fact that the town of Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament – it didn't exist in Biblical (Old Testament) times - also implies that nowhere in the Old Testament is the Messiah called a Nazarene, i.e., one who comes from the town of Nazareth.  The various scenarios offered by Christian apologists suggesting some play on Hebrew words, fall by the wayside when one considers the original Greek text of this passage and notes that it really speaks of someone who is from Nazareth.  In Matt 2:23 we find that Jesus is being called a Nazarene  because he lived in the town of Nazareth.  Therefore, this verse claims the "fulfillment" of a non-existent prophecy – a prophecy that cannot be found anywhere within the Old Testament.


Judas' death ~ "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18) 

Does every man sin? ~KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.   


Good deeds ~Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV) 

I'm going to stop here, because there are so many more and really it isn't necessary to list them all.  The fact is that the bible is not infallible.  I have a very good reference page that discusses the variances between different manuscripts of the same gospels (which I will be happy to post if you'd like), and how certain words and/or phrases have been changed through the centuries.

Which brings me to my original point... God would not make our eternal life dependant upon the fallible man.  There are too many margins for error to make our eternity rely on a single belief.

That is, of course, my opinion  

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> Isn't that exactly what I said. Not sure by what I posted how you could have taken it any other way.



Hey Madsnooker!

Actually, your statement was:
"This does not mean if you do this "turn from Jesus" you can't ever be saved again. "

Paul's teaching implies differently... his teaching basically says that if you leave the faith and deny Jesus, there is no going back. That was what I was referring to 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

StriperAddict said:
			
		

> Thanks, DD,
> Note the rest of the Matt Ch 1 passage, until vs23:
> 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
> 
> ...



Hey Striper!
Not sure what you mean by agreeing with my historical reference... the Isaiah passage is not a reference to the birth of Jesus, it is a prophecy of the birth of a child named Immanuel who was born centuries before Jesus.  It was a prophecy to King Ahaz, who died long before Jesus. It was fulfilled centuries before Jesus.  If you start at the beginning of Isaiah 7 and read the entire chapter, you will see how the prophecy fits in context to the rest of the chapter.

Another interesting note... how can one prove the validity of a book by using that book as a reference?  What I mean is... if I were trying to convince you that the Book of Mormon was a valid biblical testament, and prove it were true, and used verses out of the Book of Mormon to prove that it was true, would you accept it?  Probably not... because you can't use the scripture to prove it's own validity.   If that were the case, I could write my own book of scriptures and say they are the word of God because I said so in the book....        So the argument that the New Testament is true because the book of ____ says ____, doesn't make it valid.  There is a control... the Old Testament.  It came first, and Jesus put his stamp of approval on it and said it was true, so any other scriptures would have to be compared with them to be valid.  There are so many discrepancies between the OT and the NT that it begged the question of it's validity (to me, anyway... which is how I started on the journey in the first place.)

If you think about it, it makes sense... why would Isaiah give King Ahaz a prophecy about something that would happen centuries after his death? What good would that prophecy do King Ahaz??

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

StriperAddict said:
			
		

> It's hard to concieve someone leaving Christ, His mercy, presence, peace ("Peace I leave with YOU..not as the world gives..." John's gospel) for... what?  Religion?  Jesus died not to give us "religion", but abundant LIFE.  His blood did the one thing we can never do for ourselves... wash our sins away.  When that truely happens, that "new creation" in Christ begins to live a life of GRATITUDE for God's love and forgiveness, and the peace that comes with His free gift is un-matched by anything or anyone in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> Dixie, you said that you don't believe in the NT because you feel some books were left out.


 
Hey Madsnooker!
Well no, not exactly... my point in mentioning the left-out books was to support my belief that the NT is not infallible.  My point was that man made the NT, by a vote of which books would be included and which would not (among other requirements).  There were things that were chosen to have left out because they weren't beneficial for the Church at that time.  Here is an article that gives more information about the Council and the manuscript discrepancies of the NT:

"Just as the works of the Old Testament would not have survived without being copied and recopied, so too did the survival of the New Testament depend on the work of generation after generation of scribal copyists. But its survival also depended on the practice of making and distributing duplicate manuscripts, because, despite the reverence of early Christians for the written Gospel, decay was not the only threat to its survival. War, accident, persecution, factionalism, and the suppression of heresies all played their role in obliterating the original texts (or autographs) as well as the early copies which were made from them. 
Consequently, virtually nothing remains from the early Christian period. The original texts of the New Testament simply no longer exist. The Gospels of Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John only exist as decaying copies of copies -- which themselves may have been heavily edited or marred with accidental errors. What's more, even these early copies are fragmented and few. It should be noted that only 35 of these copies date back to before 400 A.D., and amazingly only 80 manuscript copies date before 800 A.D. 

The two earliest fragments of John's gospel, for example, are copies transcribed in 200 A.D. -- at least 100 years after the death of the Apostle himself. Not surprisingly, this fact has caused many to speculate whether the manuscript really represents the words of John at all. Meanwhile, mainstream historians, linguists, and religious scholars agree that the Gospel of John, as we know it, differs markedly from the Gospel of John that was available to the early Christian Church.

Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that Christianity draws the oft-paraphrased advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 

Interestingly enough, this entire story (or periscope) is missing from the earliest version of John. It is also missing from early Latin translations of the text, missing from older versions used in the Holy Land and in fact, according to the 12th century Byzantine scholar Euthymius Zigabenus (the earliest church father to comment on the passage), accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not and should not contain it. Furthermore, if one blocks out the entire little story, John 7:52 flows just fine into John 8:12, lending further credence to the idea that the passage was simply inserted after the fact. Who inserted it, and why, remains a mystery. 

In yet another example, in all versions of John (9:35) transcribed after the 5th century one can read the following passage: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" [emphasis added]. But if one compares this version to papyri and codices transcribed before the 5th century, one finds this rendering: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?" [emphasis added]. 

Again, the point of these examples is to illustrate the fact that someone, at some point, made significant changes to the Gospel of John. Perhaps in some cases it was an unintended error (it was quite common for scribes to lose their place while copying manuscripts and "paste" a paragraph in where it didn’t belong), or perhaps it was someone's attempt to restore to the record a piece of wisdom that had been lost with the suppression of some other Gospel manuscript. We don't know. But that the phrase "Son of man" could have been replaced by "Son of God" by accident -- and would then be perpetuated unchallenged -- seems ludicrous, given the significance of the wording. 

What we do know is that this kind of discrepancy or tampering is not unique to the Gospel of John. As mentioned earlier, we cannot know what the original texts said with any certainty. The original manuscripts are apparently gone. But as we compare the early copies, and compare them also with later versions handed down through other branches of the Church (such as Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christian, etc.), we do notice all kinds of variations and discrepancies. 

In total there are 300,000 discrepancies in the New Testament amongst various early manuscript versions. Significantly, the greatest amount of variation (and revision) is found in the most significant portions of the New Testament manuscripts -- that is, within those parts that most determine official Church doctrine: the birth and death of Christ, the usage of the Eucharist, his time in the garden of Gethsemane, his utterings on the cross, his resurrection, and his ascension to heaven. 

The natural question is: how did these discrepancies occur? Naturally some of it must be, as mentioned earlier, scribal error, simple miscopying. But the fact that the bulk of it occurs where it matters most -- where it would have most impacted the politics and policies of the Church -- is terribly suspicious. Are we supposed to believe this is all mere coincidence? 

Considering that the Roman Catholic Church (under whose watch most of these discrepancies crept in) is secretive about many things, it may be some time before we get the straight scoop on how and why these alterations occurred and what in fact it means for the validity of Church dogma. In the meantime, it is commonly acknowledged fact that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (i.e. the four Gospels accepted as authentic by the Church) bear all the signs of secondary texts. That is, each one appears to have been pieced together from other, earlier, works, perhaps both written and oral. 

Finally, it is important to note that while the Church began its reign with Greek versions of the New Testament texts and Greek translations of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Septuagint), the growing domination of the Roman Church (vis-a-vis other branches of the early Church) meant that these works would inevitably be translated into Latin. Qualities of translation varied from version to version, culminating in the work of Saint Jerome (342-420) who produced the earliest definitive Latin translation, known as The Vulgate. 

Although Jerome allegedly sought to excise errors in the Old Testament translations by referring back to Hebrew texts, modern scholars point out that he could not have done this with much thoroughness (or was simply ignorant of Hebrew/Jewish idioms) for serious errors of translation (and therefore meaning) remained in the Vulgate."

Not only do I suggest, but I encourage you to investigate the validity of these statements for yourself!  It is history, and as such it is easily able to be looked up even on the internet as to how the NT came to be.


Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 9, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> Also, were are you getting you info or studies? I just don't believe you were a born again Christian just studying the word and stumbled upon some of your info (a child conceived from a "young woman" versus a virgin) in your last reply and that has led you to where you are today. I'm not trying to imply anything other than I think you are leaving some valuable info out of your reply's that would better help some of us understand how you got to your present idea's of the Bible. Is your family Jewish?



Hey Madsnooker!
I decided to reply to this portion of your post separately to make it easier to understand 

I don't blame you for wondering where this is all coming from, but I assure you I have absolutely no ulterior motives.  I had made a comment on a post on a different thread and was asked about my beliefs, so I replied... I don't expect or even want anyone to change their beliefs on account of anything I post... I am simply sharing information on my own spiritual journey... and it HAS been a journey! I did not wake up one day and decide I was done being a Christian... nor did I just open the bible one day and have these things pop out 

Here's my journey, in the Reader's Digest Condensed version:

My mother was raised RLDS and later moved through other denominations (which I would follow in her footsteps later in life) by becoming Catholic, then Baptist, then later Jehovah's Witness.  My earliest memory of church was going door-to-door with my mother at age 2 while she spread the word as a Jehovah's Witness.  She was excommunicated from the JW's in 1975 when I was 5 years old because my father had a serious life-threatening medical emergency and she signed permission for him to receive blood transfusions (without which, he would have died).  However I found later in my life that she had many questions about her religion all along, when I found letters she had written to her best friend about the JW's and them excommunicating her.

Anyway, after all of that, she pretty much threw out religion and told my sisters and I that she believed in God, and the bible, and that's it.  She didn't attend church after that, but didn't keep us from going if we wanted to.  I remember the first time I accepted Jesus as my savior, I was 9 years old in vacation bible school in Jonesboro, a friend had invited me and I went.  I went up, tears and all, at the altar call.

After that, I went to church with my friend regularly until we moved to Colorado, where I attended and volunteered at a Baptist church, until we moved to Arizona.  In Arizona, my best friend invited me to her church, again Baptist, where I became very involved in the youth group.  My mother made me attend the church for a full year before she allowed me to be baptised, she wanted me to be sure I knew what I was doing. I was 16 when I was first baptised.  I stopped going to the church when we were planning my best friend's wedding and I suggested getting a band for dancing, etc. and was told that 'Baptists don't believe in dancing'.  I felt that if I continued to go there, not believing the same thing that they did, then I was a hypocrite. So I stopped going and attended a non-denominational church instead.

When I was 18, I began dating (and eventually engaged to) a boy that was Mormon.  I went to church with him quite a few times and then the missionaries came out to do home studies and classes with me, and I decided to join the Mormon church.  I was baptised into their church (my mother refused to attend as she said it was a huge mistake) and began to get more involved in their teachings.  That's when I discovered they believed Jesus and Satan were brothers, that we would all rule our own planets and be gods of our own planets in the afterlife, and other umm... interesting doctrines      So, I left that church and broke off my engagement with my fiance, and didn't return to church for quite a while.

A few years later, I got married, had a baby and got divorced.  After my divorce, I wanted to start with a clean slate and started going to a new non-denominational church where I wanted to make a new start and decided to be baptised again (this would make baptism #3).  I attended this church for quite a while, until I decided to try a Pentacostal church for a change.  This blew me away, I never 'felt' a service the way I felt those... the music was incredibly lifting to me and I really FELT it.  The only problem was I didn't jive with the speaking in tongues or the falling out when hands were laid upon people.  So, of course, I couldn't continue to go there.

In 1998 my 2nd husband, my daughter and I moved to Indiana, where we began attending a non-denominational church and my daughter and husband were baptised on Easter 1999 (first baptism for both of them). I decided to be baptised with them (that makes #4 for me). In 2000 we moved back here to Georgia, and since being here I have attended Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist and non-denominational churches.  I might add here that the one I enjoyed the most was The Grove up in Commerce... very nice church and nice people!

I have always had problems with certain things in the bible... discrepancies (and yes, even in the OT, not just the NT), salvation, heaven, the after-life, etc. and have been tossed out of more than one pastor's office for asking too many of the 'wrong ' questions.  I began studying with a Messianic Jew (Jewish Christian) in 2000 and felt I was really learning things that made sense.  I felt I was being drawn to minister to the Jews and help bring them to Jesus.  So I asked myself, how would be the best way to do this? The answer came, go ask them why they don't believe.  Logical answer, in my opinion, so I did.  Well, when I found out why they didn't believe, it sounded alot like the questions I had myself.  So I asked them to teach me more.  For the next 3 years, I studied with both missionaries and with Jews together.  There used to be a very active community on Paltalk where both Jews and Christians would get together in voice chat online and discuss different theological problems and topics, and I would attend these every night.  I read both the books that the missionaries and the Jews recommended.  I studied Hebrew.  I studied Greek.  I studied church history and Catholicism and how the Christian religion came to be what it is today under the Roman Catholic church.  I saw my spiritual world crumbling and there was nothing that supported it anymore.  The day I finally realized that Christianity was not true was one of the worst days of my life. I literally sat on my bed and cried for hours... it was as if my whole life before had been a facade.  I felt more crushed than I ever had before, including my previous divorce and the loss of my mother. I remember I went to bed that night and prayed to God that I just could not believe in Jesus anymore, and if I was wrong to please forgive me and not to let me wake up the next morning.  Well, I woke up.  And here I am.

I don't have any alternate agenda.  In fact I usually don't share my thoughts and studies with other Christians because not all of them are strong enough in their faith to hear what I have found and not have doubts themselves.  On the other hand, MANY have told me that they have had the same doubts and questions that I did but were afraid to ask.

I have one major regret... that my mother passed away in 1994 and I was not able to discuss with her these findings that I have now.  I remember telling her before she died that I was worried about her because she had rejected Jesus... and she smiled and told me not to worry, that everything would be ok.  It was only after I had embarked on my own journey that I realized she was right.

I think about it often... there are hundreds of religions in the world, and almost everyone believes THEIRS is THE right one.  They can't all be right..... 
or can they?  

My opinion is yes... there are many roads that lead to God.  And we will all share in the eternal afterlife.  Our rewards may be different and we may have more or less sin to purge ourselves of before we get there, but we will all get there.  We have a fair and just God, Who knew from the beginning when He created us that we would fall and sin.  He knows that we are human, He created us that way.  The way to eternal life was never meant to be a riddle that you have to figure out in order to get there. Do not pass Go, do not collect salvation...  No loving parent does that to their children.  A loving parent offers guidance and advice and experience to their children... and even if the children don't follow it, or if they screw up, the parent still loves them and forgives them for their wrongdoings.  If God didn't do that, then that would mean that humans were better than God.  And that is just not possible!

By the way, I don't feel the desire to convert to Judaism even though I do accept the OT as valid.  I believe Judaism is more than just a religion, it is an entire history of culture as well.  Now, I do alot of research on my genealogy, and if I ever come across a part of my family tree that was Jewish, I will probably reconsider conversion. But as of now, I'm content and happy to have a relationship with God and no religion whatsoever.

Anyway, there you have it... I hope this helps clear up where I'm coming from and how I got here   Bet you're sorry now that you asked!!   

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 10, 2005)

Dixie D,

Personally, I have always believed that there were 'discrepancies' in the bible.    I consider most all of the discrepancies minor in relation to the main points of the gospels.    There are several that I can think of....Jesus riding on an big toebig toebig toe/two animals.....Mary alone at the tomb/several women at the tomb....etc.    I will say that the Nazareth one is new to me.  

Also, I would think that if you are going to cut and paste from web pages that you should identify the sources, not come across as if this is your own knowledge you are giving us.   Here is where I found one of your 'cut and paste' sources...    They can make one sound very knowledgable...

http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/10/troubling_incon.html



Bandy


----------



## blindhog (Dec 10, 2005)

Vernon Holt said:
			
		

> I believe that Ephesians 4:14 speaks clearly to this subject:
> 
> That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  (KJV)



Amen

One thing to remember is the one major significant TRUTH about the Gospel of Jesus is salvation is a FREE GIFT.
You can do NOTHING of yourself to gain salvation.
God has done it all for you.
God gives you the faith necessary for this belief.
No other form of religious teaching has this as the core .

So....quit having faith in the teachings and scholarship of men (yourself too), and have childlike faith in the Saviour Jesus.

So called "discrepancies" in the scriptures are rooted in misunderstanding or misinterpretations.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 10, 2005)

blindhog said:
			
		

> So....quit having faith in the teachings and scholarship of men (yourself too), and have childlike faith in the Saviour Jesus.
> 
> So called "discrepancies" in the scriptures are rooted in misunderstanding or misinterpretations.




Amen.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 10, 2005)

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> Dixie D,
> 
> Personally, I have always believed that there were 'discrepancies' in the bible.    I consider most all of the discrepancies minor in relation to the main points of the gospels.    There are several that I can think of....Jesus riding on an big toebig toebig toe/two animals.....Mary alone at the tomb/several women at the tomb....etc.    I will say that the Nazareth one is new to me.
> 
> ...



Hey Bandy!
I never said these were my own ideas, in fact I posted at the bottom of one of my posts that I don't have all of these at my memory's disposal... and they came from notes and studies I had done.  I actually did not get any information from the site you posted above, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't on there too... alot of this information is all over the internet and in books as well.  I would have posted the exact source of where I got the information from, if I still had it... my studies went on 3 years ago and I printed out alot of pages (notebooks full) of information from many different sources and don't know for sure where all of it came from.  But I will be (and have been) the first one to admit that those weren't my own words... I'm sorry if you misunderstood or had the wrong idea! 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 10, 2005)

blindhog said:
			
		

> So....quit having faith in the teachings and scholarship of men (yourself too), and have childlike faith in the Saviour Jesus.
> 
> So called "discrepancies" in the scriptures are rooted in misunderstanding or misinterpretations.




Hi Blindhog!
It takes childlike faith to believe in Santa Claus... but he isn't real, either.

Thank you for saying though that the 'discrepancies' are rooted in misunderstanding and/or misinterpretations. That is exactly why it is my opinion and belief that there is not only one way to heaven... God would not rest our eternal 'salvation' upon something that could be misinterpreted or misunderstood, or mistranslated.

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## roadkill (Dec 10, 2005)

We resided in Clarksville, TN when my son Wesley was born.  The hospital he was born in was in Nashville, TN.  His and our official residence was Clarksville, TN.  Since he was born in Nashville, does this make him Wesley of Nashville...NO.  I'm still not seeing a discrepancy in where Jesus was from.  Where he was from and where he was born are two different things.


----------



## Vernon Holt (Dec 10, 2005)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> "It takes childlike faith to believe in Santa Claus... but he isn't real, either". Kerri


 
One can only presume that the above Quotation is intended to say to all that in the same manner that Santa Clause in not real, it follows that Jesus Christ, the only begotten son is God likewise is not real and is a deceiver of men. I am compelled to say that these words appear to be pure blasphemy.

Anyone is free to pursue and believe whatever their heart desires. If it is ungodly, there is always hope that one would one day repent of wicked and evil ways. On the other hand when one openly and aggressively commits blasphemy against God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, he, or she is in danger of the condemnation.

You state, in effect, that the New Testament is of man and without merit. This indeed is a dangerous position for one to assume. The New Testament is the fruition of God's plan for restoring wayward man. God's Plan of Salvation was first pronounced in Genesis 3:15 when God said to satan: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel".

The Prophets spake of his coming. Being an Old Testament person, you surely have read the whole chapters of Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22. They speak clearly of things to come, and which clearly came to pass at the birth of the only begotten son on that first Christmas Day.

The Apostle John wrote these words: "*And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. **He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life". 1 John 5:11-12*


----------



## LadyRoadkill (Dec 10, 2005)

Mr. Vernon,
As usual, you have put words to my exact thoughts.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 10, 2005)

roadkill said:
			
		

> We resided in Clarksville, TN when my son Wesley was born.  The hospital he was born in was in Nashville, TN.  His and our official residence was Clarksville, TN.  Since he was born in Nashville, does this make him Wesley of Nashville...NO.  I'm still not seeing a discrepancy in where Jesus was from.  Where he was from and where he was born are two different things.



Hey Roadkill!
The point was not where Jesus was from or where he was born... the point was that there are 2 completely different accounts of where Jesus was from in the NT, therefore the NT has discrepancies.

The only other comment about where Jesus was from was that there is a verse in the NT that says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah would be a Nazarene.  There is no such prophecy anywhere in the OT.

Hope this clears that up! 

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 10, 2005)

Vernon Holt said:
			
		

> You state, in effect, that the New Testament is of man and without merit. This indeed is a dangerous position for one to assume. The New Testament is the fruition of God's plan for restoring wayward man. God's Plan of Salvation was first pronounced in Genesis 3:15 when God said to satan: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel".
> 
> The Prophets spake of his coming. Being an Old Testament person, you surely have read the whole chapters of Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22. They speak clearly of things to come, and which clearly came to pass at the birth of the only begotten son on that first Christmas Day.



Hi Mr. Vernon! Thank you for your reply!

I have certainly read Isaiah 53, (as well as all of Isaiah) and the rest of the Servant Songs.  Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus, it is about Israel (the nation).  Israel is identified specifically in the Servant Songs as "my Servant, Israel" numerous times.  Again, if the chapter is read in context, this is clearly seen.

Psalms 22 again, is a prayer of David to end Israel's exile from it's land and it's temple.  There is also a mistranslation in this Psalm... where the Christian scriptures have translated 'they have pierced my hands and feet", the actual Hebrew says "like {the prey of} a lion are my hands and feet".  This psalm is not a prophecy, it is a prayer of David to God.

It is clear that you are a strong believer in your faith, and that is great.  I have certainly meant no disrespect to anyone on here, and I think that probably my post was taken in the wrong way... it is hard to precisely express yourself in written words alone where no voice fluxuation or emphasis can be heard.  If you had actually heard me speak the quote above, you probably would have taken it differently.

My point in mentioning Santa Claus is this... it does take a childlike faith to believe in Santa Claus.  As children grow older and mature, they realize that even though their parents taught them Santa Claus was real, he in fact does not exist.  This usually does not cause a huge catastrophy because the children also realize that even though Santa Claus is not real, they will still get presents (reward).  This happens to people who embrace religion as well... in the beginning, when the person is as a baby in the religion, they accept everything that is told to them with a childlike faith.  However, as they mature and grow in the religion, they need more than childlike faith, or milk, they need meat. ( I think even the NT talks about this in Hebrews chapter 5.)  It is when one is ready for the meat that it seems questions and problems develop.  However, unlike with Santa Claus, they are afraid to say anything for fear that the reward will end if they question the belief.

I hold no ill will toward you or anyone else on the board.  I am not here to challenge you on your faith either.  This thread started because someone asked me about my belief, I didn't come on here to convert anyone away from Jesus.  You believe in what you believe in, and it works for you and makes your life happier and with purpose.  And the same goes for me.  From what I have read posted by you and a few others, it seems that I have already committed the unpardonable sin and am already condemned to big toebig toebig toebig toe.  So even if you were to all show me the errors of my ways, and even if I were to admit I had made a mistake by leaving Jesus, it is too late for me to be saved.  

As far as Jesus himself, I believe Jesus existed.  I don't believe he was God in the flesh, I believe he was a man just like everyone else.  I also want to make this comment before I close, I always wondered as a Christian, when we are told to live like Jesus,  be like Jesus or as the phrase goes 'What would Jesus do", why doesn't anyone remember that Jesus was Jewish?  Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew.  The NT says he kept every letter of the Law, which  would have meant that he observed all of the commandments and the Law, as well as all of the Jewish holidays and observances. So why don't Christians?

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 10, 2005)

*Messianic prophecies*

Just for clarification, here are a few of the Jewish prophecies about the messiah:

The messiah will, in his lifetime, 
1. Build the third temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
2. There will be universal knowledge of God (Zecharian 14:9)
3.  Bring all of the Jewish tribes back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6)
4.  Bring world peace  (Isaiah 2:4)

It is quite clear just from watching the evening news that these prophecies have not been fulfilled.

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 10, 2005)

More on the compilation of the New Testament... I came across this in my notes.  For clarification, I did NOT write this, I'm only sharing some of my notes with y'all, and encourage anyone who is interested to research this more on their own.


The Source of the Original Gospels
Theologians have also observed for many decades that two of the synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) have many points of similarity. In fact, the writings have many dozens of phrases and sentences that are identical. This observation led to the theory that both gospels were based largely on an earlier document called "Q" meaning "Quelle," which is German for "source," and is comprised of three distinct documents: 
Q1 described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher, written circa 50 CE. 

Q2 viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, written circa 60 CE. 

Q3 described Jesus as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan, written circa 70 CE during a time of great turmoil in Palestine. 
The authors of the Gospels of Matthew (circa 80 CE) and Luke (circa 90 CE) wrote their books using text from Q, Mark and their own unique traditions. The author of the Gospel of Thomas also used portions of Q1 and Q2 in his writing, but seems to have been unaware of Q3. This gospel was widely circulated within the early Christian movement but did not make it into the Christian Scriptures. 
What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the factors that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order): 

adultery 
angels 
apostles 
baptism 
church 
clergy 
confirmation 
crucifixion 
demons 
disciples 
divorce 
Eucharist 
healing 
great commission to convert the world 
heaven 
 big toebig toebig toebig toe 
incarnation 
infancy stories 
John the Baptist 
Last Supper 
life after death 
Mary and Joseph and the rest of Jesus' family 
magi 
miracles 
Jewish laws concerning behavior 
marriage 
Messiah 
restrictions on sexual behavior 
resurrection 
 roles of men and women 
Sabbath 
salvation 
Satan 
second coming 
signs of the end of the age 
sin 
speaking in tongues 
temple 
tomb 
transfiguration 
trial of Jesus 
trinity 
virgin birth 

There is no reference to Jesus' death having any redeeming function; in fact, there is no mention of the crucifixion at all. John E. Remsburg's The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

Josephus 
Philo-Judææus 
Seneca 
Pliny Elder 
Arrian 
Petronius 
Dion Pruseus 
Paterculus 
Suetonius 
Juvenal 
Martial 
Persius 
Plutarch 
Pliny Younger 
 Tacitus 
Justus of Tiberius 
Apollonius 
Quintilian 
Lucanus 
Epictetus 
Hermogones Silius Italicus 
Statius 
Ptolemy 
Appian 
Phlegon 
Phæædrus 
Valerius Maximus 
Lucian 
 Pausanias 
Florus Lucius 
Quintius Curtius 
Aulus Gellius 
Dio Chrysostom 
Columella 
Valerius Flaccus 
Damis 
Favorinus 
Lysias 
Pomponius Mela 
Appion of Alexandria 
Theon of Smyrna 

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, according to Remsburg, "aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles -- increasing the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

Love, light & blessings,
Kerri


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 11, 2005)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Q1 described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher, written circa 50 CE.
> 
> Q2 viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, written circa 60 CE.
> 
> ...



Hello Dixie,

Can you give me the reference for these laters dates for Matthew and Luke?    My understanding is that only the most critical New Testament scholars date any of the New Testament books after 80CE.   

As to the list of contemporary authors,  and this is from memory,  all the existing copies of Josephus' "Antiquities" references Jesus.  Each of them may not have the phrase "he was the Messiah" (as this may be what you are referring to when you mention "editted" versions) but no one doubts that he wrote about Jesus.    As Josephus states...   (in what is commonly referred to as the Flavius Testimonium)

_ About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

                                        - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
        (Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.) _

I like the "if indeed one ought to call him a man"!!!!  

Pliny the Younger, in writing about the christians that he is punishing, shows very early (112CE)how christianity has taken hold, says that these christians are held only because they are christians, without any investigation into their lives.   Of course in 112 Pliny would not have known Jesus personally.  He states that, from what he can tell,  _"That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises....."_

Bandy


----------



## blindhog (Dec 11, 2005)

Kerri it is obvious to me you have looked for a spiritual answer by asking for this answer from fleshly sources.
Not the way.

So, Kerri, how does one get to heaven in your view?

Do all go?  Or, just the ones whose good on the balancing scale out weighs the bad side?


----------



## redwards (Dec 11, 2005)

*Dixie Dawg...Please clarify Isaiah 9:1-7 for me*



			
				Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> ....The only other comment about where Jesus was from was that there is a verse in the NT that says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah would be a Nazarene. There is no such prophecy anywhere in the OT.





> 1 But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
> 2 The people who walk in darkness
> Will see a great light;
> Those who live in a dark land,
> ...


I think one will find from a study of early maps that Nazareth was in Galilee, which was in Naphtali.
While maybe not a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene, Isaiah 9:1-7 is clearly a prophecy that was fullfilled in Matthew 4:12-16.


> 12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee;
> 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.
> 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
> 15 "THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI,
> ...


And Matthew 2:23 is clearly referenced to Mark 1:24 where the man with the unclean spirit makes the statement:


> 23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
> 24 saying, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God!"


To me, God's Scarlet Thread of Redemption runs continuously from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 without error.
We (mankind) err when we take one part and discount the whole. Just my humble unlearned opinion.
Ralph


----------

